Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5954-S5994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--Continued

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or
in relation to the Dodd amendment not take place at the conclusion of
argument; that it be stacked later this afternoon at a time to be
mutually agreed upon after consulting with the leaders on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is not too much need for me to
respond to the Senator from Connecticut. I think he has already stated
my position in toto. I do think this afterschool program, which he has
proposed to add to, is a worthwhile program. But it is beyond the
limits with which our subcommittee has to work. He is correct that I
will make a motion that it exceeds the allocation to our committee at
the appropriate time.
Afterschool is very important. It is sort of a twin brother to day
care. Last year, I agreed with the Senator from Connecticut to scrimp
and save and use a sharp pencil to find $817 million more to bring day
care up to $2 billion, which we did. I thought that kind of an
allocation might have satisfied the Senator from Connecticut for a
year. But it has not. So we will have to face this when it comes along.
He said to me: That is day care.
I said: Day care is very important. Bringing it up by more than $800
million to $2 billion was a tough job, Senator Dodd.
I called him Chris at the time.
We thought that being a twin brother to afterschool, we might have
avoided an amendment.
Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.
Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. DODD. I was as complimentary as I could be. But I will be even
more complimentary. I am deeply grateful to the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. It is very tough being the manager of a bill that funds
the Department of Education because there is no priority higher than
education. The only one on a level with it is health care. And we have
the funding coming out of the same pool of money.
We made the allocations as best we could. I know of the devotion of
the Senator from Connecticut to this cause. He and I were elected at
the same time. He withstood the Reagan landslide in 1980 to be one of
two Democrats elected to open seats, when 16 Republicans came in. And
he and I cochaired the Children's Caucus at that time.
In 1987, when he proposed family leave, I was his cosponsor, with a
lot of turmoil just on this side of the aisle. We have worked together
over the years for education and for children. I commend him for all
that he has done.
We have added to education some $4.6 billion. We are $100 million
more than the President in education this year.
We have increased funding tremendously for children and young people
in America. The Head Start Program comes, curiously enough, under the
Department of Health and Human Services. There is an increase this year
of $1 billion to Head Start, coming up to $6.2 billion. We have
increased special education by $1.3 billion, bringing it up to $7.3
billion. We have increased innovative State grants by $2.7 billion for
more teachers, class size, and for school construction, with the
proviso that it is limited. It is up to the local school district if
they decide to do something else with it.
When it comes to the program the Senator from Connecticut is talking
about, the 21st Century Learning Centers, we have added $146.6 million
to bring the figure up to $600 million. In fiscal year 1999, it was
$200 million. So we are moving right along on it to provide the maximum
amount of money we can.
It is not an easy matter to allocate $104.5 billion--as much money as
that is--for the National Institutes of Health and for drug programs
and for school violence programs. We have done the best job we could.
It is with reluctance that I raise a point of order.
How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. I have made the essential arguments which are relevant.
In the interest of moving the bill along and saving time, I make a
point of order under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, as amended, that
the effect of adopting the Dodd amendment provides budget authority in
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year
2001 concurrent resolution on the budget and is not in order.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act
for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as previously agreed to by unanimous
consent, the vote will be delayed to a time agreed upon by the leaders
later today. I yield back the remainder of my time so we may proceed
with the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
is recognized.

[[Page S5955]]

Amendment No. 3659

(Purpose: To increase funding for the technology literacy challenge
fund)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3659 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], proposes an
amendment numbered 3659.

The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title III, insert the following:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the total amount made available under this title to carry out
the technology literacy challenge fund under section 3132 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be
$517,000,000.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the
Kerry amendment be 1 hour equally divided. We have already talked about
this. I understand there is agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Bingaman and Mikulski be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me pick up, if I may, on the comments
made by the Senator from Connecticut. There is a relationship between
these amendments that are proposed by Senator Kennedy, Senator
Bingaman, Senator Dodd, and myself. They are made with great respect
for the leadership of the appropriations subcommittee. I share the
feelings expressed by Senator Dodd that they are working within the
constraints that have been imposed on them by the Congress in a sense
through the budgeting process.
What we are asking of our colleagues is to begin a process by which
we more accurately reflect the truth of the budgeting process and the
choices we as Senators face. The fact is, we have the ability to
provide 60 votes to waive and to proceed to make a statement as the
Senate that we believe a specific priority is significant enough that
we ought to depart from the constraints. The constraints under which we
are operating, that were very properly and articulately listed by the
Senator from Pennsylvania, are restraints imposed by a Budget Act and
by allocations that do not reflect the reality of the budget choice we
face as a country because of the level of surplus. Since those
allocations were made, we have in fact learned that we have a
significant amount of additional funds available to us to begin to
choose how we will reflect the priorities of our Nation.
I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a lot of us on
this side of the aisle joined with them to put in place the fiscal
discipline we all laud and believe is appropriate. It was a 1993 vote,
in fact, that put in place the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of us are
pleased that we finally were able to set this country on a course where
we now have the current surpluses. We have to start to be smart about
what kind of choices we are going to make.

I keep hearing colleagues on both sides of the aisle come to the
floor. They lament what is happening to children in America. They
lament what is happening with respect to young people who are
increasingly feeding into the juvenile justice system of the Nation. We
hear the cries of anguish about children having children out of
wedlock, about the failure of marriage in this country. But we don't
seem to connect our legislative actions to things that really might
make a difference in the lives of young people so they will choose a
more moral, traditional, affirmative course for their own life.
How do kids make those kinds of choices? Traditionally, in the
America we always hear Members talking about, we have family, which is
the best teacher of all, the most important connection of a child to
their future. We have schools and teachers. History in America is
replete with great personalities who harken back to a particular
teacher who affected their life. We hear less and less of those stories
in modern America. Finally, there is organized religion. Organized
religion is the other great teaching entity. Not one that we are
supposed to, in this body, specifically legislate about, but it is
proper to acknowledge the role that religion plays as one of those
three great teachers in the lives of children.
The truth is, in America today we have an awful lot of young children
who don't have contact with any one of those three teachers, not one.
Their teachers are the streets. Colin Powell talks about it in his
America's Promise, which appeals to people to make a voluntary
commitment to try to intervene in the lives of some of those children
and replace the absence of those three great teachers.
What kids learn in the streets is not the real values of America; it
is what I call ``coping skills.'' They learn how to get by. They learn
how to survive. They learn the sort of ``law of the jungle,'' as some
used to call it. The fact is, we are not doing enough, we Senators are
not doing enough, to leverage those things that make a difference in
the absence of the three great teachers.
I ask any one of my colleagues: How do we break the cycle of a kid
having a kid out of wedlock? How do we break the cycle of a child
raised in an abusive household, whose role models in life are people
who beat up on each other, shoot drugs, get into trouble, such as the
role models for that 6-year-old kid who shot a 6-year-old classmate
living in a crack house with an uncle, a parent in jail, no one
responsible?
What is that child's future, unless adults make the decision to
somehow provide those positive forces that make a difference? What are
the positive forces? Well, the positive forces are often some of the
faith-based interventions, whether it is the Jewish Community Center or
a Baptist organization or the Catholic Charities; but there are those
entities out there that have a wonderful, extraordinary capacity to
bring kids back from the brink. And then there are those organized
entities that also do it, such as the Boys and Girls Club; Big Brother/
Big Sister; YMCA and YWCA; or a program in Boston called Youth Build,
or City Year. All of these provide young people with alternatives and
the ability to have surrogate parenting, fundamentally. That is what is
really taking place. What is really taking place is those entities is
providing an alternative.
Now, we will debate in the Senate whether or not we are going to
provide 200,000 H-1B visas. I am for it. I think we ought to provide
that, or more, because we have an immediate need in this country to
provide skilled people in order to keep the economic boom going and
provide for critical technologies, to have good working people. But has
it not occurred to my colleagues what an insult it is to our own system
that we have to go abroad and import skilled labor to the United
States, even as we are putting thousands of young kids into prison,
into the juvenile justice system, and out into the streets, as the
Senator from Connecticut just said, because we don't have afterschool
programs? What are we going to do? We are going to import 200,000
skilled people to make up for the unskilled people whom we leave
unskilled because we are unwilling to make the adult choices in the
Senate that would make a difference in their lives.
How can we boast about the extraordinary surplus we have in this
country, with the stock market climbing to record levels, the most
extraordinary amounts of wealth ever created in the history of any
nation on the planet right here in the United States, but poverty among
children has increased by 50 percent and the number of kids who are at
risk has increased.
I don't believe in the Federal Government taking over these programs.
I don't believe in Washington dictating the solutions. But I do believe
in Washington leveraging the capacity of people at the local level to
be able to do what they know they need to do. So we are reduced to a
debate where the Senator from Pennsylvania has to say, well, oh, my
gosh, under our 201(b) allocation--or whatever the appropriate section
is--we don't have enough money to be able to allocate because we have a
total cap that has no relationship to the reality of what we must do.
We keep saying, isn't it terrific that we have raised the amount of
money--and it is terrific--when the real question is, are we doing what
we need to do to get the job done? That is the question we ought to be
asking.
What is it going to take to guarantee that children in the United
States of

[[Page S5956]]

America are safe? What does it take to guarantee that we don't dump 5
million kids out into the streets in the afternoons, unsafe, and
exposed to drug dealers and to all of the vagaries of the teenage years
and all of the pressures that come with it in a modern society that
doesn't have parents around to be able to help those kids make a better
choice? We don't have to do that. We ought to make it the goal of the
Senate to guarantee that every child in America is going to be safe and
secure between the hours when teachers stop teaching and when those
parents are coming home. And we can ask 100,000 questions about why it
is we are not providing arts and music and sports and libraries that
are open full-time, and Internet access.

That is where my amendment comes in, Mr. President. Senator Kennedy
has an amendment on teacher quality, which is linked to the capacity of
kids to fill those high tech jobs that we talk about. Senator Dodd has
an amendment talking about making those kids safe after school. My
amendment seeks to increase the funding for the technology literacy
challenge fund, which is a critically important education program that
helps provide technology access, education, professional development,
and instruction in elementary and secondary schools.
All we say is that to qualify for the money, States have to submit a
statewide technology plan that includes a strategy on how the States
will include private, State, local, and other entities in the continued
financing and support of technology in schools.
There are two points that I can't stress enough. One is the
importance of providing young people with the opportunity to learn how
to use technology. I am not one of those people. I don't want to
celebrate technology to the point of it being put up on a pedestal and
it becomes an entity unto itself. Technology is not a god; it is not a
philosophy; it is not a way of life. Technology is a tool, a useful
tool. It is a critical tool for the modern marketplace and the modern
world. But we are preordaining that we are going to have to have next
year's H-1B plan, and the next year's H-1B plan, and another prison,
and another program to deal with a whole lot of young kids for whom the
digital divide becomes more and more real, who don't have accessability
or the capacity to be able to gain the skills necessary to share in
this new world. The fact is that there are too many teachers who don't
have the ability to even teach; we have the schools wired; we have the
e-rate.
We are beginning to get increased access to the Internet. But what do
you do with it? How many teachers know how to use the technology to
really be able to educate kids? How many kids are, in fact, having the
benefit of the opportunity of having teachers who have those skills so
that they can ultimately maximize their opportunities?
All we are suggesting is that we ought to be doing more to empower--
not to mandate, not to dictate, but to empower--those local communities
that desperately want to do this but don't have the tax base to be able
to do it. Let's give them that ability. That is the best role the
Federal Government can play--to leverage things that represent national
priorities, leverage the things that represent the best goals and
aspirations of ourselves as a Nation. It is not micromanagement; it is,
rather, putting in place a mechanism by which we have national
priorities--to have good, strong families, to have kids who are
computer literate, and to have more skilled workers. Those are national
priorities. But if we turn our heads away and say the only priority in
this country is to sort of sequester this money for the senior
generation in one form or another, without any regard to the generation
that is coming along that needs to fund Social Security, that needs to
have a high value-added job so they can pay into it and adequately
protect it, that is not Social Security protection.
We have gone from 13 workers paying in for every 1 that is taking
out--13 workers paying into the system for every 1 worker taking out--
to three paying in and one taking out. Now there are two paying in and
one taking out.
We have a vested interest as a nation in making sure those two paying
in are capable of paying in; that they have a high value-added job that
empowers them to pay in; when they pay in, it doesn't take so much of
their income that they feel so oppressed by the system that they are
not able to invest in their own children and in their own future.
That is in our interest. That is a national priority.
If we don't begin in the Senate tomorrow to adequately reflect the
needs of our children in the money that we allocate, we will be
seriously missing one of the greatest priorities the country faces.
All of us understand the degree to which there is an increase in the
digital divide of the country. The technology literacy challenge fund
is a critical effort to try to provide those kids with an opportunity
to close that gap.
Last year, my home State of Massachusetts received $8.1 million. Some
of the programs it put in place are quite extraordinary. Let me share
with my colleagues one of the examples of this program that works so
effectively. It is called the Lighthouse Technology Grant.
The Lighthouse Technology Grant incorporates new technologies into
the State curriculum framework so that it better motivates children to
be able to learn.
One of the schools in my State--the Lynn Woods Elementary School in
Lynn--is integrating technology into the classroom by virtue of this
grant. Fifth grade students at the Lynn Woods school are studying
Australia. They have been able to videoconference directly with
Australian students who are studying the Boston area.
You have students engaging in a very personal and direct way, all of
which encourages their learning and enhances their interest in the
topic. They have also developed writing skills through special e-mail
pen pal programs with Australian students.
In addition, they have been able to connect more directly with the
experience of life, thereby asking very direct questions and engaging
in a personal exchange that they never could have experienced before
because of telephone rates and because of the difficulties of
communication under any kind of telephone circumstance.
The Lighthouse Technology Grant is only one of eight programs funded
by this challenge grant in Massachusetts. It also provides grants to a
virtual high school program which enables school districts to offer
students Internet courses ranging from advanced academic courses to
technical and specialized courses. Let me emphasize the importance of
that to my colleagues.
A few weeks ago, I visited a high school in Boston, an inner-city
high school, Dorchester High. I found that in this high school of
almost 1,000 students in the inner city they are not able to provide
advanced placement courses. I ask everybody here to imagine a high
school that is supposed to be state of the art that doesn't have
advanced placement courses.
Yet, because of the virtual high school and because of the access to
the Internet, if we close the digital divide, we can in fact make it
affordable and accessible for schools that today have difficulty
finding the teachers, affording the teachers, and providing the
curriculum--and be able to do so immediately.

That is the difference between somebody being able to go to college
or being college ready or being able to go to college and advance
rapidly in the kinds of curriculum and courses that will make even a
greater difference in their earning capacity and in their citizen-
contributing capacity at a later time. We need to recognize that unless
we encourage this to happen, the transformation could take a lot longer
than we want it to take.
For example, it has taken only 7 years for the Internet to be adopted
by 30 percent of Americans. That is compared to 17 years for television
to be adopted by 38 percent, and for the telephone, 38 percent during
the same amount of time.
The world of work is obviously so much different and at a faster
rate. But if we leave kids behind for a longer period of time, we will
greatly restrain their learning capacity as well as our growth capacity
as a country.
The technology literacy challenge fund has been funded under the
committee's mark at about $425 million. The administration actually
asked for $450 million. The House has set a figure

[[Page S5957]]

of $517 million. I think that is more reflective of the level of
funding that is necessary in order to achieve the kind of transition
that we wish for in this country. Some might argue we could even do
more. But it is clear to me that by measuring the priorities as
expressed by other colleagues we can, in fact, do more if we will
challenge the system a little bit, if we will push the limits a little
bit, and if we will look at the reality of the budget choices that the
Congress faces.
I think nothing could be more important for all of us as Senators and
as Congress this year. I hope my colleagues will embrace the notion
that we can in fact do an appropriate waiver of the budget and set this
as a priority of the Senate.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, here again, there is little doubt that
technology literacy is a very important matter for America. There is no
doubt about that at all. Here again, it is a matter of how our
allocations are going to run.
We debated the Dodd amendment earlier today about afterschool
programs--again, a good program. There is a question about the amount
of money and where the priorities are.
We debated the Kennedy amendment about teacher recruitment--another
good program.
We had to turn down amendments yesterday by Senator Wellstone who
wanted more money for title I; Senator Bingaman, also more money for
title I; Senator Murray asked for an additional $325 million on top of
$1.4 billion which was supplied for class size. There is no doubt that
so many of these programs are excellent programs.
The Senator from Massachusetts in offering this amendment noted the
constraints we are operating under with respect to how much money we
have in our allocation. We have established priorities. We have greatly
increased the education account by some $4.6 billion. That is a
tremendous increase, coming to a total of $40.2 billion. In our
education account, we have $100 million more than the President asked
for.
I have already today gone over a long list of items where we have
increased funding on education on very important items. It is a matter
of making the appropriate allocation and the setting of priorities.
I say to my colleague from Massachusetts that the House of
Representatives has established a mark of $517 million in this account.
It is entirely plausible that the figure that is in the Senate bill
will be substantially increased.
We will certainly keep in mind the eloquence of Senator Kerry's
arguments. There is no doubt about technology and about the need for
more funding in technology.
I believe that a country with an $8 trillion gross national product
can do better on education. I said earlier today and have said many
times on this floor that I am committed to education, coming from a
family which emphasizes education so heavily, my parents having very
little education and my siblings and I being able to succeed--I guess
you would call it success to come to the Senate--because of our
educational opportunities.
That is the essence of our position. We have substantially more time.
I inquire of the Chair: How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 26 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the
remainder of my time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the manager
of the bill, it is my understanding Senator Wellstone will offer one of
his amendments next.
Mr. SPECTER. That is fine.
Mr. REID. I will also have Senator Wellstone agree to a time limit.
Mr. SPECTER. Speaking of the time limit with Senator Wellstone on the
floor, may we agree to 30 minutes equally divided, 20 minutes equally
divided, 15 minutes equally divided? How much time does Senator
Wellstone desire?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I did not hear the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggested a time agreement of 30
minutes equally divided, perhaps 20 minutes equally divided.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, my guess is
it will take me about 40 minutes on my side. I prefer not to agree to a
time limit. I don't think I will go more than that.
Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from Minnesota be willing to enter a
time agreement of an hour, 40 minutes for the Senator from Minnesota,
and 20 minutes for our side?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to do so.
Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the time be set on the Wellstone
amendment at 1 hour, with the Senator from Minnesota having 40 minutes
and our side having 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that no
second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. If the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to yield back time,
I am prepared to do the same. I want to reserve one comment.
I appreciate everything the Senator has said. I appreciate his
comments. I know he wants to do more. Unless we in the Senate tackle
this beast called the allocation process, and unless we begin to
challenge the constraints within which we are now dealing, we are not
doing our job.
These votes are an opportunity to try to do that. My plea is to the
Senator, the Appropriations Committee, and others, that we begin to try
to change these shackles that are keeping us from responding to the
real needs of the country. The measurement should not be what we are
doing against a baseline set by us. The measurement should be, what
will it take to guarantee we can turn to Americans and say we are
addressing the problem, we are getting the job done.
We need to close that gap.
I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote on the
Kerry amendment be deferred, to be stacked later today at a time to be
mutually agreed upon by our respective leaders.
I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as
amended, that the effect of adopting the Kerry amendment provides
budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocations
under the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget, and is
not in order.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of
that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3644

(Purpose: To provide funds for the loan forgiveness for child care
providers program, with an offset)

Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment 3644.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 3644.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 71, after line 25, add the following:
Sec. ____. (a) In addition to any amounts appropriated
under this title for the loan forgiveness for child care
providers program under section 428K of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-11), an additional $10,000,000 is
appropriated to carry out such program.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
amounts made available under titles I and II, and this title,
for salaries and expenses at the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, respectively, shall be
reduced on a pro rata basis by $10,000,000.

[[Page S5958]]

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer a very
simple amendment. This amendment asks only that we appropriate an
additional $10 million to fund the loan forgiveness program which was
authorized under the Higher Education Act. This is a loan forgiveness
program for women and men who go into child care work. This would be
taken from administrative expenses in the overall budget.
Despite the fact that we know that child care workers struggle to pay
back their student loans, and that all too many of them earn poverty-
level wages without benefits, which means in turn that many of them are
forced to leave their work for higher paid work, we have yet to
appropriate one penny for this forgiveness program.
I originally offered this amendment calling for loan forgiveness for
those men and women who go into the child care field with Senator
DeWine. My thought was this is sacred work. This is important work.
This is work with small children. If people are going to be paid
miserably low wages--many having no health care benefits at all, and we
understand the importance of early childhood development--then let's at
least have a loan forgiveness that will encourage men and women to go
into this area.
Right now the child care situation in the United States is critical.
We have a system in place where child care is prohibitively high for
working families. It is not uncommon for a family to be paying $6,000
per child, $12,000 per year, $10,000 per year. Maybe the family's
overall income is $35,000 or $40,000.
At the same time, we have child care workers who are taking care of
children during the most critical years of development and they don't
even make poverty wages.
It seems counterintuitive. How can it be that on the one hand child
care is so expensive, but on the other hand those men and women who
work in this field are so underpaid?
The problems of the high costs and the low wages are inevitable under
the current system of child care delivery in the United States.
Colleagues, this amendment is just one vote, but this is a central
issue of American politics. Talk to working families in this country
and they will list child care as one of their top concerns. They are
not just talking about the cost of child care, but they are also saying
when both parents work, or as a single parent working, they worry most
of all that their child is receiving the best care--not custodial, not
in front of a television for 8 hours, but developmental care.
On a personal note, I can remember as a student at the University of
North Carolina, barely age 20, Sheila and I had our first child. I will
never forget, 6 weeks after David was born, Sheila had to go back to
work. That is all the time she could take off. Six weeks is not enough
time to bond with a child. We had hardly any money. We asked around and
we heard about a woman who took care of children. We took David over.
After about 3 days of picking him up, every day he was listless. Before
he had gone to this child care, this home child care setting, he was
engaged and lively. It was wonderful.
I was at school, I was working; Sheila was working. At 5 o'clock or
5:30 we would come to pick him up and he was listless. Finally, after 3
days I got concerned and I showed up at her home in the middle of the
day. The problem was she had about 20 children she was trying to take
care of. Most of them were in playpens and she had stuck a pacifier in
their mouth and they were receiving no real care. There was no real
interaction. Parents worry about this.
I argue today on the floor of the Senate, one of the keys to making
sure there is decent developmental child care--not custodial child
care--is to have men and women working in this field being paid a
decent wage. Right now, we have a 40-percent turnover in this field.
Who pays the price? The children.
I have said on the Senate floor before, when I was teaching at
Carleton College as a college teacher for 20 years, I had conversations
with students who came to me and said: Look, don't take it personally.
We think you are a good teacher, Paul, and we really appreciate your
work as a teacher. But we would like to go into early childhood
development. The problem is, when you make $8 an hour, with no health
care benefits, and you have a huge student loan to pay off, especially
at a college like Carleton, you can't afford to do it. Some of the
people want to go into this field, which we say is so important, but
they can't afford to do it.
The least we could do is have a small loan forgiveness program.
The result of the system we have right now is poverty-level earnings
for the workforce.
By the way, who are the child care providers in the country today?
Mr. President, 98 percent of them are women, and one-third of them are
women of color. We can do a lot better. We pay parking lot attendants
and men and women who work at the zoos in America twice as much as we
pay those men and women who take care of our small children. Something
is profoundly wrong when we pay people who care for our cars and our
pets more money than we do for those who care for our children.
Let me go over the facts. The average teacher based at a child care
center earns roughly $7 an hour. Despite above average levels of
education, roughly one-third of the child care workers earn the minimum
wage. Even those at the highest end of the pay scale, who are likely to
have a college degree and several years of experience, make about $10
an hour. Family child care providers--a lot of child care is in homes--
make even less money. People who care for small groups of children in
their home make on average about $9,000 per year after all expenses are
figured in.
A recent study by the Center For The Childcare Workforce finds that
family child care providers earn on the average, when you take into
account their costs, $3.84 an hour, given their typical 55-hour week.
Not only that, but the majority of child care workers in our country
receive no health benefits, despite high exposure to illness. A lot of
kids, when they come, have the flu and they pass it around. Fewer than
one-third of the child care providers in this country today have health
insurance, and an even smaller percentage of child care workers have
any pension plan whatsoever. A recent study in my State of Minnesota
found that only 31 percent of child care centers offered full-time
employees fully paid health care.
The consequences of these dismal conditions are clear. Let me just
put it into perspective for colleagues. In the White House Conference
on the Development of the Brain, they talked about how important it is
that we get it right for children in the very early years of their
lives. The medical evidence is irrefutable and irreducible that these
are the most critical years. We all want to have our pictures taken
next to children --the smaller the children are, the better. Yet at the
same time we have done so precious little to make a commitment to this
area. We have child care workers, men and women who work in these
centers, who do not even make half of what people make who work in our
zoos. I think work in the zoo is important, but I also think work with
small children is important.
We have the vast majority of child care workers barely making minimum
wage or a little bit above, only about a third at best having any
health care coverage whatsoever.
Senator DeWine and I, several years ago, help pass a bill that
authorized some loan forgiveness so you would have men and women who
could go to college, with the idea they would go into this critically
important field and their loans would be forgiven. What I am trying to
do, taking it out of administrative expenses, is just finally to get a
little bit of appropriation; start out with $10 million so we finally
set the precedent that we are willing to fund this. We have not put one
penny into this program so far.

What happens is that we have this high turnover. As I said before,
probably about 40 percent or thereabouts of child care workers in any
given year go from one job to another. That figure may be a little
high, but it is a huge turnover. Who pays the price? The children pay
the price. As I look at my own figures, I guess it is about a third, a
third of this country's child care workforce leaves the job each year
because they are looking for better work. This leads to a dangerous
decline in the quality of child care for our families. The most
dangerous decline in quality is the care for toddlers, for infants.

[[Page S5959]]

They are exposed to the poorest care of all.
We have not appropriated one cent for the loan forgiveness program we
authorized 2 years ago, and at the same time you have 33 percent of
child care workers every year leaving, and you don't have the
continuity of care for our children, for families in this country. At
the same time, it is the infants and the toddlers who are the ones who
are most in jeopardy. At the same time, we have not made any commitment
whatsoever to at least--at least, this doesn't change everything in the
equation--make sure we have a loan forgiveness program.
Another thing that is happening is that as we begin to see a severe
teacher shortage, a lot of child care workers are saying that they
can't make it on $8 an hour with no health care benefits. A lot of
younger people say they can't make it on $8 an hour with no health care
benefits and a big loan to pay off. They now become our elementary
school teachers or middle school teachers.
As a result, what you have is, at the same time the number of child
care providers is decreasing, the number of families who need good
child care for their children is dramatically increasing. That is not
just because of the welfare bill, but because the reality of American
families today, for better or for worse--sometimes I wonder--is that
you just don't have one parent staying at home. In most families, both
parents are working full time. This is a huge concern to families in
this country. We could help by passing this amendment.
I want to talk about one study in particular that I think, in a
dramatic way, puts into focus what I am talking about. It was a recent
study by the University of California at Berkeley and Yale University.
They found that a million more toddlers and preschoolers are now in
child care because of the welfare law. That wouldn't surprise anyone,
given the emphasis on people going to work. So far, so good.
But they also found that many of these children are in low-quality
care, where they lag behind other children in developmental measures.
This was a study of 1,000 single mothers moving from welfare to work.
They wanted to know where were their children. What they found out was
their children were, by and large, placed in child care settings where
they watched TV all the time, wandered aimlessly, and there was little
interaction with caregivers. Here is the tragedy of it. Many of these
toddlers from these families showed developmental delays.
Would anybody be surprised? Anyone who has spent any time with small
children would not be surprised. When asked to point to a picture of a
book from among three different pictures, fewer than two in five of the
toddlers in the study pointed to the right picture compared to a
national norm of four out of five children.
One of the study's authors is quoted as saying:

We know that high quality child care can help children and
that poor children can benefit the most. So we hope that this
will be a wake-up call to do something about the quality of
child care in this country. The quality of daycare centers is
not great for middle class families, but it is surprising and
distressing to see the extent to which welfare families'
quality was even lower.

I simply want to point out that just because a family is a welfare
family or just because a family is a poor family does not mean these
small children are not as deserving of good child care. That is not the
situation today in the country.
Ironically, as we see the child care system deteriorating, we are now
putting more and more emphasis on the importance of developmental child
care. We are saying at the same time that we want to make sure single
parents work and families move from welfare to work. We are putting the
emphasis on work, and more families have to work to make it.
The median income in our country today is about $40,000 a year. The
income profile is not that high. We know investment in early childhood
development pays for itself many times over. We know good child care
programs dramatically increase the chances for children to do well in
school, for children to go on beyond K-12 and go to college and do well
in their lives, and we know the lives of low-income families, in
particular, quite often lack some of the advantages other families in
this country have. Children from low-income families do not always have
the same vocabulary; there is not always the opportunity for a parent
or parents to read to them. Therefore, the learning gap by kindergarten
is wide. Some children start way behind, and then they fall further
behind.
I cite one study which began in the seventies on the effects of early
childhood intervention. Children who received comprehensive, quality,
early education did better on cognitive, reading and math tests than
children who did not. This positive effect continues through age 21 and
beyond. Parents benefit as well. I do not understand where our
priorities are. We should want to make a commitment to working families
in this country and make a commitment to children.
I want to give some evidence from the State of Minnesota, and then I
will finish up at least with my first comments. This loan forgiveness
program works. First, it gives people an opportunity to go to college
who want to become child care workers. Second, the turnover is reduced.
Third, this means we get better people.
My own State of Minnesota has experimented. We have a State level
loan forgiveness program. In 1998, we offered child care providers up
to $1,500 in forgivable student loans for the first time. Fifty percent
of the money was set aside for what we call the metro area, and 50
percent of the money was set aside for greater Minnesota, outside the
metro area. The money was awarded on a first come, first served basis.
People began lining up on the first day. In the metro area, all the
money was gone by 5 p.m. on the second day, and all of the money for
rural Minnesota was awarded within 2 weeks.
This year, Minnesota has made over $900,000 available through their
loan forgiveness program. They started accepting applications in March,
and they have committed nearly half the money to family care providers
and 50 percent to center-based providers. A lot of it goes to rural
Minnesota and a lot of it goes to urban Minnesota.
I am saying to my colleagues, I am hoping I can win on this
amendment. I take it out of administrative expenses. We know the budget
is going to be better for this Health and Human Services bill. We know
we do not have a good budget with which to work right now. We know the
cap is going to go up. We know we are going to have more resources with
which to work.
We all say we are committed to developmental child care.
It is one of the top issues of working families. It seems to me
several years ago--I did this with Senator DeWine--we authorized
legislation that called for loan forgiveness to men and women who want
to go into this critical area, and we have not appropriated one penny.
We can at least find it in our hearts and find our way to put some
appropriations into this legislation. I am calling for $10 million as a
start.
I am saying to Senators today--and I do not think anybody can argue
with me--there is not one Senator who can dispute the clear set of
facts that we have to get it right for children. We have to get it
right for them before age 3, much less before age 5. Nobody can argue
with that.
Nobody can argue these are not critical developmental years. Look at
the spark in their eyes. They are experiencing all the unnamed magic in
the world before them, as long as we encourage them. No one can argue
that for working families this is not a huge issue, both the expense of
child care, which I cannot deal with in this amendment, and the quality
of the care for their children. If both parents are working or a single
parent is working, there is nothing more important to them than making
sure their child is receiving the best care. They do not want their
child warehoused. They do not want their child in front of a television
8 hours a day. They want to make sure their child is stimulated. They
want to make sure there is nurturing for their child. They want to make
sure there is interaction with their child.
I do not know how some of the people who work in the child care field
do it. They are saints; they do it out of love for children; but they
should not be the ones who subsidize this system. We are not going to
have good people in the child care field if they are making $8 an hour.
We are not going to have good people if they do not have any health

[[Page S5960]]

care benefits. I cannot deal with that in this amendment, but I can
deal with one thing. I can call on my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, who say they are committed to good child care, who say
they are committed to family values. If they are committed to family
values, what better way to value families than to make sure that when
people are working, their children are receiving good care? What better
way to make sure that happens than to do something about the one-third
turnover every year?
How can we best deal with the one-third turnover? We need to do a lot
of things, but this amendment in its own small way helps. I am simply
saying we ought to at least put $10 million into this loan forgiveness
program so we can encourage men and women--frankly, I would like to see
more men in this field; it is almost all women in this field. At least
they know their loan will be forgiven. That will make a huge
difference. That is all this amendment is about.
I also say to my colleagues, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senator DeWine. I am so pleased Senator DeWine is a
cosponsor. I have done a number of different bills and legislation with
Senator DeWine. We did the Workforce Investment Act together, and we
did this authorization together. I do not think we are asking too much.
This is actually a crisis. The fact is, the studies that have come
out about the quality of child care in this country are pretty
frightening. Sometimes it is downright dangerous, but almost always it
is barely adequate, and we have to do something about it. One of the
best ways we can show we care is to at least begin putting some funding
into this loan forgiveness program.

I reserve the remainder of my time if, in fact, there is substantive
debate on this issue. Otherwise, I will make a few other points. I
reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the committee, we are
prepared to accept this Wellstone amendment which provides $10 million
for loan forgiveness for child care providers. The program was
authorized by the Higher Education Amendment of 1998 and has never been
funded.
The administration did not request funding, I might add. A $10
million offset in administrative expenses will pay for this amendment.
If the Senator is agreeable, I will accept the amendment to forgive
loans for child care providers who complete a degree in early childhood
education and obtain employment in a child care facility located in
low-income communities. That is acceptable to us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska. And
if this is not presumptuous of me to say, normally I like to call for a
recorded vote, but I would be pleased to have a voice vote, if that is
what my colleague wants. And there is one reason why. I can't get an
ironclad commitment from the Senator from Alaska, but I make a plea to
him to please try to help me keep it in conference. It would be a small
step toward getting funding for this. I know the Senator is very
effective. I don't need to have a recorded vote if he can at least tell
me he will certainly try.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator does not need a recorded vote. This
amendment probably applies to my State more than any other State in the
Union. I assure him I will be asserting his position in conference.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very glad to hear that. I think I
would be pleased to go forward with a voice vote.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we ask for the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do both Senators yield back their time?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield back our time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3644) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are awaiting clearance--I understand
there is a Kennedy amendment on job training. We would like to get a
time agreement on that. I would urge that we consider that at this
time.
Does the Senator wish the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the manager, the chairman of the
full committee, Senator Stevens, we would like to have Senator Reed of
Rhode Island offer the next amendment. He is on his way over to do
that.
Mr. STEVENS. Is it possible to get a time agreement on that?
Mr. REID. Yes, it is.
Mr. STEVENS. We would like to get time agreements so it would be
possible to stack votes later, if that is possible. Is the Senator
prepared to indicate how long it might be?
Mr. REID. We will wait until he gets here, but I don't think he will
take a lot of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleagues, there is
some order here. There is going to be a Reed amendment--is that
correct?--next, and then a Kennedy amendment. I have an amendment with
Senator Reid that deals with mental health and suicide prevention.
Might I add that I follow Senator Kennedy? I am ready to keep rolling.

Mr. STEVENS. I am not prepared to agree to that yet. We are not sure
Senator Kennedy wants to offer his amendment yet. We are prepared to
enter into a time agreement on the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I might state for the information of the
Senate, we are trying to arrange amendments from each side of the
aisle. We urge Members on the Republican side of the aisle to come
forward with amendments if they wish to call them up today.
For the time being, I ask unanimous consent that on the amendment
offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island there be a time limit of 30
minutes equally divided, with no second-degree amendments prior to a
vote on or in relation to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. We presume that there may be a Republican amendment
offered after the Reed amendment. But in any event, the next Democratic
amendment to be offered would be that of Senator Kennedy, his job
training amendment, and prior to that vote, there would be--let's put
it this way, that time on that amendment be limited to 60 minutes
equally divided, with no second-degree amendments prior to a vote.
It is my understanding there would be 2 minutes on each side. Is that
the procedure now prior to the vote? Is that correct, may I inquire? Is
that your desire?
Mr. REID. That is appropriate.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that on each of these consents
there be a 4-minute period prior to the vote to be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask my colleague in that sequence, that
following Senator Kennedy there be a Republican and then I be allowed--
--
Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the third Democratic amendment to
be offered would be the amendment from Senator Wellstone. We are
awaiting the Republican amendments to see. But it will be the Reed
amendment, then a Republican amendment, then the Kennedy amendment,
then a Republican amendment, and then the Wellstone amendment.

[[Page S5961]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Senator Wellstone has agreed to 1 hour evenly divided.
Mr. STEVENS. I don't know what the subject matter is.
Mr. REID. Mental health.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Suicides.
Mr. REID. It deals with suicides.
Mr. STEVENS. We haven't seen it, but we will be pleased to consider
an hour on that amendment and get back to the Senator.
Mr. REID. If you need more time, we don't care. If you decide you do,
we will add it on to ours.
Mr. STEVENS. Let's decide the time on that amendment once we have
seen it.
Mr. President, while we are awaiting the next amendment, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3638

(Purpose: To provide funds for the GEAR UP Program)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3638,
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered
3638.

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

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. . GEAR UP PROGRAM.

In addition to any other funds appropriated under this Act
to carry out chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, there are appropriated
$100,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would increase funding for
GEAR UP by $100 million. GEAR UP is a critical component of our efforts
to provide disadvantaged young people a chance to go on to college.
GEAR UP reaches out very early in their educational careers, giving
them the mentoring, the support, and the information necessary to
succeed, not only in high school but to go beyond, to enter and
complete college.
I offer this amendment along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray.
We are offering it because we believe--as I am sure everyone in the
Chamber believes--that the opportunity to go on to postsecondary
education is central to our country and central to our aspirations in
the Senate.
This opportunity is particularly difficult to achieve if one is a
low-income student in the United States. The GEAR UP program is
specifically designed to reach out early in the career of a child, the
sixth or seventh grade, and give them not only the skills but the
confidence and the expectation that they can succeed and can go on to
college. Both these skills and information, together with the
confidence that they can succeed, are essential to their progress and
to our progress as a Nation.
GEAR UP is based upon proven early intervention models such as the I
Have a Dream Program and Project GRAD. These programs have succeeded in
improving low-income student achievement, high school graduation rates,
and college enrollment rates. We are building on a successful set of
models.
GEAR UP provides students with very specific services tailored to
help them prepare for college. These services include tutoring,
mentoring, and counseling. They are critical to ensure that students
are equipped both academically and emotionally to succeed in college.
We often hear about the lack of opportunities available to low-income
families. This is particularly the case when we talk about entering and
succeeding in college. Low-income children are the least likely
individuals in the United States to attend college. In fact, if we look
at high-achieving students from low-income schools and backgrounds,
they are five times less likely to attend college as comparable
students in higher-income schools across this country. By focusing on
college preparation for these needy students, GEAR UP is directly
targeted at eliminating this disparity.
There is something else that is important about GEAR UP. There are
many talented young people who, if they are the first child in their
family to seriously contemplate college, do not have the advantage of
parents who are knowledgeable about the system. Their parents often do
not have the information and the incentives to provide the kind of
support and assistance these young people need. That, too, must be
addressed, and GEAR UP does that.
In fact, GEAR UP addresses the needs not only of students but also of
parents. In a recent survey, 70 percent of parents indicated they have
very little information or they want more information about which
courses their child should take to prepare for college. Eighty-nine
percent of parents wanted more information about how to pay for
college. This information disparity is particularly acute in low-income
areas. Again, GEAR UP provides that type of information and assistance.
It is well documented that continuous programs that are integrated
into the daily school life of a child are the best types of programs to
provide for successful outcomes. That is exactly what GEAR UP does. It
starts early in a career, sixth and seventh grade, follows the child
through their middle school years and into high school, and is
integrated with other subjects so there is both continuous support and
an integrated approach to preparing a child for college.
GEAR UP does this through partnerships and collaborations among State
departments of education, high-poverty school districts, institutions
of higher education, businesses, and other private or non-profit
community organizations. GEAR UP is a college preparatory program, a
Federal program that focuses on children in early grades. As such, the
existence of other programs such as TRIO does not eliminate the need to
fully fund GEAR UP. We have to recognize that we have not only the
responsibility but also an opportunity to fully fund the GEAR UP
program.
I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. They have dealt with a
variety of educational issues in a budget that constrains their
choices--indeed, their desires--significantly. They have done
remarkable work, including funding for the LEAP program, which provides
low-income students with funds to go to college. But if you don't have
the first piece, if you don't have a GEAR UP program that gives
students the skills, the confidence, the insights to get into college,
Pell grants and LEAP grants are irrelevant because these deserving
young students won't even be in the mix.

GEAR UP is important. It is fundamental. The budget that Senators
Specter and Harkin were dealing with did not give them the full range
of choices they needed to ensure they could fund these important
priorities. That is why we are here today, to provide a total of $325
million for GEAR UP, an increase of $100 million over what is in this
current appropriations bill. If we do this, it will allow every State
to have a GEAR UP program. As a result of the additional $100 million,
GEAR UP would serve over 1.4 million low-income students across the
country. That would be a significant and commendable increase in our
efforts.
If we don't provide this full $325 million, we will see over 400,000
needy students denied essential academic services which are provided
through GEAR UP. Without this amendment, the need for these types of
skills and support systems will not be met.
Furthermore, the demand for GEAR UP is not being met. In 1999, GEAR
UP received 678 partnership and State grant applications covering all
50 States. However, due to limited resources, only one out of four
partnerships and half of the State applications could be funded.
Clearly, the need is there. The demand is there. We must meet it with
sufficient resources.
Today GEAR UP's reach is limited because of the constraints on our
appropriations. We need to provide sufficient resources so we can do
our best to

[[Page S5962]]

reach all the needy students in the United States.
My home State of Rhode Island was fortunate to be one of the States
to receive GEAR UP funding. The current Rhode Island GEAR UP program is
comprised of a partnership of 21 nonprofit organizations known as the
College Access Alliance of Rhode Island. They reach out to schools.
They reach out to homes. They provide community support, a network
which helps these young students understand their potential and tells
them: Yes, you can go on to college; yes, you can succeed; yes, you can
be part of this great American economy and this great American country.
Providing these resources has helped countless young Rhode Islanders
to reach their full academic potential. In just one year, Rhode Island
GEAR UP has provided invaluable services. It has helped 1,300 students
enroll and participate in summer academic programs. It has tracked the
academic progress of over 8,000 highly mobile, disadvantaged students.
They move many times from school to school, city to city. Rhode Island
GEAR UP has been able to track these youngsters, keep in contact with
them, keep encouraging them, keep getting them ready to go on to
college. It has also identified 1,000 low-income students in need of
extra support. It has linked these students to academic tutoring and
mentoring, the kind of help they need to succeed.
Although these are impressive numbers, because of limited resources
we currently cannot duplicate this type of effort in every State, in
every community across the country. I believe we should.
My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy and Murray. It is
also supported by a broad coalition of interested groups: the United
States Student Association, the California State University; the
College Board, the National Association for College Admission
Counseling, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the
American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of
State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the American Association of
University Women, the American Counseling Association, the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of
State Boards of Education, and the National PTA.
I have a letter representing their support. At this time, I ask
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

United States Student Association,

Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
Hon. Jack Reed,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reed: On behalf of the undersigned, I wish to
express my strong support and appreciation for your amendment
to provide $325 million for GEAR UP in FY 2001.
As you know, early intervention and mentoring programs
drastically increase the chances that low-income students
will attend and graduate from college. GEAR UP takes a unique
approach to early intervention. First, GEAR UP involves whole
cohorts of students, beginning in middle school and extending
throughout high school. Research clearly demonstrates that we
must help students to begin preparing for college no later
than the middle school grades.
Second, GEAR UP is sparking the development of university/
K-12 partnerships that often include businesses and
community-based organizations. In fact, more than 4,500 big
and small businesses, community-based organizations,
religious and civic organizations, chambers of commerce, and
others joined the states, universities, and middle schools
that submitted applications for the first round of GEAR UP
awards in 1999. Clearly, our nation's business and community
leaders recognize that the quality of tomorrow's workforce
depends, in large part, upon what we do today to prepare
middle and high school students for the rigors of college-
level work.
Because such programs are crucial to increasing access to
higher education, we believe that it is important to point
out that the undersigned strongly support all efforts to
increase access through early intervention programs,
including TRIO. Although the objectives of these programs are
similar, the approaches that TRIO and GEAR UP employ are
quite different. In view of the tremendous challenges we face
in breaking down the barriers to college attendance for
students from low-income families, we also support funding
the TRIO program at the highest possible level.
Some $231 million in FY01 funding is needed just to keep
year-one and year-two GEAR UP grantees on their current
trajectory. Should the Senate fail to adopt your amendment,
needy students in communities that have not yet received GEAR
UP grants will be denied the opportunity to gain the skills
and information essential for going to college.
Senator Reed, we thank you for all you are doing to ensure
that the door to higher education is opened wide to low-
income students in Rhode Island and throughout our nation.
With best regards,
Sincerely,

Kendra Fox-Davis,

President,
The United States Student Association.

This letter is sent on behalf of the following entities:
American Association of University Women
American Counseling Association
The California Community Colleges
The California State University
Chicago Education Alliance
Chicago Teachers' Center
Cincinnati Public Schools
Cincinnati State Technical and Community Colleges
Cincinnati Youth Collaborative
The College Board
Council of the Great City Schools
DePaul University
Gadsden State Community College
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
Loyola University
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Association for College Admission Counseling
The National Association for Migrant Education
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of State Boards of Education
National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs
National Education Association
The National HEP-CAMP Association
National PTA
New York State Education Department
Northeastern Illinois University
Ohio Appalachian Center for Higher Education
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
Pennsylvania State System for Higher Education
Roosevelt University
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Saint Olaf College
State Higher Education Executive Officers
State University System of Florida
United States Student Association
University of Cincinnati
University of North Carolina
University of Washington
Vermont Student Assistance Corporation

Mr. REED. Mr. President, one of our primary educational goals should
be to ensure that all students with the skill, talent, and ambition to
go to college can go to college. In order to accomplish that goal, we
have to fund, of course, Pell grants; we have to fund the LEAP program.
We have to do many of the things Senators Specter and Harkin have
insisted upon in this bill. But we also have to do something which
helps students early on through the GEAR UP program, and give these
young students the skills, the confidence, and the expectation that
they can and should go on to college. That is why I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
At this time, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the GEAR UP
program is a very fine program. It has been in existence for a fairly
short period of time. It originated with Congressman Chaka Fattah from
Philadelphia, who had the initial idea and took it to the President,
who agreed with it. It was put into effect just a few years ago. It
started out at a funding level of $120 million. Last year, the
President requested an increase, and we came up to some $200 million,
and our Senate bill has $225 million in the program.
Coincidentally, I happened to attend the President's program where he
did one of his Saturday speeches on it. So I know the program
thoroughly. In fact, with Congressman Chaka Fattah, I visited a school
in west Philadelphia where this program was being used. Regrettably,
there is simply not enough money to accommodate all of the programs,
which are good programs, which we would like to have. It is not
possible to accommodate the program Senator Kerry of Massachusetts
offered about technical training, or the Bingaman amendment on an extra
$250 million for title I, or the Wellstone amendment of $1.7 billion.
We have put substantial money into job training programs. Job Corps
is up to more than $650 million, with almost a $20 million increase. We
have structured a program on school safety as to

[[Page S5963]]

violence and a program as to drugs. These are programs we have
structured to do the best we can.
The Senator from Rhode Island has commented about what Senator Harkin
and I have attempted to do in this bill, which is the maximum stretch,
as I had said earlier, that can be accommodated on this side of the
aisle at $104.5 billion. Regrettably, the money is simply not present.
I wish it were.
The House has $200 million, which is less than the $225 million we
have on the Senate side. We will do our best to maintain that kind of
an increase, which would be $25 million, which is as far as we can
realistically go.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 and a half minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I have 12 and a half minutes out of the 15?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. I have said what I had to say. I will not use all of my
time. How much time does the Senator from Rhode Island have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 4 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I intend to raise a point of order under section 302(f)
of the Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the Reed
amendment would provide budget authority in excess of the
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and therefore it is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that the Senator from Rhode
Island still has time pending and the motion would not be in order.
Mr. SPECTER. As I said, I intend to raise that point of order after
he has completed his statement.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Specter's dilemma with
the budget resolution, as it fairly constrains his ability and the
ability of his colleagues on the committee to fund programs that are
worthwhile. In fact, I note that GEAR UP is a program that evolved from
a model that was very popular in Pennsylvania, the I Have a Dream
Program, and others. The Senator is familiar with it and is supportive
of it. My point is that this is one of those critical programs, and we
have to reach beyond this budget resolution and budget constraints and
try to find the resources.
It is particularly appropriate at this moment, as we are looking
ahead at significant surpluses that are growing--dividends from tough
fiscal decisions we have made over several years--that we begin to
develop a strategy to invest more and more into education. GEAR UP is a
worthwhile program--eminently worthwhile. One could argue it is the
first step in so much of what is included in this legislation, such as
Pell grants, LEAP, and all of those programs that actually give these
youngsters the money to go to college. But if they don't have the
skill, motivation, and the confidence to try, those grants won't be
useful to them.
So I once again urge that we move forward with this amendment. I
understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania will make a budget point
of order. At that time, I will make a request to waive that applicable
section. If the Senator is ready to make the motion, I am happy to
yield back all my time and then be recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will just add one thing. I appreciate
the sincerity of the comments of the Senator from Rhode Island that
this is a more important program. That is what the proponents of all of
the amendments have had to say. If the Senator from Rhode Island could
find offsets within the budget resolution and tell me and Senator
Harkin what programs are less important and have offsets, I would be
pleased to entertain that consideration. To add to the budget, it is
the same point that has been made repeatedly--that everybody's program
is special. And I happen to agree with them; they are all special
programs. But if you made it more special than something already in the
program and have an offset, we would not raise the rule.
I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Reed amendment be
stacked to occur later today at a time to be agreed upon by the
leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield back all time if the Senator from
Rhode Island is prepared to do the same.
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is now relevant to raise the point of
order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act that the amendment would
exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and therefore it is not in
order.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act
for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, sequencing now comes to the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my
understanding that there is a time agreement for 1 hour equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3678

(Purpose: To adjust appropriations for workforce investment activities
and related activities)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Robb, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 3678.

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

On page 2, line 12, strike ``$2,990,141,000'' and insert
``$3,889,387,000''.
On page 2, line 13, strike ``$1,718,801,000'' and insert
``$2,239,547,000''.
On page 2, line 15, strike ``$1,250,965,000'' and insert
``$1,629,465,000''.
On page 2, line 17, strike ``$1,000,965,000'' and insert
``$1,254,465,000''.
On page 2, line 18, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert
``$375,000,000''.
On page 5, line 6, strike ``$153,452,000'' and insert
``$197,452,000''.
On page 5, line 7, strike ``$3,095,978,000'' and insert
``$3,196,746,000''.
On page 5, line 26, strike ``$153,452,000'' and insert
``$197,452,000''.
On page 6, line 1, strike ``$763,283,000'' and insert
``$788,283,000''.
On page 20, line 1, strike ``$19,800,000'' and insert
``$22,300,000''.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is based upon a rather
basic and fundamental concept; that is, every worker who enters the job
market is going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of his or
her lifetime.
A number of years ago when I first entered the Senate many of the
workers in my own State got a job at the Fall River Shipyard, and their
father or mother had a job there, and many times their grandfather had
a job there, as well. They knew early in their lives that they would
enter the same career as their family before them. They acquired their
skills through training. They lived their lives more often than not
with only a high school diploma. They acquired their skills and
upgraded their skills at the place of employment, but usually their job
changed very little. They were able to have a very useful and
constructive and satisfying life.
The job market has changed dramatically in recent years. It is
changing more every single day with the obvious globalization and the
move towards the information economy. New technologies are creating new
careers and new businesses, and many people are in jobs that didn't
exist a generation ago. These new businesses are an important part of
our new economy, and they also create many new jobs. But they have

[[Page S5964]]

also created new challenges for our workers. Education has become
increasingly important to move up the ladder in the job market. And the
idea of continuous skill development has become a critical part of
workplace success.
We have learned that continuing ongoing training has to be a lifetime
experience. We know that some companies are providing training
programs. More often than not, those training programs are directed to
those in the upper levels of the management of those companies. For too
long we have left behind those who have been the real backbone of so
many of these companies--the workers who often lack basic academic and
technical skills.
These programs which have been included in the amendment that I have
offered are basically to try to make sure we are going to offer more
workers the skills necessary in order to continue to be the world
leader in terms of our economy.
I don't know how many others in this body go back home over the
weekends and meet with various groups, including various business
groups. I find in my State of Massachusetts and generally throughout
New England that the first issue people raise is: When are we going to
do something about the H-1B issue? People who listen to talk about H-1B
wonder what in the world it is. H-1B is a visa program. It permits
importation of highly skilled foreign nationals to work in our plants
and corporations. That is a key question on the minds of those involved
in so many of the expanding economies in this country.
I always say: Yes. We ought to move ahead. I hope we can move ahead
and expand that program before we leave this Congress.
H-1B visa provides a temporary solution to a labor market shortage of
highly skilled workers. I think the answer to this is not only in the
temporary way to have an expansion of the highly skilled workers coming
to the United States, but to develop the skills for American workers so
they can have those jobs in the future. Those are good jobs. They are
well-paying jobs. Americans ought to be qualified for those. The only
thing that is between Americans gaining those jobs are the training
programs for upgrading their skills. We need to strengthen our
secondary education and provide better access to post-secondary
education for more students. And we have to improve the access to on-
the-job training for current workers, and provide the resources to
support dislocated workers with training and re-employment services.
What happened in the Senate? It is almost as if this appropriations
bill just fell off the ceiling. It has lacked, with all due respect,
the focus and attention to what we have tried to do in some of the
authorizing committees.
This fall, for the first time, we will put in place the Workforce
Investment Act, which I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Jeffords,
DeWine and Wellstone, to consolidate the 126 different workforce
programs in 12 different agencies that too often are tied up with a
good deal of bureaucracy. We started working on that legislation with
Senator Kassebaum and it took three years before we passed that
program.
I had the opportunity on Monday of this last week to go out to
Worcester, MA. There were 800 people gathered there interested in the
work training programs from all over New England. They are eager to
know how they are going to get the resources to try to put together
this consolidation of training programs in order to get the skills for
people in our region of the country. Workers know that they have to
increase their skills, especially in the area of computer technology,
and they want to know how to access those programs. Those discussions
are taking place in cities and towns all over the country.
Part of that consolidation was what we call one-stop shopping where a
worker, for example, who has been dislocated or has lost their job,
maybe because of the merging of various industries, would be able to
come to one place to learn about all the options that they have for
training. They would be able to have their skills assessed. They could
get information on jobs that are available in their areas and the
skills that they would need to compete for those jobs. And they would
get an accurate assessment of their current skills.
They could see how long each training program takes, and a look at
the employment prospects. They also get information about how many
former participants in those programs did in the job market. How many
of them got jobs right away, and at what salary? They also get a look
at how many of those workers were still employed after a year, and how
many were able to move up in those jobs to better paying jobs with
their companies.
The person can make up their mind. They can say: OK. I want to take
that particular program, and they are going to be able to go to that
program and acquire the skills. It could be at a community college, a
four year college or at a private center. Wherever they choose, they
are aware of how participants of that program performed in the
workplace.
That is what we attempted to do in a bipartisan way 3 years ago.
Those programs are ready to go. What happens? The appropriations bill
pulls the rug out from under those programs.
Our amendment is trying to restore the funding at the President's
request to make sure we are going to have the training programs that
are necessary so American workers can get the skills to be able to
compete in the modern economy.
That is what this is all about. It may not be a ``front-page issue.''
It may not be a ``first-10-pages issue.'' But as workers can tell you
all over this country, skills are the defining issue as to what your
future is going to be and what you are going to be able to provide for
your family.
This provides additional resources out of the surplus to be able to
fund these programs in the way that the President has recommended.
There has been a lack of serious attention to the various programs
which we mentioned. Tragically, I think the most dramatic has been in
the Summer Jobs Program.
Here is the story in the Wall Street Journal: ``Fewer youths get a
shot at the Summer Jobs Program. This summer the Workforce Investment
Act replaces the Nation's previous federally supported summer jobs.''
We tried to upgrade it and tighten it to eliminate some of the
bureaucracy. We know that there needs to be a year-round connection to
the job experiences that young people have in the summer. What happens?
The minute we expand the mission of the Summer Jobs program, they cut
out all of the funds for the Summer Jobs Programs for youth. We mandate
a year-round approach to getting some of the neediest youth equipped
for the world of work and we critically under-fund that effort. In
doing that we doom those young people to fail.

While local groups agree that the expansion will make the program
more effective, it will be more expensive. Washington hasn't provided
the funds. The Labor Department estimates participation will drop 25
percent to 50 percent from last year's 500,000 young people.
Dropping over 500,000 young people--most of them in the cities of
this country--and cutting them loose is probably about as shortsighted
of a decision as could be made by this Congress.
At a time where we just had the announcement yesterday of surpluses
going up through the roof, we are talking about today cutting out
effectively the Summer Jobs Program for the most economically
challenged urban and rural areas of our country.
You can't talk to a mayor in any city of this country, large or
small, who won't tell you that is the most shortsighted decision that
could possibly be made by the Congress today.
I know in my own city of Boston where they have anywhere from 10,000
to 12,000 Summer Jobs Programs, what happens? The private sector comes
in and provides maybe 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. They try to build upon the
jobs program that existed in previous summers. High school students get
a chance to improve their academic skills and learn important workplace
skills that enable them to get higher paying jobs in future summers.
Many of them make business connections that give them employment
opportunities throughout high school and college.
They will find children who have completed 1 year in the Summer Jobs

[[Page S5965]]

Program, a second year in the Summer Jobs Program, and the third year
the private sector picks them up, and more often than not they get the
job. If the young person is interested enough to continue the Summer
Jobs Program and acquire some skills, more often than not in my city of
Boston they will be picked up and given a job to move ahead.
I wonder how many Members of this body have ever been with a young
person in the summer youth program the day they get their first
paycheck and see the pride and satisfaction and joy of those young
people? They have a paycheck, many of them for the first time. They
have a sense of involvement, a sense of participation, a
responsibility, a willingness to stay the course.
We are saying to those young people: No way, we are cutting back. We
have record surpluses, but not for you, young America. Then we wonder
around this body about violence in school, we wonder why young people
are upset, disoriented, or out of touch with what is going on. We send
them back into the confusion of the inner city, send them out there
without any supervision, send them out there without any sense of
training or pride. That is what we are doing. We are basically
abdicating our essential and important responsibility to the children
of this country and abandoning our commitment to give workers help and
assistance.
Soon the Senate will discuss the issue of expanded trade with China.
The votes are there to pass it. Many have pointed out that some are
concerned because some will benefit, and benefit considerably, while
others are going to sacrifice, and sacrifice considerably. We have
heard those arguments about this providing new opportunities for many
aspects of our American economy. Many have said yes. But what about
others who will be laid off? They ought to get a little training to
find a future for themselves and their family.
What is happening now? We are closing the door for them. We are
denying them the right to have that kind of job training. We are
denying young people their first job experience and we are denying
older workers the training programs to give them job security. It is
fine for those who will make the big fortunes. Increase the number of
billionaires in our society. What about those men and women who are
laid off? The only way they can survive is to get training in a
different job. That training will not be there with this budget.
Our amendment provides $1 billion additional dollars to the various
training programs and the summer job programs. This is a tangible way
to show Americans that we are going to provide the tools for them to
fully participate in this growing, expanding, and global society. We
need to send a clear message that workers are the backbone of this
country, the backbone of our economy, and every hard-working American
is going to be able to gain skills to be useful and productive workers
in the future in our society. This amendment ought to pass.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to each Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts,
Senator Kennedy, for yielding time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of
the Democratic skills training amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This amendment further
increases our country's human capital by adding $1.05 billion to skills
training programs at the U.S. Department of Labor.
Mr. President, while I commend the chairman and ranking member for
their efforts in coming forward with a bill that avoids many of the
drastic cuts approved by the House of Representatives, there are still
a number of vital programs that continue to be seriously underfunded.
This amendment provides adequate funding for Federal skills training
programs to serve more individuals who are seeking to improve their
ability to contribute to the workplace. Today's global economy demands
that the United States do all it can to ensure that every member of our
workforce is prepared to meet new workplace chllenges. Unfortunately,
the gap between high-skilled and low-skilled workers continues to grow,
leaving many at the lower end of the spectrum even farther behind.
One particular program I would like to mention is the Fathers Work,
Families Win program. This important initiative improves the employment
potential of certain low income individuals who generally have lower
levels of education and work experience. As a result, these individuals
usually end up accepting jobs that pay relatively low wages and have
few benefits. They often have irregular track records in employment:
they hold several jobs at a time, work part-time or intermittently, or
endure periods of unemployment. Many of these individuals have been on
the welfare rolls or are living under conditions that make them
vulnerable to becoming dependent on Federal assistance.
We must not forget that these individuals have the potential to make
meaningful contributions to the economy and, given the opportunity, can
become self-sufficient and successfully support their families. This is
one reason why I am interested in seeing the Fathers Work, Families Win
program funded. The portion of the program entitled Families Win
provides $130 million in competitive grants for programs to help low
income parents stay employed, move up the career ladder, and remain off
welfare.
The program's Fathers Work component provides $125 million for
competitive grants to help certain non-custodial parents find a job,
maintain employment, and advance on their career path. This is
important because many fathers, rather than being ``deadbeat dads,''
are ``dead broke dads.'' They have the desire to support their families
through child support payments and other means, but cannot do so
because they cannot secure or maintain steady employment paying a
living wage.
Fathers Work, Families Win would build on the investments and
partnerships started under the Workforce Investment Act and the
Welfare-to-Work program. State and local Workforce Investment Boards
are eligible applicants under both parts of Fathers Work, Families Win.
These boards have been implementing WIA [weeeea] across the country,
reforming the way in which job training and job placement services are
conducted. The competitive grant program funds enable the Boards to
further integrate services for the population of low income workers
under programs such as WIA, Wagner-Peyser [wag-ner pie-zer] grants,
Welfare-to-Work grants, and grants under the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program. This integrated approach will help to ensure
that many low income families will not fall through the cracks and will
find it easier to use the network of services at their disposal.
I continue to be a strong supporter of the Welfare-to-Work program.
Last year, I introduced the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999 which
included provisions to reauthorize the program and to improve access to
the program for more low income individuals. The eligibility changes
were included in the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year
2000, which I thank my colleagues for working on and supporting.
However, the Welfare-to-Work program itself has not yet been renewed.
With eligibility changes taking effect for competitive grantees at the
beginning of 2000 and for formula grantees later this year, Welfare-to-
Work efforts must be given more time to run. If the program is not
reauthorized, worthwhile efforts at the State and local levels to help
low income families will be adversely impacted.
Because the Welfare-to-Work program has not been extended, many local
communities are concerned because their efforts to help Welfare-to-Work
participants have just begun. An abrupt end to the program would cause
significant investments to go to waste. As the U.S. Conference of
Mayors states in a letter dated June 10, 2000, ``Without the extension
of the Welfare-to-Work program, welfare reform will be dealt a serious
set back in our nation's cities which are home to the highest
concentrations of people still on welfare.'' I ask unanimous consent
that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S5966]]

The United States

Conference of Mayors,

Washington, DC, June 10, 2000.
Dear Member: The United States Conference of Mayors,
assembled in Seattle, is gravely concerned about the future
of the Welfare-to-Work Program. We urge you to extend the
Welfare-to-Work program as proposed in the Clinton FY 2001
budget. Without the extension of the Welfare-to-Work program,
welfare reform will be dealt a serious set back in our
nation's cities which are home to the highest concentrations
of the people still on welfare.
Mayors are aware that some members of Congress have
legitimately raised concerns about the low expenditure rate
in the current Welfare-to-Work program. Unfortunately, a
large percentage of the funding did not reach the local level
until the last quarter of 1998. In addition, the initial
Welfare-to-Work eligibility requirements have excluded a
large segment of the hardest-to-serve welfare population and
thus inhibited the expenditure of the first $3 billion in
funding.
We were pleased that Congress made the necessary changes in
the eligibility requirements in the FY 2000 appropriations
bill. However, these eligibility changes were not effective
immediately. The changes are not effective for WTW formula
grant funds until October 1, 2000. For WTW competitive grant
funds, the changes became effective January 1, 2000.
We believe that the need for the extension of this funding
will become increasingly evident as the program becomes fully
operational and the eligibility changes are enacted. In fact,
indications from the U.S. Department of Labor's quarterly
reports on WTW spending are he expenditures for formula and
competitive grant funding have increased overall and that
expenditures for competitive grant funding has increased
significantly since January 1, 2000, when the eligibility
changes became effective. It is also expected that spend-out
rates will also increase significantly as larger numbers of
TANF recipients reach their time limits and lose eligibility
for cash assistance.
Mayors more than anyone else recognize that although
welfare roles have declined significantly across states,
great numbers of former welfare clients living in cities who
are in need of services still remain. Many of these
individuals who are still not working have little or no
skills, are unable to read and write beyond the 8th grade
level, and have no work experience. When they are able to go
to work, the jobs often pay below minimum wage, have no
health benefits and are insufficient to support the
individual, let alone his or her family.
As Mayors we realize that while many in the nation believe
the job of welfare reform is complete, we know that much work
remains to be done. The targeted and direct resources
provided by Welfare-to-Work are essential for us to address
the concentrated welfare caseloads in our cities and ensure
that those still on welfare make the transition into the
workforce. Discontinuing the Welfare to Work program at this
time would be a great disservice to those welfare recipients
still unable to find self-sustaining jobs.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges you to extend the
Welfare-to-Work program until we can honestly say that most
of those in need of these services are working in permanent,
self-sustaining jobs. Now is not the time to stop the
progress already made on Welfare Reform and Welfare-to-Work.
Now is the time to ensure that those remaining on the welfare
rolls who have the greatest challenges to employment are
served.
Sincerely,
Wellington E. Webb,
President Mayor of Denver.
Beverly O'Neill,
Chair, Jobs, Education and the Workforce Standing
Committee, Mayor of Long Beach.
H. Brent Coles,
Vice President, Mayor of Boise.
Marc H. Morial,
Chair, Advisory Board, Mayor of New Orleans.
David W. Moore,
Chair, Health and Human Services Standing Committee, Mayor
of Beaumont.

Mr. AKAKA. The letter goes on to note that although welfare rolls
have decreased significantly across the country, ``great numbers of
former welfare clients living in cities who are in need of services
still remain.'' These are the hardest-to-help families who need our
greatest assistance. Furthermore, many of these individuals will be
reaching their lifetime limit on welfare benefits imposed by the 1996
welfare reform law and will no longer be able to rely on regular cash
assistance to support their families. We cannot allow these families to
be left without any safety net and should continue pursuing efforts to
``teach them how to fish''--this is what the amendment before us would
do.
While I am disappointed that the bill before us does not extend the
Welfare-to-Work program, I hope that under the eligibility changes I
helped to pass last year, Welfare-to-Work program accomplishments will
continue to grow and provide strong impetus for the program's
reauthorization. In the meantime, I strongly urge my colleagues to
support programs such as Fathers Work, Families Win for low income
individuals.
It is interesting to note that in 1998 and 1999, while the nation was
experiencing low unemployment, layoffs were still widespread. This
trend was mainly due to companies requiring new skills to meet the
demands of a new economy. Unfortunately, as we have seen by the
announcements of large-scale layoffs from companies such as Coca-Cola,
J.C. Penney Company, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, the situation is not
getting any better.
So, why are we in Congress looking at reducing or eliminating funding
for vital programs that empower former welfare recipients and low-wage
workers with the information and skills necessary to become viable
citizens in their communities? Skills Training programs are essential
to ensure that displaced workers will be able to transition into
another trade. We must not forget that the Federal Reserve Board is
reviewing the possibility of raising interest rates in an effort to
slow down U.S. economic growth. This could negatively impact not only
Hawaii's economy, especially the construction industry that is one of
Hawaii's leading areas for job growth, but the nation as a whole.
Hawaii's economy is just recovering from a decade of economic
stagnation and layoffs and cannot afford another recession without
providing the necessary funds for skills training programs.
The current and proposed funding levels for skills training programs
are inadequate to ensure the availability of a trained workforce. We
must remain committed in our efforts to equip employers with an
employment system capable of addressing potential labor shortages. For
the State of Hawaii, eliminating all new funding for One Stop Career
Centers/Labor Market Information will adversely impact Hawaii's ability
to comply with the Workforce Investment Act. Hawaii will not be able to
develop core employment statistics products used by employers, job
seekers, educators, students, and others. More specifically, valuable
labor market information would no longer be provided to the public.
I commend Hawaii's Job Corps program for its successful placement
rate of 70 percent. This is significant given Hawaii's fragile economy
in recent years. The success of this program clearly illustrates the
positive effect the skills training programs have on our communities.
We should not reduce or eliminate funding for these vital programs that
enhance employment opportunities for individuals and their families.
The amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would address the potential
shortcomings in funding as proposed in the House and Senate. This
amendment provides appropriate funding for the Department of Labor's
Youth and Adult Employment and Training Programs, especially funding
for Dislocated Worker assistance, Youth Opportunity grants, Job Corps,
and One Stop Career Centers. In addition, this amendment also provides
appropriate funding for the Summer Jobs program resulting from
implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.
We must continue to improve our skills training program to ensure
that America's workforce remains competitive to the global economy. I
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have just learned within the last few
minutes that a decision has been made on Capitol Hill to eliminate the
Summer Jobs Program for this year. That decision was made by Republican
leaders who have decided that it costs too much--$40 million.
We have to sit back, from time to time, and measure the relative cost
of decisions we make. If we are going to say to literally tens of
thousands of young people across America that there will not be a
Summer Jobs Program, what price will we pay for that decision? For many
of these kids, it

[[Page S5967]]

means there will not be an opportunity for the first time in their
lives to have a real job, a real learning experience in the workplace.
In this country we are prepared to pay whatever it takes when we
sentence someone to prison. In Illinois, it costs about $30,000 a year
to keep someone in prison. That failed life that led to crime and
conviction ends up costing us $30,000 a year. Is it too much to pay?
No, we will pay it. But when it comes to jobs for kids during the
summer, the Republican leadership has decided it is too much to pay.
How about school dropouts? When kids drop out of school, they not
only ruin their own lives but often affect the communities in which
they live. These are the kids hanging out on the street corners. These
are the ones who may never have a job. These are the ones who become
chronic statistics in our society. We will pay for those statistics one
way or the other. We have decided that is a cost we will pay. But when
it comes to providing jobs in the summer for kids going to school, the
Republican leadership decided today it was too high a cost to pay. Of
course, when we talk about tomorrow's workers, we realize that kids who
are not put on the right track with the right values early in life may
not go on to finish school or to become the workforce of the 21st
century for America. That is an expense to this country. It is
obviously something the Republican leadership is willing to pay, rather
than pay for a Summer Jobs Program.
What does this program mean? In my home State of Illinois, the
decision today by the Republican leaders to take out the Summer Jobs
Program means that 10,000 kids coming out of schools in the Chicagoland
area will not have a 6-week minimum wage summer job. Is that an
important life experience? Boy, it sure was for me. Going to work meant
a lot for me. As my folks used to say: We want you to learn the value
of a dollar. When I went to work, I understood the value of a dollar. I
added up every paycheck and how I was going to save it, how I was going
to spend it. It also teaches you the value of hard work, the fact that
you do get up with the rest of the world and go to work and don't
expect somebody to hand you something. That is the value of a summer
job, a value that will be denied to tens of thousands of kids because
of a decision the Republican leadership made to kill the Summer Jobs
Program. The value of showing up on time to work, dressed properly,
prepared to work with your coworkers, you cannot teach all that in
school. Some of that is a life experience. It is an experience I had
and virtually everyone has on their way to a successful life. For tens
of thousands of kids, they will be denied that opportunity because of
this decision by the Republican leadership.
Of course, for me and a lot of others, that summer job taught us the
value of staying in school. How many times did I stop behind that
shovel and think: I don't want to do this the rest of my life. I am
going to go back to school. I am going to get my college degree and go
on. That is the value of a summer job, too.

Senator Kennedy is right. If we have the values, the same values of
families across America, we would be voting for this program and this
amendment he is proposing for summer jobs for kids so they can have a
valuable work experience. We would be voting for this amendment so
there will be job training for those dislocated from their jobs. We
don't want to give up on workers. I believe in free trade, but I know
that millions of workers in America lose their jobs each year because
of technology and trade and change. We should be there with programs to
help them move to the next job so they do not lose pace with the
economy and the quality of life they are used to.
This amendment gets to the heart of the values of the Members of the
Senate. Senator Kennedy is right. I am happy to cosponsor it. The mayor
of the city of Chicago said: The School Jobs Program keeps kids away
from gangs, guns, and drugs. He hit the nail on the head. If we put
more and more kids into positive programs where they learn how to work
and continue to learn in the workplace, their lives can be transformed.
If there is one value we share as Americans, it is the value of hard
work.
The decision by the Republican leadership to close down the Summer
Jobs Program is a decision that flies in the face of the values of this
country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who
yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I welcome the superb statement made by my friend and
colleague from Illinois. The Commission for Economic Development says
that half of manufacturing companies nationwide do not offer any
training programs. Nationally, all employer training programs equal
just 1 percent of their payroll costs.
I have here this ``Opportunity Knocks,'' a study done as a Joint
Project of Mellon New England and Massachusetts Institute for a New
Commonwealth. It says:

Which workers get employer-provided job skills? For large
employers with 50 workers or more, 80 percent are management.
These employers are more likely to provide job skills
training for managers, computer technicians, and sales
workers that for production or service workers. How are these
lower skilled workers supposed to improve their skills and
move up the ladder? This really is the case. Companies are
doing more hiring and firing simultaneously than ever before.
Workers who need a new set of skills are often replaced
rather than retrained. We need to get workers the skills that
they need to compete in this information-age economy. That is
quite different from Europe, for example, where the companies
are required to provide a range of different skills training
so there is an investment in a company's workers. They value
the individual, and they know that continual, ongoing
training programs in each of those major industries makes
good business sense.

This study goes on to say that the poor odds of an employer offering
any training is only part of the problem. Access to employer-provided
training is by no means equal across categories of workers. Most
businesses are unlikely to provide any training opportunities to
clerical or production workers and when they do offer training it is in
the form of an orientation to their present job. There is no attention
to up-grading the skills of those workers.
I want to mention, as we reach the end of this presentation, the
comments of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He recently said:

[The] rapidity of innovation and unpredictability of the
directions it may take imply a need for considerable
investment in human capital.

Workers in almost every occupation are being asked to strengthen
their skills to ensure long-term success in the workplace. The
technical know-how that workers need to stay on the cutting edge is
being redefined every day.
We are being told by the head of the Federal Reserve that this is
what is necessary to keep America's economy strong. We are being told
that by the business community. We are being told that by workers. We
are being urged to do that by the President of the United States. It
makes no sense to undermine that.
We have taken action in a bipartisan way to develop a workforce
development system that will be effective. In the next month every
state will come on board to implement the new law. Without this
amendment we are effectively undermining this Nation's commitment to
provide important, necessary skills for America's workers so they will
be able to be full participants in the American economy of tomorrow.
It is wrong. I hope the Senate will accept my amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print letters from the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the Mayor
of Boston.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The United States Conference

of Mayors,

Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to express the strong
support of The U.S. Conference of Mayors for the Skills
Training Amendment that you will be offering to the Labor-
Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill.
At our recent Annual Conference in Seattle, we sent a letter

[[Page S5968]]

to Majority Leader Lott urging him to do just what your
amendment does--restore critical funding to the Department of
Labor for youth and skills training.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors just released a survey,
Examining Skills Shortages in America's Cities, which shows
that 86 percent of cities suffer shortages in technology
workers; 73 percent suffer shortages in health workers; 72
percent lack enough construction workers to fill available
jobs; 71 percent lack manufacturing workers; and 50 percent
lack enough workers to fill retail and wholesale jobs. It is
imperative that we make the critical investment in our
nation's current and future workforce by supporting the
President's budget proposals and increasing year-round
funding for youth. It is crucial that sufficient resources
are provided to address the needs of our nation's youth and
the skills gap that seriously affects our nation's economy.
The funding level for the Summer Jobs and year-round youth
programs currently proposed in the FY 2001 appropriation bill
is unacceptable, especially as programs gear up under the
recently enacted Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The
funding level of the Youth Opportunity Grant Program for out-
of-school youth is also short-sighted, as there are massive
unmet needs of unemployed, out-of-school youth in high
poverty areas.
We applaud your leadership in addressing these issues and
your efforts to restore this critical funding. We should be
investing in our current and our future workforce--the health
and vitality of our cities, and our nation, depend on it.
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Cochran,
Executive Director.
____

National Association of Counties,

June 28, 2000.
Subject: Sen. Kennedy's amendment to the Labor/H
appropriation to increase funding for skills training.

Dear Senator: The National Association of Counties (NACo),
the only organization representing America's counties in
Washington, DC, fully supports Senator Edward M. Kennedy's
amendment to increase appropriations for workforce investment
activities by $792 million for fiscal year 2001. NACo urges
the Senate to adopt this amendment to H.R. 4577, the Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill.
NACo has identified increased funding for workforce
development programs as a critical funding priority for 2000.
Therefore, we will be tracking your vote on this amendment
and any related motion to waive the Budget Act. Your vote
will be recorded on our web site (www.naco.org) and the
information will be made available to county commissioners in
your state.
This amendment is of critical importance to America's
counties. Current and proposed funding levels for inadequate
to ensure that America's counties can effectively implement
the Workforce Investment Act. Sen. Kennedy's amendment would
address the substantial shortfall in funding currently
proposed in the House and Senate by addressing funding for
youth programs, incumbent and dislocated worker programs, and
one-stop career centers.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director.
____

City of Boston, MA,

Boston, MA, June 27, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to express my outrage at
efforts to cut funding for summer jobs programs and other
youth and skills related programs. As you know, Boston
operates one of the nation's largest summer jobs programs.
While we are at record low unemployment levels nationally,
youth unemployment rates in our cities are still unacceptably
high. There is a crisis among our young people as evidenced
by the violence and despair among youth in many of our
cities. The move to strip summer jobs funding from the
Emergency Supplemental comes at a time when we should be
investing in our young people, not cutting the future out
from under them.
I applaud your efforts to restore critical funding to the
Department of Labor for our youth and our nation's workers.
The Skills Training Amendment you are offering to the Labor-
Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill
will do exactly what we need to be doing--providing
sufficient resources to address the needs of our nation's
youth and the skills gap that seriously affects our nation's
economy.
As always, thank you for your tremendous efforts on behalf
of our youth.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Menino,
Mayor of Boston.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we start from the proposition that this
bill, for various education and health care and job training efforts,
is dramatically larger than the bill that was passed in this body last
year, to everyone's satisfaction, increasing at a rate far more rapid
than the pace of inflation or population growth in the United States.
Obscured in the debate so far is the fact that there is some $5.4
billion in job training programs in this bill, at a time of record low
unemployment. This represents an increase of more than $16 million over
the bill that is currently in effect for the present year. The greater
increases in the bill, of course, were for education and for biomedical
research, both of which exceed the amounts requested by President
Clinton. Even so, the bill provides funding for two new programs
requested by the Clinton administration: Worker training and
responsible reintegration of youthful offenders, each at $30 and $20
million respectively, a 22-percent increase for dislocated workers in
the course of the last 4 years, and a 25-percent increase in the same
period of time for the Job Corps.
The private sector, of course, now looking more than ever for
qualified employees, has dramatically increased its own hiring and
training programs. Of course, in comparison with the House bill, this
rejects the $400 million cut in the House bill in that field.
As for summer training, the argument of the Senator from Illinois was
a peculiar one. The current law for summer jobs, a law passed last
fall, of course, well after last summer was over, has $1 billion in it
for just exactly that purpose: $1 billion for summer jobs for youth.
We have another in a series of amendments that illustrates the
proposition that no matter how generous this body is, even I may say in
many cases no matter how generous the administration is, some Members
will come to the floor and demand more, whatever its impact on the
budget.
To quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board implicitly as
being in favor of programs such as this is to fly in the face of logic.
It is the clear position, often quoted by Members on the other side,
that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board believes that the single
most important means to the goal of a stronger economy we can follow is
not to increase Federal spending and, in fact, to decrease it. He has
consistently, over the years, held to the position that for the economy
as a whole, for future job growth, the best thing we can do is be
modest in our spending, not to increase it, I suspect, as much as it is
increased in this bill.
In any event, as has been the case with previous amendments of this
nature, it will simply add millions, in some cases billions, of dollars
to the bill. It is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. At
the appropriate time, that budget point of order will be presented.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to
express my enthusiastic support for the amendment offered by my
colleague and friend, Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, Labor Secretary
Herman summed up the challenge of today's economy when she declared at
the National Skills Summit in April that in this country we have ``a
skills shortage, not a labor shortage.''
Right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in this country in the
last 30 years. But even as we celebrate this remarkable feat--and it is
remarkable--we must remember that there are still some 13 million
people in this country who want, but do not have, a full-time job. The
Kennedy amendment would make full-time employment a real possibility
for homeless veterans, young people, and for youths seeking summer
employment.
I appreciate that the Labor-HHS subcommittee's allocations were
inadequate to fund at sufficient levels all of the programs in this
legislation and I think they have done a good job with what they had to
work with. But clearly Mr. President this bill retreats from our
commitment to fund many critical education, training, and health
programs. I am troubled that the bill before us does not adequately
fund job training programs for homeless veterans. Veterans issues are
especially important to me, and I know it is of great importance to my
fellow veterans here in the Senate. The Kennedy amendment would allow
1,400 more veterans to receive employment placement and economic
security than does the bill put forth by the Republicans.
This appropriations bill severely under-funds many important
programs, but none more critical than the youth job programs like Job
Corps, Youth Opportunity Grants program, and the Summer Jobs program.
Mr. President, Job Corps is the nation's largest residential
education and

[[Page S5969]]

training program for disadvantaged youth. This program takes head on
the issues and the people who have been left behind in this period of
economic expansion. While many Americans enjoy unprecedented
prosperity, the nation's unemployment rate among African-American
teenagers is 22%, almost double the national teenage unemployment rate.
Twenty-six percent of those who dropped out of high school between
October 1998-99 are unemployed. We cannot relegate these people to the
margins of our society, especially during this moment of great national
wealth.
There are 120 Job Corps centers in 46 states, including three in my
state of Massachusetts. Since 1964, Job Corps has given 1.7 million
young people in this country the academic and vocational training they
need to get good, entry-level jobs, join the military, or go to
college. Job Corps offers GED or high school equivalency programs and
training in various occupations, as well as advanced training and
additional support services. Graduates of Job Corps go on to work in
every field from automotive mechanics and repair, to business, and to
health occupations. This amendment would allow Job Corps to serve more
than 70,000 additional students and reduce staff turnover by offering
Job Corps employees a more competitive salary.

This amendment would also greatly increase funding for the Youth
Opportunity Grants. These grants serve some of the poorest inner-city
areas and Native American reservations in the country, where
unemployment levels are well above the national average. Unfortunately,
the Republican legislation would not allow the Department of Labor to
expand this program. Last year, the Department of Labor was able to
fund only 36 of 150 grants under the Youth Opportunity Grant program,
two of which are in Boston and Brockton, Massachusetts. This amendment
would allow the Department of Labor to fund 15-20 new grants, allowing
us to provide job skills and real work experience to people who live in
areas that have only heard rumors about our nation's economic growth,
but have not seen it for themselves.
I would also like to voice my support for increasing funding by $254
million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs program. In late March I met
with 20 members of the Boston Mayor's Youth Council, who raised money
to travel to Washington. We met right outside this chamber on the
Senate steps. The 20 young people that I met with spoke extremely
eloquently and passionately about their experiences in summer jobs
programs, and they asked me to speak on their behalf in Washington in
support of the Summer Jobs program.
Well, Mr. President, I intend to speak on their behalf. Approximately
85% of youths in the summer jobs program last year were between the
ages of 14-17. Teens in that age group typically do not find private-
sector work. But these young people were afforded the opportunity to
learn job skills and responsibility. We have all heard teachers lament
that students often greet lessons with cries of ``When are we ever
going to have to use this again?'' Summer jobs make education relevant
to teenagers, helping to reduce drop-out rates and fostering an
interest in higher education.
The Workforce Investment Act consolidates the Summer Jobs program and
year-round jobs program into a comprehensive system of services for at-
risk, low-income youth. But under the bill before us, 13,000 teens will
be eliminated from this program. The Kennedy amendment would add back
$254 million, allowing us the opportunity to provide summer jobs to
152,400 low-income students, 85% of whom would not otherwise be able to
find summer employment.
In March I received a letter signed by 22 mayors in the State of
Massachusetts, urging me to fight for Summer Jobs program funding. In
this letter, the mayors write ``The state has benefitted because with
the young people working, negative behaviors that often result from
idleness are prevented.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
this letter be printed in the record following my statement. I know
these programs are important and are working. And I know they should
receive greater funding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't want to end today without pointing
out the importance of this amendment to our national trade policy. I
believe very strongly in free trade. I know that the Trade and
Development Act that we passed earlier this year and granting PNTR to
China--if we ever get the chance to debate it in the Senate--will grow
Massachusetts's economy and produce long-term benefits for workers in
Massachusetts and across the country. But the budget put forth by the
Republicans takes no responsibility for protecting those who are most
at risk for being left behind. This amendment does claim that
responsibility. As we continue with our push to open new markets, we
have got to ensure those who lack the skills, the income or the
education to get quality jobs can have an opportunity to succeed in the
new economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Exhibit I

Massachusetts Municipal Association,

Boston, MA, March 22, 2000.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Kerry: We are writing to urge you
to advocate for summer jobs funding in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations bill currently before Congress.
As you are aware, the Workforce Development Act (WIA),
which was signed into law in August 1998, will become
effectively July 1st, 2000. While we certainly support the
WIA goal of offering more comprehensive services for youth on
a year-round basis, we are concerned that the additional
requirements of WIA and the lack of an increase in funding
for year-round youth programs will result in the
Commonwealth's inability to provide the number of jobs that
we need to serve our youth population this summer. Estimates
project that we may have to turn over half of the eligible
youth away this summer barring an increase in summer jobs
funding.
The summer jobs program in Massachusetts has been
phenomenally successful, both for our young people and the
state as a whole. The young people gain work experience (many
for the first time), earn a paycheck (which many contribute
to household expenses), and have the chance to gain academic
skills (as summer is often a time when young people slide
backwards academically). The state has benefited because with
the young people working, negative behaviors that often
result from idleness are prevented.
This year we face a double threat, as Governor Cellucci has
chosen not to fund the state summer jobs program in his
budget. We are working with the Legislature and others to
restore this funding to the state budget. We will certainly
have a major problem if we lose funding from both the federal
and state programs.
At its winter meeting in January, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors passed a resolution to support: (1) an emergency
appropriation to address the shortfall of funds needed to
serve youth this summer; and (2) increased funding in the
FY2001 budget to meet the projected doubling of program costs
resulting from the new requirements of the Workforce
Investment Act. A copy of the resolution is enclosed.
Please keep us updated on the efforts to include funding
for summer jobs in the emergency appropriation and increased
funding in the FY 2001 budget. Thank you for your continued
support and assistance on this high priority issue.
Sincerely,
Thomas Menino Mayor, Boston; Daniel Kelly Mayor, Gardner;
Mary Whitney Mayor, Fitchburg; Michael Tautznik Mayor,
Easthampton; Robert Dever Mayor, Woburn; William
Scanlon Mayor, Beverly; Mary Clare Higgins Mayor,
Northampton; Lisa Mead Mayor, Newburyport; John Yunits
Mayor, Brockton; Thomas Ambrosino Mayor, Revere; Ted
Strojny Mayor, Taunton; David Madden Mayor, Weymouth;
Edward Lambert, Jr. Mayor, Fall River; Gerald Doyle
Mayor, Pittsfield; Patrick Guerriero Mayor, Melrose;
Peter Torigian, Mayor, Peabody; James Rurak, Mayor,
Haverhill; John Barrett III Mayor, North Adams; Richard
A. Cohen Mayor, Agawam; David Ragucci Mayor, Everett;
Frederick Kalisz, Jr. Mayor, New Bedford; James A.
Sheets Mayor, Quincy.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the
amendment my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has
offered to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill to restore critical
funding to skills training programs at the Department of Labor.
Mr. President, I appreciate the work that Senators Specter and Harkin
have put into this bill. Finding the appropriate balance in this bill
is particularly difficult. And, while I am disappointed with the
funding levels for

[[Page S5970]]

many of the programs at the Department of Labor, I do understand that
Senator Specter and Senator Harkin care deeply about the programs
affected by this amendment.
There are several components of the amendment offered by Senator
Kennedy but I would like to take a minute to discuss one in particular
that is of critical importance to my state of New Mexico.
Mr. President, the amendment calls for an additional $181 million for
dislocated worker assistance This additional funding would meet the
President's request for fiscal year 2001.
When Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act a couple years ago,
an important component was the funding stream for dislocated workers.
While much of the Nation has prospered over the past eight years, many
in my home state have not. I have seen plant closing from Roswell and
Carlsbad in the east, to Las Cruces in the south, Albuquerque in the
north and Cobre in the west. Thousands of high paying jobs have been
lost, and especially hard hit has been the extractive industries. I
don't need to tell my colleagues how devastating a plant closing can be
on a community and families.
The Workforce Investment Act authorizes grants to States and local
areas to provide core, intensive training and supportive services to
laid off workers with the aim being to help them return to work as
quickly as possible at wages as close as possible to those received
prior to the layoff. These funds are critically important as the nature
of our economy has changed over the last decade from an industrial base
economy to a technologically based one. Workers who are laid off today,
particularly those who have been with the same company for a number of
years, are often unprepared to reenter the work place or for the new
economy they face. Training and retraining is critical to develop the
skills they need to quickly find a decent paying job and get back on
their feet.
Under President Clinton, dislocated worker funding has tripled from
$517 million in Program Year 1993 to $1.589 billion in Program Year
2000. Yet despite these increases, the need for these services has
unfortunately kept pace with, and in some cases exceeded, the
availability of funds. The President's budget for year 2001 continues
the commitment to dislocated worker programs by providing adequate
funding levels that will give dislocated workers the tools to compete
in the new economy. This is the second installment of a five-year
Universal Reemployment Initiative. Under the Universal Reemployment
Initiative, dislocated worker funding was to be increased each year to
ensure that by 2004 every dislocated worker would receive training and
reemployment services if they want and need it, every unemployment
insurance claimant who loses their job through no fault of their own
would get the reemployment services they want and need, and every
American would have access to One-Stop Career Centers.
However, and unfortunately in my opinion, unless the level of funding
in the Senate's Labor/HHS bill is not increased, this will be the first
year since 1994 that there will be no increase in these funds, and our
commitment to universal reemployment will be in serious jeopardy.
Specifically, this bill cuts over $181 million from the President's
request which will mean the Department of Labor will be able to serve
100,825 fewer recipients. While the bulk of this cut would fall on
State/local formula funding, it is important to note that 20 percent of
the cut--over $36 million, would be in the Secretary's reserve funds,
reducing her capacity to make National Emergency Grants to respond to
disasters and large scale layoffs.
Mr. President, as my colleagues know, New Mexico has been through a
couple rough months. These funds for dislocated workers are extremely
important and I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment to
bring the level of funding for this, and many other important programs,
up to the level of the President's request.
Finally, Mr. President, I would also encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment because of the increased funding levels for
Youth Opportunity Grants, the Summer Jobs Program, and for Job Corps,
among others. These programs, and the funding levels contained in this
amendment are likewise critical to meeting the needs of young people in
my state.
Again, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this
amendment and commend my friend, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership on
issues that are so important to families and working men and women
throughout this country.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kennedy's
skills training amendment. This amendment contains important measures
to provide individuals with the necessary skills to succeed in the
workforce. The amendment addresses the need to provide employment
skills training to noncustodial parents, particularly fathers. The
``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative begins to address a very
troubling epidemic, fatherlessness.
The number of children living in households without fathers has
tripled over the last forty years, from just over five million in 1960
to more than 17 million today. Although the work of single mothers is
truly heroic, father absence has caused unnecessary burdens on women
and has forced millions of children to overcome difficult social
hurdles. For example, children that live absent their biological
fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty. They are more
likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom, to commit a
crime, to drop out of school, to be abused, to commit suicide, to abuse
alcohol or drugs, and to become pregnant as teenagers. The $255 million
requested for this initiative is dwarfed in comparison by the amount of
money the Federal Government spends on dealing with the consequences of
fatherlessness.
There are several pieces to this puzzle, one of which is employment
services. Too many fathers are unable to provide financial support for
their children. Although many of these fathers have the desire to take
responsibility for their children, they do not have the means. In
short, these fathers are not dead-beat, they are dead-broke. The
``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative gives us a way to work
through the current infrastructure to deliver employment services to
fathers and noncustodial parents. Skill-building and employment
services will help to increase the employment rate among noncustodial
fathers and therefore, increase child support payments.
Our challenge is to give fathers the tools necessary to be successful
parents. While employment services for noncustodial parents is an
essential component to making fathers responsible, it is not the only
service that is needed to ensure these fathers become good parents.
Senator Domenici and I have introduced a comprehensive package designed
to address the fatherlessness epidemic. S. 1364, the Responsible
Fatherhood Act of 1999 would provide states with funds to promote the
maintenance of married, two-parent families, strengthen fragile
families, and promote responsible fatherhood. In addition to the
program grants available to states, states would receive funds for a
media campaign. A media campaign would be an effective way to
communicate the message of father responsibility across ethnic, racial,
and income barriers. The bill also recognizes the need to remove
federal disincentives to pay child support.
We face a great challenge, but we must not let it overwhelm us. We
must instead begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I commend
Senator Kennedy for including the ``Fathers Work, Families Win''
initiative in his amendment. It is my hope that the Senate will enact
this legislation and continue to pursue other solutions to the epidemic
of fatherlessness.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I'm here to speak about the Kennedy
Workforce Investment amendment restoring cuts to the Department of
Labor's training funds.
This amendment is just plain common sense. The single best thing we
can do for our society, and for every working family, is to make sure
that every American who wants a decent paying job has the skills
necessary to obtain a decent paying job. By helping youths and adults
get the job training they need, we help turn them into tax-paying
citizens who can purchase goods and services, buy homes and afford
health care, and contribute to our growing economy.

[[Page S5971]]

This amendment, in a multitude of ways, tries to address the most
basic challenge facing our country: How do we help American workers
develop the skills they need to excel in an increasingly complex and
constantly evolving economy?
First, our amendment helps by fully funding the Dislocated Worker
Assistance Program. It restores $181 million in funding to a program
that has made a substantial difference in the lives of Rhode Island
workers. We, like many formerly industrial states, have suffered great
worker dislocation as industries have left, often to go somewhere
overseas where labor was cheaper. Restoring this funding to the
President's request would allow 100,000 more workers, dislocated
through no fault of their own, access to training, job search and re-
employment services.
Our amendment also grants the Administration's request for $44
million to improve access to One-Stop services for million of Americans
and make the job search process less overwhelming and more efficient.
The Director of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training
informed me that the current cuts to this program will ``seriously
impact'' the ability of our state to provide the services and
information now required by the Workforce Investment Act for use by job
seekers and employers.
In addition to fully funding adult worker skills programs, our
amendment would add $254 million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs
Program resulting from implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.
Many states, like my own, were unprepared for this dramatic change in
the federal funding stream. Thousands of kids in Rhode Island,
especially 14- and 15- year-olds, are now going without summer jobs.
Many of these kids are from small towns, others are from inner city
Providence--both are limited by their age and the lack of job
opportunities in their respective communities.
Giving young people job experience benefits the entire country. The
development of good work habits and a respect for the virtues of labor
alone are strong payoffs. Everyone in this Congress should be
supporting a restoration of these cuts.
Finally, our amendment would restore $29 million to the Job Corps
program, one of the most effective programs in the country for kids
between the ages of 16 and 24. A recent Mathematica Policy Research
Inc. study shows that 16- to 17-year-old youths who go through the Job
Corps program are 80 percent more likely to earn a high school diploma
or GED than a control group excluded from the program. This group also
earned salaries that were 20 percent higher and had arrest rates that
were 14 percent lower. This program works, and we should be fully
funding it.
Strengthening our workforce strengthens our families, and ultimately
makes our entire country stronger. Adopting this skills training
amendment is good for both American business and American workers, and
every member of this Chamber should be in support of it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining. The Senator
from Washington has 26 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Washington.
The Chair notes there is time still pending on the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. GORTON. I yield back the remainder of my time.
I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as
amended, that the effect of adopting the amendment provides budget
authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the
fiscal year 2001 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget and, therefore, is
not in order.
Mr. KENNEDY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for
consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the time
being we lay aside the current amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
conclusion of the debate on the Wellstone amendment on the subject of
suicide, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the previously
debated amendments, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
Those votes are as follows:
Dodd amendment No. 3672 on community learning centers;
Kerry of Massachusetts amendment No. 3659 on technology literacy;
Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 3638 on the GEAR UP program; and
Kennedy amendment No. 3678 on workforce investment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Those votes, Mr. President, will start at about 3:30
p.m., for the information of my colleagues.
Mr. REID. 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.

Amendment No. 3680

(Purpose: To provide for a certification program to improve the
effectiveness and responsiveness of suicide hotlines and crisis
centers)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr.
Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3680.

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

On page 34, line 17, insert before the period the
following: ``: Provided further, That within the amounts
provided herein, $3,000,000 shall be available for the Center
for Mental Health Services to support through grants a
certification program to improve and evaluate the
effectiveness and responsiveness of suicide hotlines and
crisis centers in the United States and to help support and
evaluate a national hotline and crisis center network''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 30 minutes
that have been designated for the amendment being offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No formal time agreement has been entered
regarding this amendment.
Mr. REID. If the Chair would be kind enough to advise me when I have
used 15 minutes, I won't ask for a unanimous consent agreement, but
there was an agreement that there would be approximately a half hour on
this.
This amendment would provide $3 million to certified crisis centers.
This deals with the plague of suicide that is sweeping this country.
Every year in America, 31,000 people kill themselves. This is probably
far fewer than the actual number. It is something that is very
devastating to those who are survivors. But there is also a situation
in this country that creates a tremendous loss of economic benefits for
everyone concerned.
I offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Wellstone because I was
asked to by his staff. Since Senator Wellstone is the prime sponsor of
this amendment and is now on the floor, I would like for him to
proceed. I will be happy to proceed when the Senator has completed his
remarks. The amendment has been offered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there any
pending business at the moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is
amendment No. 3680.
Mr. SPECTER. Is that the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we were scheduled to vote at
3:30 on four amendments. So I inquire of my colleague from Minnesota
how long he will be on this matter.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be quite brief. I apologize. I
didn't realize the amendment was coming up now. Senator Reid and I were
doing this together. Probably 10 minutes is what I will need. My
understanding is that the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been
focused on suicide prevention and trying to do better with mental
health treatment, would accept

[[Page S5972]]

the amendment. I think I can do this in 10 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was going to take 15 minutes, but 10
minutes would be fine.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed
to the Wellstone amendment on a 10-minute time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises Senators that there is no
time agreement, unless we get this unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on
the Wellstone amendment be divided with 7 minutes for Senator Wellstone
and 3 minutes for this Senator.
Mr. REID. I haven't spoken yet. I have only spoken for 1 minute.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I object. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I
haven't been out here on the amendment. He knows that, and I don't want
the Senator from Nevada to only have a few moments. It is an important
issue. I don't think we can do it in that time.
Mr. SPECTER. I withdraw my request and suggest that we proceed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we will move forward and not go through
any unnecessary delay. This amendment would support a certification
program to improve and evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of
suicide hotlines and crisis centers in the U.S. and to help support and
evaluate a national hotline and crisis center network.
Let me go through these figures here on the chart.
Suicide facts for our country:
Every 42 seconds someone attempts suicide.
Each 16.9 minutes someone completes suicide.
Suicide is the eighth leading cause of all deaths.
Death rates from suicide are highest for those over age 75.
The incidence of suicide among 15- to 24-year-olds has tripled over
the past 40 years, making it the third leading killer in that age group
of 15- to 24-year-olds.
In the State of Minnesota, it is the second leading killer of young
people from age 15 to 24. These statistics that deal with mental
illness and suicides are disturbing. I point out to my colleagues that
one of the factors that makes it so disturbing is that so much of
suicide is connected to mental illness, especially depression or
substance abuse, and so much of it is diagnosable. Frankly, it is
treatable.
Really, there should be a hue and cry in the country for corrective
action. I do a lot of work with Senator Domenici, and I get to do this
work with Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy as well. There are a whole
host of issues that deal with our failure to provide decent mental
health coverage for people.
I thank Surgeon General David Satcher for doing marvelous work. The
Surgeon General's report, which came out recently, talks about 500,000
people every year in our country requiring emergency room treatment as
a result of attempted suicide. In 1996, nearly 31,000 Americans took
their own lives.
I think of Al and Mary Kluesner in the State of Minnesota who started
this organization called SAVE. They themselves have lost two children
to suicide. Several of their other children have been unbelievably
successful in their lives. There has been, up until fairly recently,
this shame and people feeling as if it is their own moral failure. But
it has so little to do with that.
I met a couple weeks ago with Dr. David Shaffer from Columbia
University and Kay Jamison from Johns Hopkins University. She has done
some of the most powerful writing. It was Dr. Jamison who said before
Senator Specter's committee, ``The gap between what we know and what we
do is lethal.''
We know so much about the ways in which we can treat this illness and
we can prevent people from taking their lives, but we have not done
nearly as much. We have many different organizations that support this
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Organizations Supporting the Wellstone-Reid-Kennedy Suicide Prevention
Amendment to the LHHS Appropriations Bill, June 28, 2000

38 organizations

American Association of Suicidology (AAS).
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).
Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network (SPAN).
Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education (SA/VE).
National Mental Health Association (NMHA).
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI).
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association.
National Mental Health Awareness Campaign.
Light for Life Foundation (Yellow Ribbon Campaign).
QPR Institute (Question/Persuade/Refer).
National Organization of People of Color Against Suicide
(NOPCAS).
National Institute for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender
(NIGLBT).
With One Voice.
Contact USA.
Crisis Support Services of Alameda County.
Contra Costa Crisis Center.
Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Center.
San Mateo Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention
Center.
Pueblo Suicide Prevention Center.
Alachua County Crisis Center.
CrisisLine of Lantana.
Switchboard of Miami.
Cedar Rapids Foundation 2.
Prince George's County Hotline and Suicide Prevention
Center.
St. Louis Life Crisis Services.
Crisis Call Center, Reno, Nevada.
Covenant House.
Fargo HotLine.
HelpLine of Delaware County.
HelpLine of Morrow County.
CONTACT of Pittsburgh.
Sioux Falls, Volunteer Information Center HelpLine.
Nashville Crisis Intervention Center.
Houston Crisis Center.
Crisis Link of Northern Virginia.
Friends of Mental Health of Loudon County.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what this amendment does is add $3
million to SAMHSA to support, through grants, a certification program
that would evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of crisis
centers and suicide hotlines across the United States.
It also helps to support a national hot line and crisis center
network. There are 750 such crisis services in place across the country
today. These centers are documented in the directory kept by the
American Association of Suicidology.
To date, there has been little or no funding to help support the
training and to improve the quality of guidance through these hot line
and crisis services. This amendment does exactly that. These funds will
be used to improve the training and the skills of the staff at the
crisis hot lines for suicides. There will be a variety of ways in which
we can get the money to people so this work can be done.
In awarding these grants, I encourage the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to collect an experienced nonprofit organization with
significant expertise to administer this program.
According to U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher, approximately
500,000 people each year require emergency room treatment as a result
of attempted suicide. In 1996 alone, nearly 31,000 Americans took their
own lives. In the U.S., suicide is the third leading cause of death of
people age 15-34. A suicide takes place in our country every 17
minutes.
In some parts of our country, including my own state of Minnesota,
suicide is the second leading cause of death for these young people.
Three times the number of Minnesotans die from suicide than from
homicide.
We know, without a doubt, that 90 percent of all completed suicides
are linked to untreated or inadequately treated mental illness or
addiction. To prevent suicide requires an all-out public health effort
that will recognize this problem, and will educate our country that we
can no longer afford to turn our eyes away from the unthinkable reality
that our citizens, even our children, may want to die.
Dr. Satcher and other national mental health experts, such as Dr.
Steve Hyman, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, have
helped bring this issue forward, and to help us understand that, with
proper treatment, this is one of the most preventable tragedies that we
face as a country.

[[Page S5973]]

In 1996, the World Health Organization also issued a report urging
members worldwide to address the problem of suicide, and one result was
the creation of a public/private partnership to seek a national
strategy for the U.S., involving many government agencies and advocacy
groups. This is clearly a serious problem throughout the world.
For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a
character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak
of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness
are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will
be seen as admitting a weakness in character. For this reason, they may
delay treatment until their situation becomes so severe that they may
feel incapable of reaching out.
Although mental health research has well-established the biological,
genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious
mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less
important or serious other than illnesses. Too often, we try to push
the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for
having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look
just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting
next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, our brother, our son, or
daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious
mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in
public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about
their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all
understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I
commend them for their courage.
The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health
care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling,
and disturbing.
One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major
depression. The National Institute of Mental Health, an NIH research
institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More
than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a
depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily
incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes
untreated. Many will die.
I recently had the good fortune to meet with a group of some of the
foremost experts on suicide prevention, including Dr. David Shaffer,
from Columbia University, and Dr. Kay Jamison, from John
Hopkins University. They gave me an extraordinary overview of the many
critical points of intervention where suicide may be prevented, and it
is my intention to develop a larger bill, in collaboration with Senator
Harry Reid, and hopefully many of my colleagues, that will address many
of these issues.

But this amendment will meet an important need right now, one that is
timely, and even with its modest funding can help save many lives. This
amendment has the support of Senators Reid and Kennedy, as well as the
support of the national groups:
American Association of Suicidology,
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention,
SPAN (Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network),
National Mental Health Association,
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,
American Psychiatric Association,
American Psychological Association,
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and SA/VE, a group based in
Minnesota (Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education), headed by Al and
Mary Kluesner.
My amendment will add $3 million to SAMHSA to support through grants
a certification program to improve and evaluate the effectiveness and
responsiveness of crisis centers and suicide hotlines across the United
States, and to help support a national hotline and crisis center
network. Although there are 750 such crisis services in place across
our country--these centers are documented in the directory kept by the
American Association of Suicidology--to date there has been little or
no funding to help support the training and improve the quality of the
guidance that is provided through these hotline and crisis services.
This amendment will do exactly that. These funds will be used to help
improve the training and skills of the staff at crisis hotline
suicides, through guidance provided by the American Society of
Suicidology, the Center for Mental Health Services, the National
Institute Mental Health, and other mental health professionals. It will
also help support the development of a national hotline and network of
certified crisis centers.
In the awarding of grants, I would encourage the Secretary of HHS to
select an experienced non-profit organization with significant
expertise in this area to administer the certification process, so that
this process of training can begin as quickly as possible.
Telephone hotlines are only one of the points of intervention, and
are not and cannot be the only solution to those who suffer from severe
mental illness and the extraordinary despair that leads to suicide. Our
country also needs to ensure that Americans have fair access to medical
care, that the stigma associated with mental illness is reduced, and
more education and training for health care providers is made
available. But the hotline does provide a lifeline for those who need
to reach out for help and have nowhere else to turn too when they reach
the point of despair.
The crisis centers that run suicide hotlines are often patched
together through a variety of funding sources, and struggle to keep
their staff trained and their services of the highest quality. Although
some centers are certified by the American Association of Suicidology,
and some are connected through the Hope Line Network that is working to
establish a national network, this process has only just begun. These
centers perform a critically important service and would benefit
enormously from a national certification process and regular staff
training. The time is right to fund such a process.
Staff at crisis centers need to be trained to conduct a suicide risk
assessment to determine the seriousness and urgency of someone who may
be contemplating suicide. They also need to know when to refer the
individual to a local community mental health provider if the person is
not in crisis. But most importantly, they need to know when to send the
police to the person's home or workplace if the staff person is
convinced that a suicide is about to take place.
Most people think that there is a national suicide hotline already in
place that links people throughout the country. But until recently,
this was not so. Crisis centers operated on their own, with volunteer
help, and few resources. Recently, a national hotline number (1-800-
SUICIDE) was established through the Hope Line Network, through the
National Mental Health Awareness Campaign. As an example of the
incredible need for such a number, the national hotline found itself
flooded with calls after recently advertising on MTV and Fox Family
Channel. Additionally, 1.5 million Americans logged onto their website
during the 2 weeks after this advertising began. There are obviously
many people who are in need of this service. And it needs to be the
best possible service, and linked as best it can be to local help.
By improving the training and skills of crisis hotline operators,
such contact can be of the highest quality. Certification would require
rigorous on site training and visits, evaluation of operations, records
reviews, verification of staff training and skills, and the like.
The Surgeon General is to be commended for bringing this issue of
suicide forward as a major public health crisis in his 1999 report,
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide. In his report, he specifically cited
the need for instituting training programs concerning suicide risk
assessment and recognition, treatment, management, and aftercare
intervention. He also asked that community care resources be enhanced
as referral points for mental health services. This amendment helps to
support both of these requests.
I must emphasize that suicide is often linked to severe depression
and other forms of mental illness. These illnesses are not the normal
ups and downs everyone experiences. They are illnesses that affect
mood, body, behavior, and mind. Depressive disorders interfere with
individual and family functioning. Without treatment, the person with a
depressive disorder is

[[Page S5974]]

often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of spouse or parent,
worker or employer, friend or neighbor. And far too often, without
treatment, a person can reach such a level of despair that they will
take their own life. This amendment will fund programs to help people
get the treatment they need before it is too late. As Dr. Kay Redfield
Jamison stated in a recent Senate hearing on suicide, when it comes to
treatment for mental illness, ``the gap between what we know and what
we do is lethal.''
The issue of suicide prevention is one that we have discussed before,
at a hearing held by Senator Specter, and during other discussions
about mental health research and treatment. I am proud of my colleagues
who have supported these efforts, including the cosponsors of this
amendment, Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join them in
bringing this amendment forward, and I ask you for your support.
There is a piece of legislation I have with Senator Domenici called
the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. We believe, especially when
it comes to physician visits and days in hospitals, that people with a
mental illness should be treated the same way as people with a physical
illness. We think it is time to end this discrimination.
I have two other amendments that are included in other legislation
which deal with the problem of suicide and mental health--especially
with young people--and ways of getting money to communities that can
then put the money to use, whether it be substance abuse treatment
programs, whether it be family counseling, or whether it be
pharmacological treatment, or you name it.
The amendment I introduced with Senator Reid is very basic. It is
very straightforward.
It basically provides the grants through a certification program to
improve the effectiveness of these suicide hot lines and crisis centers
in the United States. It will help them support and evaluate a national
hot line and crisis center network.
I say to my colleague from Nevada that this is really incremental. It
is not the be all or the end all. But the additional resources will
really help SAMHSA. It will help us make sure these crisis hot lines
are put to the very best use; that the people who are working there
have the best training; that people who will be working these lines
will do their very best in taking calls and know how to help people.
This is important. It is a network of support for people. It is one
step and only one step.
But I will finish my remarks and then hear from my colleague from
Nevada who really is taking the lead on this amendment.
Again, every 42 seconds someone in our country attempts suicide.
Every 16.9 minutes someone completes suicide. Suicide is the eighth
leading cause of all deaths.
This one really gets to me. I admit that until I saw this--I believe
I do a lot of work in the mental health area--I didn't realize the
suicide rates are highest for those over age 75. I didn't realize that.
My focus has really been on young people because in my State of
Minnesota, for the age of 15 to 24, suicide is the second leading cause
of death.
We need to do better. In this piece of legislation, we take this
funding from administrative services and put it into this program. I
think it will make a very positive difference.
I am delighted that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
going to support this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which
is a long overdue attempt to deal more effectively with suicide, a
serious public health threat in the United States.
In 1998, suicide was the cause of more than 29,000 deaths --nearly 60
percent higher than the number of homicides in that year. The nation's
Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, issued a Call to Action to Prevent
Suicide in 1999, in which he recommended a national strategy to reduce
the high toll that suicide takes. Our amendment will provide grants
through the Center for Mental Health Services to help support a
national network of suicide hotlines and crisis centers, and to provide
a certification program for the staff members of the network. This
program will ensure that people who seek help during a crisis will
receive an effective response from appropriately trained and certified
personnel.
In Massachusetts, the state's 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found
that one of every five adolescents had seriously considered suicide in
the previous year, and one in twelve--more than 20,000 teenagers--made
an actual attempt. But this serious problem is not limited to young
Americans. It affects all age groups. In fact, suicide rates increase
with age, and are highest among men aged 75 years and older.
Suicide also affects all racial and ethnic groups. Between 1980 and
1996, the rate of suicide among African-American male teenagers more
than doubled. Native American communities have long experienced high
suicide rates.
Suicide and suicide attempts affect both genders. Although males are
four times more likely to die of suicide, females are more likely to
attempt suicide. Each year in the United States, half a million people
require emergency room treatment for a suicide attempt.
But suicide and suicide attempts can be prevented. Ninety percent of
people who complete suicide have depression or another mental or
substance abuse disorder. These disorders respond to effective
treatment.
The amendment we offer today will ensure that when a person is in
crisis anywhere in our nation, there is a network of hotlines and
crisis centers to call for help, and that a trained and certified staff
member will be available to intervene effectively. Every 17 minutes
another American completes suicide. We can do much more to prevent this
national tragedy. Our proposal is a small, but significant, step toward
preventing the unnecessary loss of American lives, and I urge the
Senate to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Minnesota has been a great
partner on this issue. He has been very understanding. He is a very
caring person, as indicated by the work he has done. He has outlined
very generally and in many cases specifically the problems we have in
America today relating to suicide.
There is no question about it. Suicides occur more often in this
country than can be calculated. As I have indicated, the statistics
that the Senator from Minnesota gave us are reported suicides. There
are many deaths that appear to be accidents that are suicides, and they
cannot be calculated.
The State of Nevada leads the Nation in suicide. It doesn't matter
what age group it is. It doesn't matter whether they are teenagers or
senior citizens. The State of Nevada has the dubious distinction of
leading the Nation in suicide. That is too bad.
This amendment is a step in the direction of helping people not only
in Nevada but all over the country. The amendment offered by the
Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Nevada will set up a number
of crisis centers. Today, we have about 78 crisis centers that are
certified. This would allow hundreds more to be certified.
What does this mean? It means that when you call 1-800-SUICIDE, which
was activated a little more than a year ago --people who are depressed
or suicidal or those concerned about someone else who is depressed or
suicidal--you are automatically connected to someone who is at one of
these centers and who is trained. These calls are routed to the crisis
center nearest to the person where the call is placed.
The crisis center calls are answered by certified counselors 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week--on Thanksgiving and on Christmas; it is sad to
say but Christmas is one of the biggest suicide days in this country.
In the event the nearest crisis center is at a maximum volume, the
call is routed to the next nearest center. There is never a busy
signal, or a voice mail. People in crisis usually reach a trained
counselor within two or three rings, or about 20 to 30 seconds from the
moment they dial 1-800-SUICIDE.
What does this suicide crisis line mean?
Let me read excerpts from a few letters.
This one is written to the Northern Virginia hot line. It says, among
other things:

[[Page S5975]]

I would like to name NVHL (Northern Virginia Hotline) as
one of my beneficiaries on my life insurance policy . . .
The reason for this act of kindness is to give back to your
organization what your organization has given to me. You see,
over the past twenty years I have used your listeners during
moments of crises in my life. When I had no one to turn to, I
could turn to your listeners for insight and support . . .
I want to give back to the organization that has been
responsible for helping me through many tough late nights
over the past twenty years.

We have a letter from the Catholic Newman Association in Houston, TX.
It is a three-paragraph letter. I will read only one paragraph.

I simply want to say that because of you, Karen, a girl
named ______ is alive today and has, for perhaps the first
time in her life, a real hope and desire to live. She called
you a few weeks ago, with a razor blade in her hand, and she
had already begun to cut her wrist. You talked to her for
almost an hour, though she tried to hang up a number of
times. You were able to get information about the fact that
she had recently talked to me, as well as where she lived.
You were able to keep her on the line while you had someone
contact me and I got to her apartment in time to keep her
from completing the suicide attempt. She has been
hospitalized and has undergone intensive therapy and is soon
to be released, with real hope that there are good reasons to
stay alive. You must have been very skillful, Karen because
she is a very sharp girl and it was a true suicide attempt
prevented only by the fact that she wanted to talk to one
human being--you--before killing herself. Because you took
her seriously, because you cared, because you knew what to
say and do, she is alive today and wants to continue to live.

We also have a letter addressed to Arlene, someone who works at one
of these hot line centers.
Among other things, this woman says:

A member of my staff had come to me with some family
problems, both financial and emotional, which were causing
that person to be very despondent . . .
Fortunately, I was able to refer my employee to the
Hotline. I don't know the details of the conversations but I
can see the results. Having someone available to talk to,
combined with the follow-up counseling, has helped this
person to find a solution to problems which had seemed
overwhelming. I now have a valuable, productive employee and
the individual now feels in control of life and
circumstances.

Finally, I have a letter from the Fairfax County Police Department.
This is from Capt. Art Rudat. He is a commander in the McLean
substation. He is writing a letter to say having this hotline helps the
police department, freeing them to do other things. He says:

Upon our arrival, we found the subject in his room and he
was extremely upset and agitated. He was holding a 4" knife
to his jugular vein, threatening to kill himself. This threat
was not taken lightly because he had already cut his left
wrist and was bleeding. The atmosphere at the time was tense,
not knowing if anything that the officers would say would
further upset the subject. There was a moment, when the
subject stood up screaming and pressing the knife into his
throat almost cutting his jugular vein, that it was thought
the incident would have a tragic
ending. * * *
Even this was occurring, the subject was on the phone,
still deep in conversation with Miss Dicke. He would go from
being out of control to a very peaceful state. Slowly though,
he became less upset and eventually sat down and began
listening to Miss Dicke reason with him and win him over. Of
course, the officers didn't know what Miss Dicke was saying,
but it was enough for him to eventually give up his knife and
go to the hospital with rescue to receive much needed
assistance.
It is my understanding that of the nearly 18,000 calls that
are received at the hotline center per year, approximately
600 are suicide calls and only 5 involve weapons. We at
Fairfax County Police Department were quite fortunate to have
had both Miss Dicke and Miss Ross working that night. Without
their teamwork, tenaciousness and training, this incident
could have had a tragic end-
ing. * * *
Although hotlines do not historically receive the fanfare
and headlines that other public service groups do, we at the
Police Department realize what a tremendous resource you are
to us and the outstanding service which you provide to the
community.

I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Revenue Recovery Consultants, Inc.,

Fairfax, VA, October 8, 1998.
Ms. Arlene Krohmal,
Northern Virginia Hotline,
Arlington, VA.
Dear Arlene: I just wanted to take a moment to thank you
and to compliment the Hotline for the assistance your staff
provided to one of my employees recently.
A member of my staff had come to me with some family
problems, both financial and emotional, which were causing
that person to be very despondent. This attitude was
affecting the individual's work and life. An appointment with
a counselor had been set, but it was ten days away and it
seemed as if help was needed immediately. This person told me
that, if not for worry about two children, life wouldn't be
worth living.
Fortunately, I was able to refer my employee to the
Hotline. I don't know the details of the conversations but I
can see the results. Having someone available to talk to,
combined with the follow-up counseling, has helped this
person to find a solution to problems which had seemed
overwhelming. I now have a valuable, productive employee and
the individual now feels in control of life and
circumstances.
Thank you for providing a valuable service to the
community.
Sincerely,
Fran Fisher,
President.
____

Catholic Newman Association, Religion Center, University
of Houston,
Houston, TX.
PEACE!
I am writing this letter simply out of my own need to
express gratitude, plus the fact that I am aware you likely
don't get much positive feedback for what you are doing. It
is addressed primarily to one of your people named ``Karen''
whom I have been unable to contact personally, but really to
all of you because it could have been any one who happened to
answer the phone that day.
I simply want to say that because of you, Karen, a girl
named ______ is alive today and has, for perhaps the first
time in her life, a real hope and desire to live. She called
you a few weeks ago, with a razor blade in her hand, and she
had already begun to cut her wrist. You talked to her for
almost an hour, though she tried to hang up a number of
times. You were able to get information about the fact that
she had recently talked to me, as well as where she lived.
You were able to keep her on the line while you had someone
contact me and I got to her apartment in time to keep her
from completing the suicide attempt. She has been
hospitalized and has undergone intensive therapy and is soon
to be released, with real hope that there are good reasons to
stay alive. You must have been very skillful, Karen because
she is a very sharp girl and it was a true suicide attempt
prevented only by the fact that she wanted to talk to one
human being--you--before killing herself. Because you took
her seriously, because you cared, because you knew what to
say and do, she is alive today and wants to continue to live.
I am writing this, as I say, simply because I want to let
you know--and all of you who work at Crisis Hotline--that
what you are doing is beautiful as beautiful as life compared
to death, as beautiful as hope compared to depression, as
beautiful as loved compared to apathy. I realize, because of
my own life-work in this way that you often don't know the
effects of your listening, your caring, your loving, that you
very likely wonder sometimes if it's worth the time and
effort. All I can say is: ``Hey, today I saw the sun shine in
a girl's eyes!'' It's worth it!!!
Thank you, Karen, I love you,
Rev. Jim Barnett.
____

Ashburn, VA, June 14, 1999.
Arlene Krohmal,
Director, Northern Virginia Hotline,
Arlington, VA.
Dear Arlene, I have a request. Please send to me
information about your organization, for you see, I would
like to name NVHL (Northern Virginia Hotline) as one of my
beneficiaries on my life insurance policy. I need to know
exactly how to word NVHL as a beneficiary so that there would
be no loop holes for anyone to contest.
The reason for this act of kindness is to give back to your
organization what your organization has given to me. You see,
over the past twenty years I have used your listeners during
moments of crises in my lie. When I had no one to turn to, I
could turn to your listeners for insight and support.
I came to know about the benefit of your hotline due to
meeting the original director Bobby Schazenbach and hearing
her story why this wonderful and unique organization was set
up. I have very fond memories of Bobby and everytime I call
your hotline, I often think of her and wonder how she is
doing. Her creation of this hotline has been a link to my
survival for many years. I won't bother you with the details,
but I want to give back to the organization that has been
responsible for helping me through many tough late night over
the past twenty years.
Please sent to me any information on your organization that
might help facilitate in changing my beneficiary to your
organization. I also want you to know that I will be naming
the Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter as well.
Thank God for all of you and thank God for Bobby.
Fondly, and forever grateful, ------ ------
____

Fairfax County Police Department,

Fairfax, VA, March 31, 1998.
Ms. Arlene Krohmal,
Northern Virginia Suicide Hotline,
Arlington, VA.
Dear Ms. Krohmal: I would like to bring to your attention,
the actions of two of your volunteers and the impact it had
upon a family's future. On March 7, 1998, at approximately
5:59 pm, officers from the McLean

[[Page S5976]]

District Station responded to the Ritz Carlton, near Tysons
Corner, for a subject threatening to commit suicide with a
knife. The 911 call was made to the Fairfax County Police by
Miss Katie Ross, of the Northern Virginia Suicide Hotline,
who was assisting Miss Marilyn Dicke, also with the Suicide
Hotline, The information received was that the subject had
been involved in a continuing domestic dispute with his
parents and was at the end of his rope.
From the beginning, the information given to us by Miss
Ross was clear and concise and left little for us to wonder
about. This is a key element in our response to a complaint
and how the officers will handle the case from the onset.
Upon our arrival, we found the subject in his room and he was
extremely upset and agitated. He was holding a 4'' knife to
his jugular vein, threatening to kill himself. This threat
was not taken lightly because he had already cut his left
wrist and was bleeding. The atmosphere at the time was tense,
not knowing if anything that the officers would say would
further upset the subject. There was a moment, when the
subject stood up screaming and pressing the knife into his
throat almost cutting his jugular vein, that it was thought
the incident would have a tragic ending.
Even this was occurring, the subject was on the phone,
still deep in conversation with Miss Dicke. He would go from
being out of control to a very peaceful state. Slowly though,
he became less upset and eventually sat down and began
listening to Miss Dicke reason with him and win him over. Of
course, the officers didn't know what Miss Dicke was saying,
but it was enough for him to eventually give up his knife and
go to the hospital with rescue to receive much needed
assistance.
It is my understanding that of the nearly 18,000 calls that
are received at the hotline center per year, approximately
600 are suicide calls and only 5 involve weapons. We at
Fairfax County Police Department were quite fortunate to have
had both Miss Dicke and Miss Ross working that night. Without
their teamwork, tenaciousness and training, this incident
could have had a tragic ending.
This exemplifies how the citizens of Fairfax County and the
Police Department benefit from programs such as yours.
Although hotlines do not historically receive the fanfare and
headlines that other public service groups do, we at the
Police Department realize what a tremendous resource you are
to us and the outstanding service which you provide to the
community. It is without any reservation that I commend Miss
Dicke and Miss Ross for the outstanding job they did that
evening. They should be very proud of themselves and the
organization they are affiliated with.
Sincerely,
Captain Art Rudat,
Commander, McLean District Station.

Mr. REID. I extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the legislation dealing with the
issue of suicide. It is very important.
Many, many years ago, early one morning I came to an office and found
a coworker had taken his life. It was, of course, a morning I will
remember the rest of my life, finding a coworker and a friend who had,
over the nighttime hours, taken his life.
I suppose only those who have been acquainted with that circumstance
can barely imagine the kind of horrors that persuade someone to take
their own life. I think anything we can do as a country in public
policy to reach out and say to those who are visited by those emotional
difficulties, those pressures and internal problems that persuade them
to consider taking their life, anything we can do to reach out to them
to say, here is some help, we ought to be able to do that.
This amendment is very small. Incrementally, it will be helpful.
I appreciate the work of Senator Wellstone and Senator Reid. I think
someday--we may never know the name--adding these resources will help
someone who is ravaged by these emotional difficulties and can be
prevented from taking their own life, and we will be rewarded for
having paid attention to this issue.
Mr. REID. The Senator from South Dakota knows I had the misfortune of
my father committing suicide. As the Senator from North Dakota, I saw
my father lying there after having shot himself. This is something that
never leaves you.
People think suicide always happens to someone else, but it doesn't.
I say to my friend from North Dakota, we could go around this room and
we would be surprised; almost everyone in this Senate Chamber has had a
relative, a neighbor, or a friend who committed suicide. It is
remarkable and sad.
I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota sharing his story. The
reason it is important he shares it is to recognize what a universal
problem this is, at 31,000 people a year. We know, as I indicated a
number of other times on this floor, many more people commit suicide.
I think the mere fact that we talk about it is going to help the
problem. We now have this crisis hotline established. We also, of
course, have support groups that we didn't have 15, 20 years ago. The
problem is not getting easier, but it is getting better with people
better understanding the issue.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, two things. First, I thank the Senator
from Nevada for his comments. Second, I say to Senator Specter, I am
sure he remembers when Kay Jamison testified before his committee,
saying the gap between what we know and what we do is lethal. This is
just a small step. I am hoping that the Senate--the sooner the better--
will embrace this issue and put some resources back to communities that
can put this money to work in terms of suicide prevention. Much of this
is diagnosable and preventable.
We have some confusion. Before I agree, I say to Senator Reid, I want
to suggest the absence of a quorum. We have a disagreement about how we
will deal with this amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Let me make a short statement. We are anxious to move
ahead with our votes scheduled at 3:30.
The amendment is acceptable. The subcommittee held a hearing on this
matter in February and had extraordinarily heartrending testimony from
families who had been touched directly by suicide. The hearing was held
at the request of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. It was quite
compelling.
The subcommittee and the full committee allocated $662 million to the
mental health services, an increase of $31 million over last year. A
number of amendments have been offered seeking to reallocate the money
in a variety of ways. I have responded that, unless they have offsets,
we have made the allocations as best we can.
I think the fact we have such a large sum of money in mental health
services on a relative basis, including a $31 million increase for this
year, is a testament to the propriety or the value judgments which have
gone into the structure of this bill. The $3 million for the hotline
can be accommodated easily within the existing funds. We had already
urged the mental health services to find ways through their research to
prevent suicides--to find other means of communicating with people who
were emotionally stressed coming to grips with the issue, and
preventing suicides. The substantial allocation the Appropriations
Committee has made is a testament to the value judgments and the
priorities we have established.
I thank Senator Reid for sharing his own experiences. It is a very
telling matter. At his request, we had a very informative hearing in
February, with quite a few people coming forward, including Danielle
Steel, the noted authoress who talked about her own son's experience.
It made quite an impact. I think it is true that while the C-SPAN 2
audience may not be enormous, people will hear what is being said and
it can have a salutary effect.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. REID. It was very difficult for the Senator to work this hearing
into the very busy schedule of this huge subcommittee. The Senator did
that. I think it has done so much good across the country to have
people such as Danielle Steel and Kay Jamison, who are experts, to come
in and talk about their experiences. I am grateful to you for doing
this, as I think anyone is who has had the misfortune of having had
some connection with suicide. You are to be applauded for having done
this with schedule that was really a burden to you.

We appreciate this very much.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for those
kind remarks. Perhaps we could move ahead to acceptance of the
amendment.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania
for his genuine concern, and the ways in which, as the chair of this
committee, he has supported this initiative. He cares about it deeply.
I thank

[[Page S5977]]

him. I am pleased he will accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3680) was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3672

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
pending motion to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the
motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Dodd amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Which is the first
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dodd amendment No. 3672 on community
learning centers.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the point of order has been raised
because, although the Dodd amendment for afterschool programs takes up
a meritorious subject, we have already added approximately $150 million
to that account, bringing it up to $600 million.
The program has been in effect for only a few years. We have provided
for additional funding in many similarly related situations. We believe
the priorities established were appropriate. Had there been a
suggestion for an offset, had the Senator from Connecticut made a
suggestion that this priority was more valuable than others, we would
have been willing to consider it. But it simply breaks the allocations
and therefore the point of order has been raised. We urge it be
sustained and not waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in favor of the motion to
waive the Budget Act?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is a
motion, to the Senator's amendment, on the Budget Act.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 2 minutes to
explain the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was reduced to 2 minutes equally divided.
Those opposed to the motion have already spoken. The Senator has 1
minute to speak.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to my colleagues, very briefly, this
amendment is a carryforward to what has been offered by Senator
Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Murray, all
trying to improve the quality of public education in the country. One
of the key issues is afterschool programs.
We know from parents all across the country the most dangerous period
for 5 million children unattended is between 3 and 6 in the afternoon.
Good afterschool programs are meaningful. The country wants it. School
boards have asked for it. But despite efforts, we have only funded 310
afterschool programs. Last year, there were 2,500, close to 3,000,
applications for afterschool dollars. We could only meet the requests
of 310 school districts.
It seems to me we must do something to improve the quality of
education with good afterschool programs, when children are most at
risk, most vulnerable, when they get involved with habits of smoking,
and alcohol, of marijuana, when they are victimized. As we know by
every police study, afterschool programs work.
I realize there are budgetary concerns, but we spend less than one-
half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on the quality of public
education in this country. That is a disgrace.
What we have offered in these series of amendments is to improve our
Federal investment in education. This amendment is to improve the
quality of afterschool programs for the 5 million children in America
who need that assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3672.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:--
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Inouye

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored
against the allocation of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes
in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is only fair to say to the
Members that we are going to try to enforce the more limited time on
these votes. I know we try to accommodate Senators on both sides when
they get delayed because of elevators or the subway or whatever. But it
is also unfair to the managers and people trying to do the bill, when
we are all here, if we can't do the votes in the prescribed time. We
will push for that.
Secondly, I commend the managers for trying to begin to make some
progress. We have had a whole series of votes here in this grouping--
four, I guess. But we still have an awful lot of pending amendments. I
don't want to mention a number because it is too scary.
I can't complain about the Democratic side because there are almost
as many amendments on the Republican side. When Members are asked to
come and either work out their amendments or offer them, they are too
busy to get it done. We need to get this Labor, HHS, and Education
appropriations bill done tonight. In order to do that, it is going to
take an awful lot of work. The managers, or the whips, Harry Reid and
Don Nickles, can't do it by themselves. Some are beginning to say how
about Thursday night. When we get Labor-HHS appropriations done, we are
going to the Interior appropriations bill, plus we have the military
construction conference report with the emergency provisions, providing
funds that we have been wanting to get completed for defense and for
disasters and

[[Page S5978]]

for Colombia. We may not get that until late Thursday night, so that we
can't vote on it until Friday. We will have other votes on Friday. So
we have to complete this bill, the Interior appropriations bill, and
the MILCON conference report.

I thank Senator Daschle for his work in that effort and for his
support as we try to complete this work. I know it is a lot to do in 3
days, but I know we can do it if we really stick with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join in the request made by the
majority leader to try to cooperate in a way to allow us closure on
this bill. He has proposed an aggressive agenda. At the very least, we
have to finish this bill. As he said, there are scores of amendments
that have to be addressed before we can complete our work. I want to
finish this bill this week. I want to be as cooperative and as forceful
with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in accommodating that
kind of schedule. We have been on this bill, and we have had a good
debate with good amendments and a lot of votes. There will be more
amendments and votes.
There comes a time when we have to try to bring this to a close. I
want to do it as soon as we can and still accommodate Senators who have
good amendments to offer. Please come to the floor and agree to time
limits for each amendment. Work with us to see if we can't winnow down
the list a little bit. We have had some cooperation, but it is going to
take a lot more cooperation if we, indeed, are going to get the bill
done on time.
I believe we are ready to vote, Mr. President.

Amendment No. 3659

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the
motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Kerry amendment. Who
yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending matter is the motion of the
Senator from Massachusetts to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to address the digital
divide that all of us are aware is significantly handicapping the
capacity of a lot of Americans to participate in the new marketplace.
The House of Representatives has recognized this problem to the tune of
$517 million. In our budget, we are only at $425 million. We are going
to vote in the Senate on the H-1B visa, allowing 200,000-plus people to
be imported into this country because of our lack of commitment to our
own citizens in developing their skills for the new marketplace.
This is an opportunity to make it clear that, for teachers and their
ability to be able to teach, for virtual high school capacity to have
advanced placement, in order to enhance the ability of our young to
learn the new marketplace skills and to close the digital divide, we
need to make this commitment.
I think everybody in the Senate knows that with this surplus, with
our ability to be able to make the choices we have in the budget, we
have allowed for a waiver of the budget precisely for this kind of
moment. I ask my colleagues to join me in saying the House of
Representatives will not have a better sense of this priority than the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call on our colleagues to oppose the
waiver. This bill has $4.5 billion more than last year's, $100 million
over the President's request, and it is a matter of allocation of
priorities.
There is no doubt that technical literacy is an important objective.
We have, in the Senate bill, $425 million. If the Senator from
Massachusetts could establish its priority over others, and add
offsets, that is something we would be glad to consider. I wish we had
more money to spend on things such as technical literacy, but we do
not. To accept this amendment would exceed our 302(b) allocations.
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the waiver.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the budget act in relation to Amendment No. 3659. The yeas and
nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays, 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

YEAS--48

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Inouye

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays
are 51. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting, not having
voted in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not
agreed to.
The amendment would increase the budget authority and outlays scored
against the allocations of the Labor, Health, and Human Services, and
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that
subcommittee has reached the limits of its allocation. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Amendment No. 3638

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on
the motion to waive the Budget Act by the Senator from Rhode Island,
Mr. Reed.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would add an additional $100
million to the appropriated funds for the GEAR UP program. GEAR UP is
the centerpiece of our efforts to reach out to disadvantaged students
and give them both the skills and the confidence to go on to college.
It is particularly clear in low-income neighborhoods that young people
and families do not have either the access to college or the kind of
skills they need to make it all the way through high school into
college.
This program does that. It complements the Pell grant. It complements
other programs because it actually gives young people, starting the
sixth or seventh grade, the tutoring, the mentoring, the confidence,
the ability to go through high school, and go on to college.
By voting for this amendment, we will say to scores of disadvantaged
children: You can succeed; you can go to college; you can take your
place in American society as a college graduate. I urge all of my
colleagues to support this incredibly important program, to make
opportunities real in the lives of all of our citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt this is a good program.
It has been in effect only since 1999 when we put in $120 million; last
year, up to $200 million; this year our figure is $225 million.
Again, it is a matter of priorities. This bill has $4.5 billion more
than last year's education bill. It is $100 million higher than the
President's figure. When the Senator from Rhode Island argued the
matter as being a very special program, I posed a practical question:
What should be offset? What is less important?
We think we have established the appropriate priorities. As much as
we

[[Page S5979]]

want to have additional funds for a program of this sort, it simply
isn't there. The extra million dollars would exceed our 302(b)
allocation. Therefore, we ask our colleagues not to waive the Budget
Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3638. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--52

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Inouye

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored
against the allocations to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and that
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

Amendment No. 3678

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes for debate on the
Kennedy amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment basically follows the
President's recommendation, and that is to provide a cost-of-living
increase to the training programs for youth and adult workers in this
country.
At the present time, half of all the employers in this country
provide no training whatsoever, the other half of the employers provide
1 percent of payroll costs, and 80 percent of that training goes to
management level workers.
We have talked a good deal about H-1B visas and bringing into the
United States those guest workers who have special skills, but I think
we have a basic responsibility to ensure continuing training programs
for America's workers as we continue to expand our economy and compete
in the world.
That amendment provides an important increase for training programs.
Two years ago, along with Senator Jeffords, we consolidated the
training programs. We now have an effective one-stop system that will
offer real opportunities for workers.
Finally, this amendment also restores the Summer Jobs Program.
Without this amendment, there will be no Summer Jobs Program for the
youth of this country. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as with so many of the pending
amendments, the objective is good if we had more funding. We have
increased the funding for the Department of Labor by $400 million. We
have funded two new programs requested by the administration: incumbent
worker training for $30 million and responsible reintegration of
youthful offenders for $20 million.
Over the last 4 years, there has been a 32-percent increase for
dislocated workers and a 25-percent increase for the Job Corps. If it
were possible to have additional funding, we would be glad to provide
it. We think we have established the priorities in an appropriate order
for this complex bill. I ask the motion to waive the Budget Act be
denied.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3678. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:--

[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Abraham
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Inouye

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored
against the allocations to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request and
will then reclaim the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following listed amendments be the only remaining first-degree
amendments in order to the pending Labor-HHS appropriations bill and
they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to HMO-related
amendments, they be subject to second-degree amendments relating to the
subject matter of the conferenced HMO bill or the underlying Labor-HHS
bill or the original first-degree language.
The list is Specter managers' amendment; Domenici 3561, telecom
training center; Domenici 3662, telecom training center; Frist 3654,
education research; Jeffords 3655, IDEA; Jeffords 3656, medicine
management; Jeffords 3677, Public Health Service Act; Jeffords 3676,
high school; Collins 3657, defibrillator----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a moment? If I could
respectfully request, maybe we could just submit our two lists,
Democrat and Republicans lists. The staffs have looked at them. Unless
the Senator wants to read

[[Page S5980]]

them for some reason, we have 80-some on our side that we don't want to
read.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, that would be fine with me, Mr. President. The
question would arise as to how we are going to get consent if Members
don't know what is on the list.
Mr. REID. We have made on our side numerous hotlines to Members. We
had the 11 o'clock time that we were going to submit the amendments. If
the Senator wants to read them, that is fine with me.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
lists be printed in the Record as they are. Senators knew there
was a time. They checked this list. Statements were made. I think it
would save some time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I will object until I can
get some understanding or we can get some understanding from the
majority leader as to when we are going to have a date set for a vote
on PNTR. This is an issue which transcends politics, if I might have
the attention of the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know we are in a hurry. We are trying to
get through with this bill. I think that is important work, and I am
for it. Let me make my point very succinctly.
This bill, in section 515, has a provision that changes current law
and shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income
program, from October back to September. What that does is shift $2.4
billion worth of spending out of the budget year for which we are
writing this appropriation back into the previous fiscal year. In the
process, it allows $2.4 billion more to be spent this year by spending
$2.4 billion in the previous fiscal year. This payment shift was
specifically debated during the budget resolution debate. It was
rejected. Part of the agreement that was made that passed the budget
was that there would be no payment shift on SSI.
This provision is subject to a point of order because it violates the
budget agreement. It shifts spending into fiscal year 2000 and drives
up spending in that year $2.4 billion above the level provided for in
the budget.
If we are going to write budgets, they have to have some meaning.
This is not just some minor provision. The debate on this issue was a
key element of the debate on that budget, and the Budget Committee and
the Senate specifically rejected this payment shift.
So on the basis of that, Mr. President, I make a point of order that
section 515 of the bill, as amended, violates section 311 of the Budget
Act, since it would cause fiscal year 2000 budget authority and outlays
to exceed the spending aggregates in the budget resolution.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget
Act, as amended, I move to waive section 311 of that act with respect
to the consideration of this amendment.
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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have just had a discussion with the
Senator from Texas about setting this issue aside so that we can
proceed with other matters and try to make a determination as to how we
can solve this issue.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, objection. Respectfully, I know how hard the
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa worked on this
measure. But with this hanging over our heads, we might as well get
this resolved now. We have spent 3 or 4 days on this bill already. If
this prevails, we are all through here. So we believe this matter
should be resolved now.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it takes unanimous consent to set it
aside. I urge the Senator from Nevada to reconsider. We had an issue
yesterday raised by the chairman of the Finance Committee, and there
was an agreement between the chairman of the Finance Committee and the
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee as to what would happen
in conference, that items would be taken out, and that we would seek an
additional allocation.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to remind
my colleagues that sustaining this point of order does not bring down
the bill. Under the unanimous consent agreement the bill is being
considered under, sustaining this point of order would simply strike
section 515.
I am perfectly willing to let the Senate go on with other amendments.
I am going to insist on this point of order at some point, and it will
have to come to a resolution. But if we can do other business while
this is being discussed, I think that is a good idea. The point of
order is a very targeted point of order against section 515, not
against the bill.
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada will state it.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the objection of the Senator from Nevada
is withdrawn and another amendment is considered, would the Senator
still have the same right to object to any further proceedings after
this amendment that would be brought up next is disposed of?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Normally, the point of order would occur after
another amendment had been disposed of.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will
propound a question under the reservation.
I am trying to understand the consequences of the amendment. Let me
reserve the right to object while I ask the Senator from Texas and the
Senator from Pennsylvania this: If the point of order is sustained, can
we get some notion of what consequences it will have on the spending in
this bill for education, labor, and other issues?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might respond, if the point of order
is sustained, we would lose $2.4 billion and there would be required an
adjustment of the bill which would be catastrophic.
So it is my suggestion that we set it aside, taking the willingness
of the Senator from Texas to do that, and then proceed with other
amendments so we can try to figure out what other allocation might be
possible. We have an amendment ready by the Senator from Vermont and
one by the Senator from North Carolina. We have not had many Republican
amendments. It is my hope that we can proceed. We have to find a way
out of this. If we have a little time, we have a chance to find our way
out of it. So I hope we will proceed.

If I may have the attention of the Senator from Nevada, he will have
the opportunity to--we will have to set it aside, as I understand the
parliamentary ruling, each time a new amendment is called up. Is that
correct, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. So I hope we will set it aside for the two amendments
that we now have lined up and ready to go.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, continuing to reserve the right to object,
the Senator from Pennsylvania talked about if this prevails, the
requirement of an adjustment to the bill would be ``catastrophic.''
That was the word he used. I am trying to understand the consequences
of that. What kind of adjustment would we be talking about with respect
to this bill on Education and Labor?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't know how this percentage worked.
I am advised that with this provision there would be an across-the-
board 6.75 percent cut to bring the bill under the allocation.
I am not sure of that math, although that is the representation made
to me. If you take $2.4 billion out of $104.5 billion, that, it would
seem to me, would be under 3 percent. But it would be very material.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a
critically important piece of legislation. It is a funding bill for
education and labor

[[Page S5981]]

issues and a range of things that are very important. If the
consequence of the motion offered by the Senator from Texas would be to
require a substantial across-the-board cut to this piece of
legislation, it is of significant interest to virtually every Member of
this body.
I don't believe we ought to go on. If the Senator from Nevada chooses
not to object, I shall object. But I will leave it to the Senator from
Nevada to comment as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, before we break down in the tears and the
shock that would come from not shifting spending from one year to
another to break the budget by $2.4 billion, let me remind my
colleagues that with this shift and with the entitlement changes that
Senator Stevens has said we are not going to make, this bill will grow
by 20.5 percent over last year. You can't find that growth rate even
going as far back as the Carter administration. You have to go all the
way back to when L.B.J. was President to find a bill growing that fast.
If the point of order is sustained eliminating the phony pay shift
and an adjustment is made in spending, this bill will still be growing
by 17.7 percent. Granted that we each look at the world through
different glasses. I don't see that as cataclysm; I see that as
somewhat of a movement toward fiscal restraint.
But the important point is this provision violates the Budget Act. We
considered this payment shift in the budget. We specifically rejected
it. We set out numbers that were meant to meet the targets for spending
that were agreed to. This provision violates the Budget Act, and it
should be stricken. I will insist on the point of order against it, but
I am perfectly willing to let amendments move forward. If the minority
doesn't want amendments to be considered, it is up to them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that the 17.7 percent would
be the across the board on outlays. I have heard what the Senator from
Texas says about those percentages. I do not think they are accurate.
We will compute the percentages. That simply is not factually so. I
managed last year's bill. But we will tally them up and make
representation on the floor at a later point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe the pending motion is the motion
to waive the Budget Act. Is that not true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Is that not a debatable motion?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a debatable motion.
Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
Mr. President, the figures we just heard from the Senator from Texas
really are quite phony. They include all kinds of advanced funding and
everything else to come to that figure that the Senator threw out on
the 20 percent.
But you have to ask yourself: Why are we facing this now? What the
Senator from Texas is trying to do is to save one day. It is one day, I
tell my friend from North Dakota.
This provision was put in there not by me and not by the minority. It
was put in there by Senator Stevens in order to allow us to do the
legitimate work we have to do to meet the obligations we have in
education and in health and NIH, and all of the other things in this
bill which has pretty wide support. It wasn't us. The chairman of the
Appropriations Committee put it in.
The Senator from Texas--let's be clear about it--is moving the
outlays for SSI paychecks from one day to the previous day--that is all
he is doing--one day. But that one day will cause about a 6-percent
across-the-board cut in NIH, cancer research, Alzheimer's research,
education funding, Pell grants, Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
IDEA, you name it--a 6-percent across-the-board cut because the Senator
from Texas wants to move by one day the payment of SSI. He wants to
move it to one day later. Last year, we moved it one day forward. He
wants to move it to one day later.
Who cares about one day? Why is it such a big deal to go from
September 30 to October 1? But if it means that it allows us to move
forward with this bill and to have the adequate funding in this bill
when we go to conference, it means a lot.
This really is a mischievous point of order because it really doesn't
do anything. It doesn't save us any money. The money we will spend on
SSI will either go out September 30 or it will go out October 1. It is
going out. The Senator from Texas is not stopping that money. It is
going to go out. It is either going to go out on one day or the next
day. He is not saving a nickel. But by doing this, he is causing all
kinds of problems on this bill. That is why I say it is just simply a
mischievous motion.
Of course, I support my colleague, the chairman, in the motion to
waive. Hopefully, we will hear from Senator Stevens on this. But there
is really no substance. I guess what I am trying to say is that there
is no substance to the motion--none. You don't save a nickel. You don't
help anybody. You don't hurt anybody. You just move the payment from
one day to the next. That is all. But you sure hurt this bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving my right to the floor, I will yield for a
question.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I wonder if the
Senator recalls last year a technique similar to this used on the
Department of Defense bill. I am just curious whether our colleague,
the Senator from Texas, came to the floor to make a point of order when
it had to do with defense. I don't know the answer to that. I am
curious. It seems to me if there is a consistent point of order against
the deployment of this technique, one wouldn't just make it on
education issues, which, of course, to you, me, and others is very
important. It is some of the most important spending we do. It is some
of the most important investments we make in the country.

I ask the question, Does the Senator know whether a similar point of
order was made by our colleague when it had to do with the Defense
Department last year?
Mr. HARKIN. I don't know the answer to that question. I was not
involved in the appropriations bill for defense. I will leave that to
others. I have no knowledge of that. I accept the Senator's insight
into that. I don't know the answer as to whether the Senator from Texas
objected to that. The Senator from Texas can certainly speak for
himself in that regard. But I guess the Record will show one way or the
other.
Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask another question, the point here is this
bill deals with the effort the Federal Government makes to respond to
the education needs in this country. Most of education funding, of
course, comes from State and local governments. We provide some funding
in a range of areas. We provide assistance in VA, health care, and a
range of other issues. This is a very important piece of legislation
that invests prominently in the lives of the people of this country.
The technique that is being objected to is not a new technique; it
has been employed before. That is the point I was making. Is it a good
technique? I don't know. You could find other ways to adequately fund
these needed programs. Some in this Chamber may not want to fund these
programs. They may think they are not a priority perhaps. This is not a
new technique. But apparently when it comes to funding for VA, health
care, and education, we have people come to the floor to make a point
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. BAUCUS. On another matter, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from
Iowa to yield for a question.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield, without losing my right to
the floor, for a question from my friend from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I could consult with the good Senator
from Iowa on a matter which I raised earlier, that is, the Senator from
Mississippi, the majority leader, asked unanimous consent for the
Senate to take up a list of amendments on both sides and to have
printed that list of amendments with respect to the pending bill.

[[Page S5982]]

I asked the majority leader if it might not be a good idea for the
leader to set a date certain in July to bring up PNTR. I am not asking
the Senator for his view on the bill, but I ask the Senator if he
thinks it is a good idea to bring the bill up and at least have a vote
on it, particularly in July. Wouldn't it be better to have a bill
brought up in July than, say, in September, given the fact that it has
passed the House, given the fact that we will bring it up sometime this
session of Congress, and given the fact that delay is dangerous?
Does the Senator agree it would be a good idea to bring it up and
have a date certain, at least for insurance that we are going to vote
on it this year? The month of July would be the preferable month to
vote on it rather than a subsequent month; does the Senator agree?
Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Montana, who is a strong
supporter on the Finance Committee of the permanent normal trade
relations with China--and he has worked very hard on this issue--I know
he desires, as many others, to get on with that, debate it, have a vote
and move on.
The Senator is asking this Senator a question on which I do not feel
qualified to make an answer. I am not involved in this issue or on the
Finance Committee. Right now my interest is getting this bill through.
I am trying to help and do what I can to get the amendments through and
get adequate funding for education, for NIH, for health care, for human
services, to try to educate our kids, and attend to the human needs of
our people. We are trying to get this through.
I have not had time now to consider when the PNTR should be brought
up. I know my friend from Montana is obviously well versed in this
subject. I probably would accede to his knowledge of this issue and
when it ought to be brought up. As to my own view, I don't think this
Senator is qualified to respond.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I will not object to a unanimous
consent request on this bill today, but I do hope prior to recessing
for the July recess we can work out an agreement, that the majority
leader will be able to make a statement, the result of which is to make
it clear that the vote will come up in July.
I reserve my right as to what action I will take tomorrow. I thank
the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, back to the point at hand, I want everyone
to understand what this mischievous motion is all about. All it does,
in order to save the money, is move the date from October 1 to
September 30. Last year, we moved it up to October 1; we moved it back
to September 30.
The motion of the Senator from Texas says, no, you can't do it
September 30; you have to do it on October 1. In fairness and in
reality, the SSI checks should go out at the end of the month. If the
Senator has an objection, he should have filed it last year because we
moved it from September 30 to October 1. SSI checks are to go out the
end of the month. All we are doing is bringing it back to where it
really ought to be, at the end of the month.
Be that as it may, we are only talking about 1 day. I don't think too
many people are hurt by 1 day. The Senator moves it back to October 1
when it ought to be September 30.
What does his motion do if it is upheld? We will have almost a $3
billion cut in education, a $1.4 billion cut in NIH, a $210 million cut
from the Centers for Disease Control, a $300 million cut from Head
Start, a $77 million cut from community health centers.
I heard some talk earlier about going to conference and taking care
of it there. The House bill is lower than ours. If we cut these numbers
here, when we go to conference, we will be locked into the lower
numbers. So it has a great impact.
We have a lot of amendments that have been filed--not only on the
Democratic side but the Republican side as well--from Senators Collins,
DeWine, Smith, Lott, Hutchison, Coverdell, Ashcroft, Helms, Nickles,
Smith, Gramm, and a whole bunch on our side, too.
How can we debate these amendments in any kind of a legitimate
fashion, if, in fact, we don't even know what kind of money we are
talking about? Some of the amendments add money; Some take it away;
Some modify.
If we go ahead and have the amendments, we don't know whether the
motion from the Senator from Texas is going to hold or whether it will
be waived, so we will be debating these amendments in a vacuum without
the full knowledge of exactly what dollar amounts we are looking at.
Are we going to cut it by 6.75 percent across the board or not? We
don't know that yet.
Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. In formulating this question as to whether we are going
to cut it by 6.75 percent, may I suggest to the distinguished ranking
member and comanager that we will not cut funding by 6.75 percent.
What we are seeking to do now is to obtain a reallocation.
Discussions are underway with the chairman of the full committee to
reallocate some funds to this bill from other bills, which delays the
day of reckoning for the whole process. That is the way things are
done, not only around here but generally.
It is my hope we can accomplish that. The chairman of the full
committee is now busy working on a supplemental, but he will be here in
a few minutes. I believe we will find a way on a reallocation to
satisfy the issue which has been raised by the Senator from Texas.
Unfortunately, we had three amendments queued up and ready to go to
make progress, but seeing the state of affairs on the floor, our
amendment offerers have dispersed. We are trying to find some more
amendments, and we have an amendment ready to be offered.
It is my hope that on the representation we are making progress on
finding an allocation, which will leave our bill at $104.5 billion, we
take the Senator from Texas up on his willingness to set his issue
aside so we can proceed with the bill.
Mr. REID. It sounds reasonable. We have one person who wanted me to
protect him. He is across the hall. I will see if I can get that taken
care of. We object for a little bit.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I had yielded for a
question. I hope we can get this clearance. I think we probably can
move ahead. From what my distinguished chairman said, I hope that can
happen in terms of reallocation and we can put this thing to bed.
An objection to laying the motion to waive aside holds right now
until we can get clearance on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments
made by our colleague from Iowa. My point of order can be called many
things, but calling it mischievous--not that there is anything wrong
with being mischievous in defense of the public interest--but my point
of order is anything but mischievous.
Our colleague from Iowa would have us believe that shifting SSI
payments from fiscal year 2001 to 2000 does not increase spending.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Under current law, the
payments for SSI will be made on October 2 and they will be part of the
2001 budget. What this illegal--under the Budget Act--payment shift
does is shift this payment back into fiscal year 2000 and raids the
surplus that we have all pledged to protect by a total of $2.4 billion,
freeing up $2.4 billion more to be spent next year. So the first point
is, sustaining this point of order will mean we will spend $2.4 billion
less.
Second, a point of order was not raised against the D.C.
appropriations bill last year on the pay shift because there was no
point of order available. That pay shift did not violate the budget in
effect at that time. This SSI payment shift was considered in the
budget and it was rejected, specifically rejected.
Let me explain exactly the arithmetic of where we are. In allocating
spending for this fiscal year, the Appropriations Committee allocated
to Labor-HHS appropriations, a subcommittee that funds many important
programs for America, a 13.5-percent increase in spending. That was far
and away the largest increase in spending of any budget allocation. You
would

[[Page S5983]]

have to go all the way back to when Jimmy Carter was President to find
that level of spending.
The first thing this committee did was it put some entitlement
reforms in the bill, which the chairman of the committee has already
said are not going to be made. They are going to be taken out in
conference. But by claiming that they are going to be made, they
magically raised their increase in spending from 13.5 percent over last
year's level to 17.7 percent over last year's level. You are now in the
range where going back to when Jimmy Carter was President does not hold
up. We are getting to the point where you have to go back to the time
when Lyndon Johnson was President to find increases like that.
But even that was not enough. What they did was include a phony
payment shift--by taking SSI payments, which by law are to be made on
October 2, which is after the beginning of the new fiscal year, in
other words, money they would have had to have funded in the 2001
budget--by taking that payment and moving it into fiscal year 2000,
they can rob the surplus by $2.4 billion and spend $2.4 billion next
year. By doing that, they would then raise the increase in spending
over last year's level to 20.5 percent.
These tears that are being shed about my point of order, which simply
calls on the Senate to live up to its budget, these tears are being
shed because by doing that we could increase spending in this area only
by 17.7 percent. By enforcing the budget, rather than increasing
spending by 20.5 percent, we would increase spending by 17.7 percent.
How many working families have seen their income go up by 17.7 percent
in the last year? I submit, not very many families.
So what I have done is simply said: When we adopted a budget we meant
it. When we set out what we were going to spend in this coming year, we
meant for those constraints to be binding. What is literally happening
in the Congress is that this surplus is burning a gigantic hole in our
pocket. We are seeing spending increases at levels that have not been
approached since Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. It
is very dangerous for two reasons. No. 1, if we have a downturn, those
surpluses are not going to be there. Second, some of us had hoped that
we would repeal the marriage penalty, so we do not have to make people
in America who fall in love and get married pay $1,400 a year
in additional income taxes for that right. We had hoped to repeal the
death tax so your family would not have to sell off your family farm or
your business that your parents worked a lifetime to build up, simply
because they died. But if we are going to be increasing spending like
this and busting the budget, we are never going to have an opportunity
to share the benefits of this prosperity with working Americans.

When our colleague says this point of order does not save money, that
is simply not true. It saves $2.4 billion.
Second, I am going to raise a point of order on the supplemental
appropriation for military construction. I am going to raise it because
what we are doing is obscene in terms of spending, and the bill does
violate the Budget Act. I intend to raise the point of order.
Let me finally say that this point of order is important. In fact, we
have used it five times today to prevent new spending from being added.
The amazing thing is that we have before us an appropriations bill that
grows by one-fifth, over 20 percent, and yet we have spent all day long
where the minority has been trying to add more and more and more
spending. You begin to wonder when is it enough? Is there any
appropriations bill that could have been written that would have been
enough?
Yet with all this spending, we are all talking about locking away
money for Social Security, locking away money for Medicare, but the
spending goes on and on and on.
I raised the budget point of order. If Senator Stevens comes over and
reallocates money and takes it away from another use so the total level
of spending does not rise, he certainly has a right to do that. That
will mean this point of order will stand. This phony payment shift will
be stricken. But the money will be allocated to be spent on these
programs and taken away from something else. That is how the budget is
supposed to work. We are supposed to make decisions like American
families make decisions. If they want a new refrigerator they don't buy
a new washing machine. If they want to go on vacation, they don't buy a
new car. They set priorities.
Our problem is we never set priorities. So I think this point of
order is important. This point of order is an enforcement of the
budget. We ought to be holding the line on spending. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Texas. I
know sometimes it upsets people when we come out and say: Wait a
minute, we are breaking the budget.
I work with the Senator from Texas on the Budget Committee and he
happens to be right. I also compliment my colleague from Pennsylvania,
who is managing the bill. As the Senator from Texas mentioned, no
matter what is in this bill, many people--particularly on the other
side--say it is never enough. No matter what is in there, it is never
enough. The Senator from Pennsylvania put in more money than the
President requested for education, and we have had four or five
amendments saying let's spend billions more. It is never enough. No
matter what, we more than matched the President.
The bill we have before us has outlays greater than the President
requested and it is still not enough.
I happen to be one who is, I don't want to say a wonk on numbers, but
I am really picky on numbers. I think we ought to be accurate on
numbers. I asked people before, by how much does this bill grow? The
Senator from Texas just says it grows by a fifth. He understates the
growth by just a tad. The growth in this bill is 20.4 percent in budget
authority according to CBO. That is a lot of BA growth. Some people say
we are growing other areas of the budget, and that is true. No other
area of the budget is growing nearly as fast. The Defense
appropriations bill we already had before us and passed, if my memory
serves me correctly, was growing at 7-point-some percent. That is a
lot. It is a big increase. This is growing almost three times as much
in budget authority.
People ask: What does that mean? It means the money we authorize to
be spent; we are committing the Government to spend that amount.
What are outlays? Sometimes outlays are easier to figure. The growth
percentage in outlays is not quite as much. The growth percentage in
outlays is 12 percent. The Senator from Texas wants to take off $2.4
billion because that is an offset. That is, frankly, a faulty offset.
It is only in there so we can have more money in real growth in
outlays, in budget authority, in commitment to growth spending.
There is actually $4.9 billion in outlay offsets. The Senator from
Texas might have been able to do the full $4.9 billion. I know he can
do $2.4 billion, but there is $4.9 billion in offsets. I believe the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said we will drop those
offsets.
The real program growth--and this is what we are talking about in
BA--is $104.1 billion. That compares to last year's $86.5 million in
budget authority. That is a growth of 20.4 percent. That is a lot.
If we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Texas, the growth will
still be in excess of 17 percent. Granted, I know it will cause some
consternation. I know the members of the committee will have to
reshuffle and limit the growth of the spending in commitment to 17.5
percent. I happen to think that is doable. Maybe it is not the easiest
thing in the world because we made commitments to grow spending more
than the President did in this area or that area. Certainly, 17-percent
growth is adequate, sufficient, and responsible.
As to the bill before us, one can only say it complies with the
budget if they take into consideration $4.9 billion of offsets which,
frankly, will not happen.
Again, I compliment my colleague from Texas for his amendment. I will
submit for the Record a chart I put together which shows budget
authority and outlays for the Labor-HHS bill for the last 10 years.
For my colleagues' information, in 1990, 10 years ago, budget
authority was

[[Page S5984]]

$43.9 billion. Last year, it was $86.5 billion. It basically doubled in
the last 10 years.
The bill before us is trying to grow at 20 percent. In other words,
it will double in about 4 years at twice the rate of growth of what we
have done in the last 10 years. I think that would be a mistake.
I am not critical of anyone. I compliment my colleague from Texas. He
has a good amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the chart which shows the growth in this
particular area of the budget, the Labor-HHS budget, be printed in the
Record. It shows growth in outlays and in budget authority for the last
10 years.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

LABOR/HHS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA growth Outlay
Budget Outlays growth
authority (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990........................ 43.9 49.4 ......... .........
1991........................ 51.0 54.4 16.2 10.2
1992........................ 60.1 58.5 17.9 7.5
1993........................ 63.2 62.7 5.1 7.3
1994........................ 68.1 68.7 7.8 9.6
1995........................ 67.4 70.2 -1.0 2.1
1996........................ 63.4 69.1 -5.9 -1.6
1997........................ 71.0 71.9 11.9 4.1
1998........................ 80.7 76.2 13.7 6.1
1999........................ 85.1 80.2 5.4 5.2
2000........................ 86.5 86.3 1.6 7.7
2001 House Net.............. 97.2 91.1 12.4 5.5
2001 House Gross*........... 101.8 94.3 17.8 9.2
2001 Senate Net............. 98.1 93.1 13.5 7.9
2001 Senate Gross*.......... 104.1 96.7 20.4 12.0
2001 President.............. 105.8 94.6 22.3 9.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*=Gross spending levels do not include mandatory offsets, contingent
emergencies, or other adjustments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a couple minutes. I heard the
Senator from Texas talking about there is never enough. Of course, he
just talked about Democrats on this side offering amendments to
increase funding. I thought what is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
There are Senators on that side of the aisle who have amendments to
increase spending in this bill: Senator Cochran, Senator Collins,
Senator DeWine, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords. Those are the only
ones I have right now from their side that I know of who add money to
the bill. It is not only Democrats; Republicans, too. There are some on
that side of the aisle, as well as on this side of the aisle, who
understand we have unmet needs in this country when it comes to dealing
with education, health, human services, and research.
I point out there is all this talk about how much this budget has
increased. It all depends on how you look at it. It depends on your
baseline. It depends on your numbers. The Senator from Texas probably
knows that as well as anybody around here. So we can look at it a
different way.
Let's look at it this way, for example: Twenty years ago, the share
of the dollar that went for elementary and secondary education in this
country that came from the Federal Government was a little over 11
cents. In other words, 20 years ago, 11 cents out of every dollar that
was put into elementary and secondary education came from the Federal
Government. Today, that is down to 7 cents. We are going backwards. We
put the burden on our property taxpayers around the country. It is an
unfair tax, a tax that can be highly regressive, especially in an area
where there are a lot of elderly people who may not be working and live
on Social Security, but they still have to pay the property taxes. When
one looks at it that way, one can say we are shirking our
responsibility. If we had just kept up that 11-percent level for the
last 20 years, we would not be having all these amendments.
Second, the figures they are throwing out about a 20-percent increase
is about as phony as the piece of paper it is written on because that
takes into account a lot of things that are not figured into how much
we are actually increasing programs. If one looks at the program
increases--education and the other program increases--this year over
last year, it comes in at a little over 9 percent, somewhere between 9
and 10 percent.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 8.2 percent.
Mr. HARKIN. My chairman is always ahead of me on these things--8.2
percent. If one looks at the increases we are making next year over
this year, it comes to 8.2 percent, not 20 percent. I wanted to make
the record clear. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have one sentence in reply, and that
is, we will provide the details as to increasing 8.2 percent instead of
the alleged 20.4 percent, but we want to do it at a later point so we
can move ahead with amendments.
We have two amendments lined up: one from the Senator from Ohio, Mr.
Voinovich, and one from the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I ask
unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so we can
proceed with the Voinovich amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, will I be next in line
for an amendment?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the Voinovich amendment, we proceed to the Landrieu amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No 3641

(Purpose: To permit appropriations to be used for programs under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment
numbered 3641.
On page 59, line 10, insert ``; to carry out part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411
et seq.);'' after ``qualified teachers''.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I speak on this amendment I sent
to the desk, I would like to say just a couple of words in regard to
the point of order the Senator from Texas has just made.
I was one of the Members of the Senate who worked with the Senator
from Texas to place in the budget resolution certain points of order
which we believed we needed to have to make sure spending did not
increase more than what the budget resolution provided for.
His point of order is directed at exactly what we were concerned
about. It is what I might refer to, in all due respect, as a gimmick.
In considering the 2001 budget, money that was put into the FY 2001
budget is being moved back into the 2000 budget in order to make
available $2.4 billion more than could be spent otherwise.
What does that mean? That means that when you shove the cost back
into the year 2000, you are going to use $2.4 billion of the on-budget
surplus that many of us recently voted to use to pay down the national
debt.
When we put a budget resolution together, at least--I thought it
meant something. One of the things that disturbed me last year was
that, at the end of the game, we did all kinds of things to exceed what
we had originally anticipated to spend. So here we are today, trying to
do the same kind of thing we did at the end of last year.
I think this Senate should sustain the point of order; that we ought
to live by the budget resolution we agreed to earlier this year, and
that the committee should make the hard choices.
One of the things that was brought up is that in order to pay for
many of the new increases in spending in new programs, mandatory
programs were cut, mandatory programs that I think are fundamental.
Things such as the social services block grant, things such as the CHIP
program. I have been told they will be taken care of later on.
My belief is that if we have a budget resolution and we agree to
spend a certain amount of money, we ought to live within that budget
resolution. I hope we sustain the point of order.
Mr. President, few will dispute that each and every child in this
Nation deserves to be able to obtain a quality education, a fact
Congress recognized 25 years ago when it passed the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Since that time, IDEA has helped ensure that all students, regardless
of their disability, are able to receive the educational services they
need in order to attend their local school.
In my State of Ohio, IDEA has helped thousands of young men and women
go beyond their disabilities and obtain a quality education.

[[Page S5985]]

Thanks to IDEA, Ohio students with debilitating problems like
Cerebral Palsy and autism have been able to receive help in reading and
writing from special education teachers. They can use programs like
Dragon Dictate--a speech recognition program that can be used to
control a word processor-- in order to help them better understand
their school work.
Before IDEA, these children would have been virtually forgotten
elements in our education system. With IDEA, these children are in
school, they are learning and they are growing. And IDEA doesn't just
help disabled students. Alexandra Shannon, a 16 year old student from
Beavercreek, OH, believes that ``enhanced educational opportunities
help everyone.'' In a meeting with one of my staff members just a few
months ago, she told of her friend, Peter, who had learned to walk at
school with the help of his schoolmates. The entire school was brought
closer together by the experience that Alexandra called, the ``joy of
the year.''
However, even with all the success of IDEA across the Nation, the
fact remains that the cost to implement this program is draining money
from our schools and significantly impeding the ability of State and
local educators to fund their own priorities--priorities that include
some of the items my colleagues here in the Senate think should be
funded at the Federal level.
The cost of serving a handicapped student is typically twice as much
as the average amount spent per pupil, while in some school districts,
the cost is higher still. Think of this. In Centerville, OH,
Centerville High School superintendent, Frank DePalma estimates that in
his school, special education services cost 4 to 5 times as much as do
services for nonhandicapped students. He said:

Costs for services such as occupational therapy, speech
therapy and physical therapy continue to skyrocket.

Indeed, the Cincinnati Post wrote in an editorial just 2 months ago
that the city's public schools spend:

$40.3 million a year on disabilities education. That's
nearly 11% of its $365 million budget.

That is 11 percent of their budget.
Many school districts recognize that students with disabilities
require different, and often, expensive needs. They want to help their
students, but they also need and want the financial help that the
Federal Government has promised.
As many of my colleagues may recall, when IDEA was passed in 1975,
Congress thought it was such a national priority, that it promised that
the Federal Government would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of this
program.
To date, the most that Washington has provided to our school
districts under IDEA is 12.6 percent of the educational costs for each
handicapped child; and that was in fiscal year 2000.
The remainder of the cost for IDEA still falls on State and local
governments.
Because the Federal Government has not lived up to its commitment,
IDEA amounts to a huge unfunded Federal mandate. When I was Governor of
Ohio, I fought hard for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in
1995 so that circumstances like this could be avoided in the future.
And just how large an unfunded mandate has IDEA become?
In fiscal year 2000, Congress allocated almost $5 billion for special
education for school-age children. If we had funded IDEA at the 40
percent level that Congress had promised in 1975, we would have
allocated $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 rather than $4.9 billion.
In essence, a $10.7 billion unfunded mandate was passed along to our
State and local governments for IDEA. And that is on top of the 60
percent--or $23.3 billion--for which they are already responsible. So,
for a federally created program, our State and local governments'
``share'' in this fiscal year will amount to $34 billion out of a total
of $38.9 billion.
Indeed, Mr. R. Kirk Hamilton from Southwestern City School, Grove
City, OH has written to me, stating that IDEA is:

an enormous, unfunded mandate which is so expensive and so
cumbersome that the funds are not available to deliver needed
services to children.

Mr. President, that is just wrong.
For all programs under IDEA, the President of the United States
assumes an expenditure of $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. That is
only a $332 million increase from the $6 billion level of funding in
fiscal year 2000.
However, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget contained a whopping
$40.1 billion in discretionary education spending. That is almost
double the $21.1 billion in discretionary education spending allocated
by the Federal Government just 10 years ago in fiscal year 1991, and
nearly 5 times the $8.2 billion spent on discretionary education
spending 25 years ago in 1976. Where is that money going? Think of
that. Where is it going?
It is important to understand that the White House and some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very good at reading
polls. They see that education is of high interest to the American
people.
Even though the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the
funds for education in this country, the White House and these same
colleagues consider themselves, sometimes, I think, to be members of a
national school board.
They have other, new priorities that they believe Washington should
fund instead of providing additional funding for the federally created
IDEA--programs like school construction, afterschool programs, hiring
more teachers, improving technology and training in schools, and
creating community learning centers. They are all great ideas.
They are important initiatives, but they are the responsibility of
our States and local communities. Of course, the politically expedient
thing to do is to support funding for all these programs at the federal
level; it makes us look as if we are ``for'' education. They are high
in the polls. Nevertheless, I believe in the delineation of Federal and
State responsibility, and increased funding for IDEA is a Federal
responsibility.
It is one that we mandated on the school districts. It is part of our
responsibility. We said we would pay for 40 percent of it. It is about
time we paid for 40 percent of it, rather than going off on a lot of
new initiatives.
During our debate on the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, I
offered, and this body adopted, by a vote of 53-47, an amendment
stating that before we fund new education programs, we should make
funds available for IDEA.
The amendment that I am offering today makes good on the commitment
we made in the budget resolution.
Specifically, my amendment would give local education agencies the
flexibility to take $2.7 billion of Federal money under title VI of
this appropriations bill and spend it on IDEA, if they choose. In other
words, we are saying that school districts, if they choose, can use new
money for IDEA.
If the Federal Government was fully funding IDEA, most of the
education initiatives my colleagues are proposing--school construction,
afterschool programs--could be and likely would be taken care of at the
State and local level. That is how our State and local education
leaders want it.
In February, with the help of the Ohio School Board Association and
the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, I contacted Ohio
teachers, superintendents, and educational leaders from urban,
suburban, and rural districts in every part of Ohio to ask what they
would prefer: a full Federal commitment to IDEA or new Federal funding
initiatives.
More than 90 percent of the responses I received so far have shown
that Ohio's education community leaders prefer a full commitment to
IDEA over new programs. I am confident this same poll conducted in
other States would produce a similar result.
Let me read a few responses I received. Mr. Philip Warner,
Superintendent of Ravenna City School wrote:

I believe school districts would benefit the most if
Congress met its obligations under IDEA, therefore allowing
school districts to fund programs that would be specific in
each school district.

David VanLeer, Director of Pupil Services, Euclid City Schools, right
across the street from where I live:

Congress should honor that pledge to provide 40 percent of
the cost of IDEA before any new programs are funded.

Doreen Binnie, speech language pathologist at Colombia local School
District responded, ``Absolutely,'' to the

[[Page S5986]]

question of whether Congress should fund IDEA before new programs.
We must stop acting as if we are the Nation's school board, trying to
fund every education program possible. The truth is, many of the
programs that Members of Congress and the President want to enact
should be funded at the State and local level. In my view, those
programs would have a better chance of being funded if State and local
governments didn't have to divert such a large percentage of their
funds to pay for IDEA. The Federal Government has a commitment to IDEA
and that commitment should be fully honored. I believe our State and
local leaders should be given the flexibility they need to spend new
Federal education dollars that are allocated under this bill to honor
the commitment of IDEA. I appreciate the fact that the appropriations
committee provided increased money for IDEA in this budget.
The fact is, we should say to our local school districts that with
the $2.7 billion which is allocated in title VI one of the options we
should give them is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Under the unanimous consent
agreement, I have the right to offer my amendment at this time.
Mr. REID. Not until we finish the Voinovich amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Voinovich amendment must be disposed of.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been consulting on the
complexities of the bill. If I understand the amendment by the Senator
from Ohio, it is that the title XI block grant of $2.7 billion, which
is divided for class size and construction, may be used for other
purposes at the discretion of the local boards. If they choose not to
use it for construction or class size, it could be used at their
discretion. He wants to be sure those funds can be used for special
education.
Mr. VOINOVICH. That is correct.
Mr. SPECTER. That would be acceptable. It is our purpose that the
local boards, having decided they do not want it for the other
purposes--construction or reduction in class size--may use it as they
decide. We are prepared to accept the Voinovich amendment. We are also
anxious to proceed with the bill.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the minority has reviewed the amendment. I
have spoken with Senator Harkin. We have no objection to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3641) was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. May we have a time agreement on the amendment of the
Senator from Louisiana?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would need about 20 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. May we have a time agreement of 30 minutes, 20 minutes
for the proponents of the measure and 10 minutes for the opponents, if
there are opponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 3645

(Purpose: To provide funding for targeted grants under section 1125 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other
purposes)

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am hoping there will not be opponents
because we think this amendment makes a lot of sense. We are happy to
agree to a time limit because we are interested in moving this debate
along.
I agree with our distinguished colleague from Ohio. I think his is a
good amendment. I commend him for coming to the floor and bringing to
the Senate an issue that is very important to Louisiana, to our
educators, teachers, superintendents, and parents who are very
interested in funding. I thank the Senator for continuing to advocate
for us to fulfill our commitment and meet our promises to our special
education students. I hope the leadership would consider accepting this
amendment, which I offer in good faith, because it does not add money
to the budget. It simply provides greater flexibility.
I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 3645.

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

On page 55, strike line 21 and all that follows through
page 56, line 8, and insert the following: ``Higher Education
Act of 1965, $9,586,800,000, of which $2,912,222,521 shall
become available on July 1, 2001, and shall remain available
through September 30, 2002, and of which $6,674,577,479 shall
become available on October 1, 2001, and shall remain
available through September 30, 2002, for academic year 2000-
2001: Provided, That $6,985,399,000 shall be available for
basic grants under section 1124: Provided further, That up to
$3,500,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary
on October 1, 2000, to obtain updated local educational
agency level census poverty data from the Bureau of the
Census: Provided further, That $1,200,400,000 shall be
available for concentration grants under section 1124A:
Provided further, That $750,000,000 shall be available for
targeted grants under section 1125 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965: Provided further, That grant
awards under sec-''.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment will not require 60 votes
because it does not seek to waive the Budget Act.
I am somewhat in agreement with what Senator Gramm said and our
ranking member, Senator Harkin, about the fact that we do need to be
concerned with the amount of spending. We need to be concerned about
the amount of spending for education, for health, for our military. We
want to make sure we are making smart and wise investments. We want to
make sure we are not getting back into the era of big Government or
irresponsible Government with irresponsible tax breaks. I am much
inclined to support many of the comments that were made.
This amendment fits that debate exactly. I am hoping the leadership
on both sides will see it that way.
Let me begin by telling my colleagues again what this amendment does
not do. It does not ask to waive the Budget Act. It does not add any
money to this budget. It does not reduce one penny of title I money to
any State in the Nation.
It simply attempts to redistribute the moneys within this budget to
reflect a value about which we all speak on both sides of the aisle
each day; that is, the value of trying to target the money in this
budget to those children, families, and communities that need the most
help.
Many communities in Louisiana, California, New York, Michigan, and
Mississippi are struggling to meet their obligations to provide a
quality education for all children, regardless of their race, religion,
or what side of the track they were born on, or whether they have a lot
of money in their household or little money.
We believe that in America every child deserves a quality education.
We say that on this floor over and over and over again. We speak these
words. We say this. But when it comes to writing our budget, which we
are doing today, we don't do it. We don't do it. We have the power to
do it. Fifty votes, right now, could do this. But, unfortunately, I
don't think we may get more than maybe one or two or three or four
because we are very good at talking about equality, fairness and
justice, but when it comes to writing a budget, we don't do it.
As a Democrat, it is hard for me to say, but I have to be honest and
say I am not sure the President's budget reflects that value as closely
as it should. I have to say the Republican budget doesn't reflect that
value, and some of my own colleagues were not reflecting that value.
This amendment, with all due respect to the committee and to
everybody who tried to work on this, attempts to say that with some
portion of this increase, we should increase title I because it is the
only title that attempts

[[Page S5987]]

to send money out in a way to this Nation where the poor children, the
neediest children, get the help and attention, giving complete
flexibility to the local government to decide whether it is additional
teachers, additional resources. Title I has great flexibility. There
are few limitations, but it says let's help the poorest children,
whether it is in Louisiana or Arkansas or Mississippi or California,
and there are many States that would benefit from this change.
All of the increases Senator Gramm talked about, whether it is a 20-
percent increase or an 8-percent increase, for the purpose of my
amendment, are not really the issue because of all of the increase--
whether 20 percent or 8 percent--a small amount, a few tiny pennies,
have been devoted to title I. The poorest children in this Nation, who
have no lobbyists, no big and powerful agencies to represent them up
here, have literally been left out. In addition, the accountability
money that was placed in this budget in past years to make sure the
money was going to the poor districts, the middle-income districts, and
the wealthy districts has been totally taken out.

So this bill we are debating, that has either a 20-percent or 8-
percent increase, literally underfunds the poor children of the Nation,
the moderate-income families, the lower income families, who are
struggling to make the American dream possible for themselves. Yet we
all come here every day and talk about widening the circle of
opportunity, how we want to share the great wealth of this Nation. But
when it comes to funding education for the kids who need it the most,
so they can have a chance, we say no, no, and no. That ``no'' is being
said on the Democratic side, the Republican side and, frankly, from the
White House.
This is one Senator who thinks it is wrong. If I am the only vote on
the bill, let it be so. I think there will be a few others. I don't
think this amendment will pass. I am sure it will be second degreed
because when we can't agree, we offer a commission--I am sure someone
is going to do that--to study the issue because we have to keep
studying the issue of how poor children are affected when their
education is at a disadvantage.
I will vote against a study. I am going to vote for this amendment
because it will simply move within the confines of this bill $750
million, which is still a reasonable amount of money, from one title
into the title I.
I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

STATE ALLOCATIONS AT $738 MILLION (THROUGH BASIC, CONCEN. AND TARGETED)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landrieu
State Amendment Appropriations Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... 144,564 134,762+10 million
Alaska.......................... 21,513 20,225+1 million
Arizona......................... 140,669 130,766+10 million
Arkansas........................ 89,736 84,016+5 million
California...................... 1,155,500 1,075,015+80 million
Colorado........................ 76,628 72,531+4 million
Connecticut..................... 83,202 77,575+6 million
Delaware........................ 23,653 22,429+1 million
DC.............................. 31,071 28,611+3 million
Florida......................... 430,617 403,006+27 million
Georgia......................... 249,983 234,458+15 million
Hawaii.......................... 23,306 21,956+2 million
Idaho........................... 26,254 24,716+2 million
Illinois........................ 362,951 332,172+30 million
Indiana......................... 129,110 122,037+7 million
Iowa............................ 57,129 54,715+3 million
Kansas.......................... 62,627 59,452+3 million
Kentucky........................ 141,777 131,270+10 million
Louisiana....................... 209,188 191,242+18 million
Maine........................... 35,358 33,785+2 million
Maryland........................ 116,722 109,446+7 million
Massachusetts................... 170,733 161,058+9 million
Michigan........................ 380,257 353,215+27 million
Minnesota....................... 94,030 89,526+5 million
Mississippi..................... 134,957 124,813+10 million
Missouri........................ 154,238 144,421+10 million
Montana......................... 29,986 28,346+1 million
Nebraska........................ 34,320 32,636+2 million
Nevada.......................... 27,397 25,713+2 million
New Hampshire................... 22,034 20,919+2 million
New Jersey...................... 202,046 189,679+13 million
New Mexico...................... 78,176 72,541+6 million
New York........................ 874,009 803,360+71 million
North Carolina.................. 174,860 167,151+7 million
North Dakota.................... 22,389 20,984+2 million
Ohio............................ 326,933 305,597+21 million
Oklahoma........................ 111,448 104,642+7 million
Oregon.......................... 75,647 72,354+3 million
Pennsylvania.................... 376,332 351,631+25 million
Puerto Rico..................... 299,038 282,528+17 million
Rhode Island.................... 28,262 26,427+2 million
South Carolina.................. 116,887 110,255+6 million
South Dakota.................... 22,223 20,672+2 million
Tennessee....................... 147,499 138,396+9 million
Texas........................... 782,711 726,154+56 million
Utah............................ 37,139 35,293+2 million
Vermont......................... 19,834 18,659+1 million
Virginia........................ 136,709 128,802+8 million
Washington...................... 118,831 113,362+5 million
West Virginia................... 80,579 74,627+6 million
Wisconsin....................... 136,280 126,519+10 million
Wyoming......................... 19,942 18,798+1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this shows clearly that every State in
the Union will benefit. The poor children in every State will benefit
significantly by this amendment. I will read specifically into the
Record the poorest States that will greatly benefit, and those States
are: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, California, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, New York,
Texas, and West Virginia.
Just to read out a few pretty startling numbers, let's take
California. This amendment, without adding one penny to the budget,
will give California $80 million more because they have in certain
areas a concentration of very poor children who need additional help.
Louisiana will get an $18 million increase. Without this amendment,
Senator Breaux and I will basically go home empty-handed to a State
where a headline in one of our major newspapers this week was:
Louisiana's Children Suffer.
The Kids Count Data Book just came out. It clearly demonstrates which
States need the help and which States could use the help. I don't
believe in just throwing around new money. I am arguing for flexibility
and accountability. But I am also arguing that we have an obligation to
target our Federal resources better than we do. I am hoping my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see the wisdom in this
amendment.
I am going to yield a few minutes of my time to my colleague from
Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, who has waited patiently to speak. I thank
her for her support, her passion, and her interest in helping us make
our point. At this point, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from
Arkansas, and then I respectfully request the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, join my colleague, Senator
Landrieu, in applauding what our colleague from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, was doing previously in bringing up the importance of not
only the program of IDEA but also the importance for us to be able to
make good on commitments we have made, things we have asked our States
and our localities to do and yet have not provided them the resources
to do them.
This is just one of those requests. When we look at the targeted
grants for the title I dollars, it is a program that was authorized
over 6 years ago and never has been funded. That is all the Senator
from Louisiana is asking--that we make good on our obligation that came
about several years ago to target those dollars to the neediest of
children across this Nation.
And to our colleague, Senator Gramm from Texas, who mentioned that
one of the most important things we need to do in this debate is to set
priorities, I say: Exactly. Let's set the priorities of educating our
children and understanding that we are only as strong as our weakest
link, and that devoting the resources we have obligated long ago to the
neediest of children should be done.
So I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from
Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, which would provide a modest increase in
title I funding and target those additional resources to the neediest
public schools. As I have said on many occasions, I believe strongly
that we need to increase the Federal investment in public education to
ensure that all students have access to quality education. But spending
more money to help educators meet higher standards is only one part of
that solution. We also have to ensure that Federal dollars are spent
responsibly and that we allocate those resources where we can make a
real difference.

Right now, in those title I funds, there are three categories. These
targeted grants don't receive any of that funding. Eighty-five percent
goes to basic grants and 15 percent goes to concentration grants.
Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who
attend schools with a high concentration of low-income students lag
behind students from more affluent areas. This is certainly true in
Arkansas, where students in the delta region score lower on academic
achievement tests than students in our more prosperous regions of the
State.

[[Page S5988]]

To me, these statistics are a clear indication that title I, which
again was created to aid the education of disadvantaged children, isn't
working as well as it should. We have diluted our title I program funds
to so many different areas, until they have become less effective in
the areas where they are supposed to be directed--to the disadvantaged.
Congress recognized that problem back in 1994 when it created those
targeted grants for title I dollars. In the most recent ESEA
Reauthorization Act, unlike basic and concentrated grants, targeted
grants are designed so that school districts with a high percentage of
low-income students receive a greater share of title I funding.
I think we were on to something, but unbelievably these targeted
grants have never been funded.
This is unfortunate because these are the kids who need the Federal
assistance the most, and it is where we could do the most good. Income
status alone doesn't determine student achievement. It is the
concentration of economically disadvantaged students in a school that
makes the most difference.
After visiting dozens of schools and talking with hundreds of parents
in my home State, I am convinced that we have to change our approach if
we want to maintain public confidence and support for a strong role in
education at the Federal level. In addition to more targeted funding,
we need tough accountability standards to ensure students are learning
core academic subjects, and more flexibility at the local level to
allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs. Ultimately,
we have to account for the money we spend in Washington and show our
constituents results to sustain their support.
I also call on my colleagues to support an amendment Senator
Lieberman will be offering later which will address this issue. It
calls for a comprehensive GAO study of targeting under title I. At the
very least, I believe we have a responsibility to take a good, hard
look at the current system because the status quo isn't good enough.
This amendment is an important step in the right direction. I applaud
my colleague from Louisiana for the courage to stand up for what is
right. Maybe it is not the most popular, but it is right.
I urge support for this proposal. This may not be a political issue,
and this certainly may not be the most popular issue with those in this
body who want to keep the status quo, but it is the right issue. It is
the right decision to make, and it is the right amendment to support.
If nothing else, this body should support this amendment on behalf of
the neediest children in this Nation.
I applaud my colleague's courage, and I appreciate her leadership in
this effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield 4 of those minutes. But I ask
for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have no objection.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
I yield 5 of those minutes to my colleague from Connecticut, and I
would like 5 minutes to close.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague
from Louisiana.
Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Louisiana,
Senator Landrieu, and express my strong support for her amendment to
better target our Federal education funding to the schools and children
who need it most. I know from our collaboration on our comprehensive
new Democrat education reform plan, the Three R's legislation, that
Senator Landrieu's commitment to rescuing failing schools and providing
every child with a quality education is unsurpassed in this body.
I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas for her
devotion to this cause, and for her very eloquent statement on behalf
of this amendment.
As Senator Landrieu and many others have rightly pointed out, we are
facing an educational crisis in our poorest urban and rural
communities, where learning too often is languishing, where dysfunction
is too often the norm, and where as a result too many children are
being denied the promise of equal opportunity. It is just not right or
acceptable that 35 years after the passage of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, that the average 17-year-old black and Latino
student reads and performs math at the same level as the average 13-
year-old Caucasian American student. We must begin to respond to this
emergency with a greater sense of urgency, and that is exactly what the
Landrieu amendment aims to do, infusing $1 billion in new funding for
FY 2001 into the Title I program for disadvantaged students and
allocating those resources to the districts with the highest
concentrations of poverty.
We are currently spending $8 billion a year on Title I. No one in
this body questions the value or mission of Title I, which was enacted
in 1965 to compensate for local funding inequities and help level the
playing field for low-income students. But the unpleasant truth is that
this well-intentioned program is not nearly as focused on serving poor
communities as it is perceived to be, leaving many poor children
without any aid or hope whatsoever.
According to the Department of Education, 58 percent of all schools
received at least some Title I funding, including many suburban schools
with small pockets of low-income students. Of the 42 percent that don't
receive any Title I support, a disturbing number have high
concentrations of poor students. In fact, one out of every five schools
with poverty rates between 50 percent and 75 percent do not get a dime
from Title I. Let me repeat that startling statistic, because the first
time I heard it I did not believe it--one of every five schools that
have half to three quarters of its children living in poverty receives
no Title I funding. None.
How does this happen? The formulas we are using to allocate these
funds purposely spreads the money thin and wide. Any school district
with at least 2 percent of its students living below the poverty level
qualifies for funding under Title I's Basic Grants formula, through
which 85 percent of all Title I funding is distributed. The rest of the
money is channeled through the Concentration Grant formula, which is
only marginally more targeted than the Basic formula, providing aid to
districts with as few as 15 percent of their students at the poverty
level. As a result, almost every school district in the country--9 out
of every 10--receives some aid from this critical aid pool.
In fairness, Congress did make an effort to correct this imbalance in
1994 through the last reauthorization of the ESA. We approved the
creation of a new Targeted formula, which puts a much heavier weight on
poverty and therefore would direct a much higher percentage of funds to
schools with higher concentrations of poor children. The key word
there, of course, is would. Congress has unfortunately never
appropriated funding through the Target formula. Not a penny, Instead,
we have perpetuated a system that promises one thing and delivers
another, that succeeds in letting us bring home funding to each of our
districts but fails to meet its fundamental goal of helping those most
in need.
That is exactly what this amendment introduced by the junior Senator
from Louisiana will do. Once again, I congratulate her on her
leadership. This is an amendment which would put our money where the
needs generally are. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will try to be brief as I conclude my
remarks on this important amendment.
I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his extraordinary
leadership in the area of education. It is particularly wonderful and
refreshing to note that there are some Members of this body who will
take their time and give their energy to speak on an amendment on the
principles because States benefit from this--and Connecticut most
certainly benefits from this. Connecticut is not one of the

[[Page S5989]]

poorer States in the Union. I thank my colleague for his extraordinary
leadership and commitment, even though he doesn't come from a State
where the per capita income is low. It is quite high. It makes his
leadership on this issue all the more inspiring. I thank him for his
help.
Connecticut will do well under this formula, as will many other
States. But it is the States that have poorer rural students and poorer
urban students that will do the best because that is what the Federal
Government should be doing with a portion of our education money,
helping to level the playing field.
We talk a lot about opportunities, and then we don't fund them.
We talk a lot about fairness, but we don't fund it. We talk a lot
about equality, but we don't fund it.
Mr. President, talk is cheap. Whether it comes from this side, that
side, or down Pennsylvania Avenue, that is what this amendment is
about. That is why I am insisting on a vote. That is why, while a study
may be helpful, what really would be helpful is a vote for the poor
kids of this Nation.
One of the great Presidents of one of our distinguished universities
said: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
I offer to this body that there is not any way in this world, not
with any tax cut, not with any fancy new technology, not with any new
program that anybody in this Chamber can think of, we can help sustain
this economic miracle of growth if we don't fund a quality education
for every child in this Nation.
Mr. President, this budget doesn't do it.
This amendment helps to target some money to the kids who need it the
most. We need to put back our accountability money, put our money where
we say our values are.
I yield the floor, and I ask for a vote on my amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe Senator
Reid was going to offer a second-degree amendment on this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). A second degree amendment
would not be in order until the time has been used.
Mr. LOTT. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes
and the Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request with
respect to the limit of first-degree amendments to the pending bill and
send the list of amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list of amendments is as follows:

Ashcroft, Medicare; Baucus, Medicare; Baucus, Impact aid;
Bayh, State children's health program, No. 3614; Bingaman,
Energy, No. 3652; Bingaman, Drop out; Bingaman, Tribal
colleges; Bingaman, Relevant.
Bingaman, Relevant; Bingaman, Relevant; Bingaman, Relevant;
Bingaman, Relevant; Boxer, Relevant; Boxer, Relevant; Boxer,
Relevant; Breaux, Point of order.
Brownback, Disease treatment, No. 3640; Brownback, Family
research, No. 3646; Byrd, Relevant; Byrd, Relevant; Collins,
Defibrillator, No. 3657; Collins, Defibrillator, No. 3643;
Collins, Drug treatment for homeless, No. 3642; Collins,
Rural education.
Conrad, Relevant; Conrad, Relevant; Coverdell, Contracts
with criminals, No. 3647; Coverdell, Needles, No. 3648;
Daschle, Discrimination; Daschle, Relevant; Daschle, Relevant
to any on list; Daschle, Relevant to any on list.
Daschle, Relevant to any on list; DeWine, Troops to
teachers, No. 3591; DeWine, Poison control, No. 3592; Dodd,
After school program; Dodd, Restraints; Dodd, Relevant;
Domenici, Telcom training center, No. 3651; Domenici, Telecom
training center, No. 3662.
Dorgan, Relevant; Dorgan, Relevant; Dorgan, Institutional
Development Award Program, No. 3611; Durbin, Asthma, No.
3606; Durbin, Asthma, No. 3607; Durbin, Immunization, No.
3608; Durbin, Immunization, No. 3609; Edwards, Relevant.
Edwards, Plan to eliminate syphilis, No. 3613; Enzi, OSHA
(ERGO), No. 3660; Feingold, Defibrillations; Feingold,
Relevant; Feingold, Campaign finance; Feingold, Campaign
finance; Feinstein, Master teachers; Frist, Education
research, No. 3654.
Graham, Social services, No. 3595; Graham, Healthcare
providers, No. 3597; Graham, Health; Graham, Health; Graham,
Relevant; Gramm, Budget limit, No. 3667; Gramm, Relevant;
Harkin, School construction.
Harkin, Discrimination; Harkin, Relevant; Harkin, Relevant;
Helms, School facilities; Hollings, Amendment; Hollings,
Amendment; Hollings, Amendment; Hutchinson, NLRB, No. 3627.
Hutchinson, Medicaid waivers; Jeffords, IDEA, No. 3655;
Jeffords, Medicine management, No. 3656; Jeffords, Public
Health Service Act, No. 3677; Jeffords, High school, No.
3676; Kennedy, Mental health services; Kennedy, Health
professionals; Kennedy, Job training.
Kennedy, Relevant; Kennedy, Relevant; Kennedy, Health care;
Kennedy, Health care; Kerrey, Web-based education, No. 3605;
Kerry, Technology literacy, No. 3636; Kerry, Technology, No.
3659; Landrieu, Adoption services, No. 3668.
Lautenberg, Health spending; Lautenberg, Relevant; Leahy,
Office of Civil Rights; Levin, Relevant; Levin, Relevant;
Lieberman, GAO study on Title I funds; Lieberman, Targeted
education, No. 3650; Lott, Relevant.
Lott, Relevant to any on list; Lott, Relevant to any on
list; Lott, Relevant to any on list; Lott, Energy, No. 3615;
Murray, Class size; Nickles, Relevant to any on list;
Nickles, Relevant to any on list; Nickles, Relevant to any on
list.
Nickles, Relevant to any on list; Nickles, Relevant to any
on list; Nickles, Health care; Reed, Gear-Up, Nos. 3637,
3638, 3639; Reed, Immunization; Reed, Summer job; Reed, Youth
violence-drug and gun free schools; Reed, Relevant.
Reid, National Institute of Child Health, No. 3599; Reid,
Relevant; Reid, Relevant; Robb, School Construction; Schumer,
Vocational rehab; Schumer, Cancer funding; Schumer, Relevant;
Smith, (NH) CHIMPS, No 3603.
Smith (NH), CHIMPS, No. 3670; Smith (NH), Invasive medical
tests in schools; Smith (NH), Davis-Bacon; Smith (NH), Davis-
Bacon; Smith (NH), Relevant; Smith (NH), Relevant; Specter,
Managers amendment; Stevens, Relevant.
Stevens, Relevant; Torricelli, Fire sprinklers; Torricelli,
HCFA regulation; Torricelli, Lead poisoning; Torricelli, Lead
poisoning; Torricelli, Lead poisoning; Torricelli, Cost
effective emergency transportation, No. 3612.
Wellstone, Perkins Loan cancellations; Wellstone, Stafford
Loan forgiveness; Wellstone, NIH grants and drug pricing;
Wellstone, Child care, No. 3644; Wellstone, Social services,
No. 3596; Wellstone, Suicide prevention; Wellstone, 1.1
billion advance LIHEAP; Wellstone, Relevant; Wellstone,
Relevant; Wyden, NIH.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes
remaining. Does she wish to use that time or reserve it?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished leader. I have made my
closing arguments. If there is no one else to speak, I am happy to
receive a motion on the amendment so we can call for a vote.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have a very short statement to make.
I applaud the Senator from Louisiana for this amendment. I do believe
it is a very good idea to target funds for disadvantaged children under
title I. The difficulty is that the $600 million will be taken from
title VI, where we have already allocated the principal sum of those
funds to meet the President's requirements for new school construction
and for class size on the condition that local boards may use it for
other purposes if they decide they do not need classroom construction
or additional teachers.
When the Senator from Louisiana concludes, I will move to table the
amendment.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask the Senator, is it not true that there is a $1.5
billion increase in title VI; yet there is a very small percentage or a
$400 million increase for title I? If we are going to build schools or
reduce class size, and this is a question, does the Senator think we
should try to do it for the poorer communities first and then we can do
it for everyone else? That is what my amendment attempts to do. I ask
the Senator that.
Is that in the interest of the Nation, to do it for the poor schools
first and then worry about everyone else?
Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, my preference would be to move for the
poor schools first.
In constructing this bill, there were many objections as to how the
money was going to be allocated. The only way we could work through the
complications was to put it in title VI. That was not my first choice,
nor are the programs my first choice.
Working through a great many considerations, we ended up in title VI
leaving the options to school districts, if they choose not to have
construction, or if they choose not to have reduction in class size.
That is an accommodation to very many disparate views.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his honesty, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, and this has
been cleared on the other side, that the vote

[[Page S5990]]

on the Landrieu amendment be set at 7:45.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could amend that request to ask consent
that votes occur on the pending amendments at 7:45 in the order which
they were debated, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to
the votes, and that there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each
vote.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, there will be a motion to
table on the Landrieu amendment. There will be a motion to table on the
Jeffords amendment. We would not want a right taken away, in case a
motion to table fails, to second degree.
Mr. LOTT. That is not limited by this.
I further ask consent that the time between now and 7:45 be equally
divided on the Jeffords amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 3655

(Purpose: To increase the appropriations for carrying out the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with an offset)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now send amendment No. 3655 to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr.
Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brownback, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Santorum,
and Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3655.

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

On page 58, line 15, strike ``$4,672,534,000'' and insert
``$3,372,534,000''.
On page 58, line 17, strike ``$2,915,000,000'' and insert
``$1,615,000,000''.
On page 58, line 22, strike ``$3,100,000,000'' and insert
``$1,800,000,000''.
On page 58, line 26, strike ``$2,700,000,000'' and insert
``$1,400,000,000''.
On page 60, line 16, strike ``$7,352,341,000'' and insert
``$8,652,341,000''.
On page 60, line 19, strike ``$4,624,000,000'' and insert
``$5,924,000,000''.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Coverdell and Chafee be added to the other cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I begin by commending my colleague from
Pennsylvania for his leadership as chairman of the Labor, HHS,
Education, and related agencies subcommittee. His efforts to increase
funding for education and health care often receive too little
attention. I offer him my thanks on behalf of all Members who share our
dedication to education.
He has had a challenging job crafting appropriations bills that
balance the many real and competing needs of the Nation. He has been a
strong advocate for education funding and an even stronger advocate for
the funding of IDEA. He has been an equally strong advocate for more
funding for the National Institutes of Health. This year he has once
again taken up the challenge of balancing competing needs. The
appropriations bill he brought to the Senate is a product of difficult
negotiations between competing viewpoints.
Because of my respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, I come to the
floor with an amendment only because of my conviction that there is an
unmet Federal obligation that must now be met in full. Almost all the
Members of this body have gone on record in support of fully funding
our commitment to our local schools. We should fully fund IDEA for
special education.
I also commend my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has been
a tireless champion of education funding and health care funding.
I anticipate that the opponents of my amendment may argue that this
amendment should be defeated because it takes funds from one education
program and provides it to another. I, too, support increased funding
for education, and have voted repeatedly over the past several days to
waive the Budget Act in order to secure additional funds for education.
It is clear, however, that this does not reflect the will of the
Senate.
Because it is very clear that there is not sufficient support for an
amendment which would exceed the budget caps, we must make difficult
choices regarding which programs should be given priority. I have been
a longtime advocate for funding for the title VI block grant program.
This appropriations bill provides this program with a $2.7 billion
increase, while providing a $1.3 billion increase for IDEA. I believe,
and this belief is held by every school board in Vermont, that IDEA
should be our very first priority.
In 1974 we made a commitment to fully fund IDEA. If 25 years later we
cannot meet this commitment in an era of unprecedented economic
prosperity and budgetary surpluses, when do we plan to keep this
pledge?
When I first arrived in Congress, one of the very first bills that I
had the privilege of working on was the Education of All Handicapped
Act of 1975.
As a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to sponsor that
legislation and to be name as a member of the House and Senate
conference committee along with my chairman Johns Brademus and then
Vermont Senator Bob Stafford.
At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate
all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students
were denied access to a free and appropriate public education. Passage
of the Education of All Handicapped Act offered financial incentives to
states to fulfill this existing obligation.
Recognizing that the costs associated with educating these children
was more than many school districts could bear alone, we pledged to pay
40 percent of these costs of educating students.
I know that there is some disagreement about whether or not a
commitment was made. I want to tell you as someone that was there at
the time that we made a pledge to fully fund this program.
I have in my hands a petition from every school board in my State. I
urge all of my colleagues to come by my desk and look at these
petitions. They know we made that commitment. Passing this amendment
will do more to help our school districts meet their obligation to
improve education in this country than nearly anything else we can do.
In 1997 Congress once again took up this landmark legislation. This a
complex bill that has profound impact on classrooms across the Nation.
With the strong leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Frist, Senator
Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, and many others,
we passed the first reauthorization of IDEA in 22 years. It is an
accomplishment that many of us are very proud of.
At that time, we reaffirmed our commitment to pay 40 percent of the
costs of educating children. We made this pledge to families, to school
boards and to the Governors of our States. Over the past 3 years, we
have made some progress.
But as my good friend from New Hampshire has pointed out several
times over the past year, we are only supporting 13 percent of these
costs. In 1975, we made a pledge which we did not keep. In 1997 we made
that same pledge once again when we reauthorized IDEA.
In the 105th Congress we felt it important to reaffirm our commitment
to full funding for IDEA. We added language to the fiscal year 1999
Budget that stated that IDEA should be fully funded as soon as
feasible. And it is feasible now. We know that. This language was
adopted unanimously by the Senate. At that time, we still faced budget
deficits and it was argued that full funding was not feasible.
In the 106th Congress we continued to press for full funding for
IDEA. The fiscal year 2000 appropriations provided a $600 million
increase in funding for IDEA. During the debate over the 2001 Budget
Resolution the Senate adopted language that I advocated calling for
full funding of IDEA as soon as feasible.
The appropriations bill that is before us raises funding for IDEA by
$1.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. I commend Senator Specter and Senator
Harkin for providing for this historic increase in funding for IDEA.
Nonetheless, this increase does not put us on the path toward fully
funding this program.
Our amendment is simple. It doubles the increase that is provided in
the bill

[[Page S5991]]

and provides IDEA with an increase that is comparable to the increase
that Senators Specter and Harkin have provided for the National
Institutes of Health.
It provides a path by which we will achieve full funding for IDEA by
fiscal year 2005. It sends a clear message to the Nation that we, as a
body, make good on the commitment we make.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Good Lord, if we can't do it now with budget surpluses and the
economy we have, if not now, when will we do it? I do not believe
anyone can rationally argue this is not the time to fulfill that
promise. I intend to do all I can to make sure we do.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa controls 14 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my friend from Vermont. I want to make it clear I am not
rising in opposition to his goal. Senator Jeffords' goal is the same
goal I have. We both want to do everything we can to fully fund, on the
Federal level, our stated goal of paying 40% of the costs of special
education. We should do it. So I agree with the Senator on that.
Senator Jeffords has been a stalwart supporter of that goal. I believe
I have been, too. So I do not rise in opposition to what my friend from
Vermont is trying to do Just like me, he wants to educate kids with
disabilities and ensure the Federal Government meets its authorized
funding goal that was stated in the bill, in IDEA, when it was passed
25 years ago.
I do, however, feel compelled to clarify once again, as I have every
year that this issue has come up, usually presented by the Senator from
New Hampshire, the terms of the 40 percent. The stated assumption that
the Federal Government is to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating
children with disabilities is not correct. You must look at the
legislation. The authorizing legislation of 25 years ago authorized the
maximum award per State as being the number of children served times 40
percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. It was not 40
percent of the cost of educating kids with disabilities.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I did not say it was. I carefully deleted that and said
it is the cost of educating a child.
Mr HARKIN. A child? Then the Senator is correct. Usually it is stated
the other way around. The Senator correctly stated the law.
But back to the point I wanted to make. Should we reach that 40-
percent goal? Absolutely. We should have reached it a long time ago. I
agree the Federal Government has fallen down on its effort to reach
that goal.
What I rise in opposition to is how my friend from Vermont does this.
What my friend is doing is he is taking money out of title VI, which
was put in there for school construction and modernization--$1.3
billion.
He is taking that money and saying it should be used to help meet our
goals on IDEA.
Again, it is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Do we have
a need for the Federal Government to educate kids with disabilities and
meet its goals to our States? Yes. We ought to fully fund IDEA.
Do we also have a responsibility to help States and our local school
districts rebuild our dilapidated and crumbling schools? I believe the
answer to that is yes. The average school in America now is over 40
years old. They are crumbling. They need to be modernized. They need to
be updated.
I say to my friend from Vermont--and he is my friend and he is a
great supporter of education, I know that--but I ask my friend to
consider this: When we modernize schools and rebuild schools, one of
the biggest beneficiaries is a kid with a disability. I want the
Senator to consider that because when many of our old schools were
built, they were not accessible. The doors are too narrow, the
bathrooms are not accessible, and even the drinking fountains are not
accessible, especially for someone who uses a wheelchair.
When we talk about school construction and modernization, we talk
about $1.3 billion, which is a mere pittance of what is required. What
the Senator from Vermont is actually doing by taking that money and
putting it into IDEA, is penalizing kids with disabilities who need
these schools modernized and upgraded. But then the Senator proposes
that he is putting the money in IDEA to help kids with disabilities.
Please, someone make some sense out of that for me.
As I said, the Senator's intentions are very good and laudable to
increase funding for IDEA. If he were to do this in an open way and say
we ought to increase money for IDEA, I would be on his side, but not at
the expense of school modernization and construction because it is kids
with disabilities, maybe above all others, who need to have some of
these schools modernized, I say to my friend from Vermont.
Second, we just adopted an amendment offered by Senator Voinovich
from Ohio. I said: Yes, we will accept it. The amendment of the Senator
from Ohio says the schools can use title VI money, an allowable
expense, to meet the requirements of IDEA. I submit to my friend from
Vermont that the acceptance of the Voinovich amendment takes care of
that. It leaves the money in there for school modernization and
construction. However, out of the total pot of title VI money, the
Voinovich amendment says that one of the allowable uses would be to use
it to meet the requirements of IDEA.
I hope that will satisfy the Senator from Vermont. It still leaves
the money in there for construction and modernization. I want to make
that clear. Because this is where I differ with my friend from Vermont.
Under his amendment we will have zero dollars for school construction
and modernization. Zero. At least with the Voinovich amendment, they
will be able to decide what they want to do. They will have money in
there for school modernization and construction.
I hope the Senator from Vermont will perhaps reconsider this
amendment. I know the goal is laudable. Heck, I support that. We ought
to fund IDEA, but not take it out of school construction and
modernization.
I hope we can move beyond this and meet our obligations to all our
children in this country in education and not penalize one group to
help another group. In this case, we penalize kids with disabilities to
help kids with disabilities. That does not seem to make much sense to
this Senator. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Iowa,
perhaps we can add a phrase to this amendment that says the communities
should make it a high priority to fix any problems with access. Would
he then support this amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator asks me a legitimate question. As I
understand it, under the Voinovich amendment, IDEA is an allowable use
under title VI. I believe that is well covered in the Voinovich
amendment.
Again, the Senator wants to restrict the use of the construction and
modernization money. A lot of it will be used for accessibility. Some
may not be. Some may be used to repair a ceiling. A ceiling is leaking,
and they need to repair it. It might not just help kids with
disabilities, it would help all kids. I would not want to narrow it
this way.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Again, I want to point out that the people's
understanding of our responsibilities are pretty clear in this case. If
there is a statutory obligation and a commitment to fully fund a
program--as there is in IDEA--this should be our highest priority. And
again, I remind my colleague that this body has gone on record in vote
after vote that we should fully fund IDEA. To suggest that fully
funding IDEA should not be given higher priority than our desire to
create a new construction program, is to abandon our original
commitment. Certainly, if you owe money to a bank, that is a first
priority over putting money in your savings account.
We made these pledges. The people back home know that the best way to
improve education using Federal money is to have financial relief from
the pressures of IDEA. It should be obvious what our conscience is
telling us. We should fully fund the obligations we made back in 1975.
That should be our primary priority. We said it over and over again and
now we are turning our

[[Page S5992]]

back on our commitment. We say: No, we are going to use it for other
things, and we are going to use it for things for which we have not
already made a commitment, and that is to help with the construction of
schools. School construction has always been a state and local
responsibility. Fully funding IDEA will allow local communities to fund
their own priorities, including construction.
I urge my friends to recognize our commitment to fulfill the promise
we made and to use these funds to fund IDEA.
Look at these petitions from every single school board in my state.
Every school district in the state says that the first thing we should
do is fulfill our promise to fully fund IDEA.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 4 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I just heard my friend from Vermont say some magical
words with which I totally agree. I wrote them down as he said them:
``Take budget surpluses and meet our commitments.'' I agree with that.
Do you know what? Just this week we now found out we are going to
have $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years we didn't know we were going
to have in surplus.
If my friend from Vermont wants to offer an amendment to fully fund
IDEA, and to take it out of the surpluses, I am with him 100 percent of
the way because he would be right on. The Senator just said that:
``Let's take our budget surpluses.'' I agree with that.
That is not what my friend is doing. He is taking it out of school
modernization and construction.
I say to my friend from Vermont, if you want to rewrite the amendment
and take it out of surpluses in the future, I am with you.
Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may respond.
Mr. HARKIN. Sure.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I say to the Senator, as you know, I have voted that
way. In fact, I offered the amendment to the budget resolution that
would have done that. My amendment would have made mandatory money
available for IDEA. But it was rejected. I agree with my friend from
Iowa that we should dedicate more of the surplus to fully funding IDEA.
It is the right route, but we were turned down by three votes. It
failed.
Now I am trying to use a different route. I am interested in offering
an amendment that I hope will be supported by a simple majority of this
body. An amendment which funds education using the surplus is in
violation of the budget resolution and must be approved by a sixty vote
majority. The Senate has repeatedly voted to reject similar amendments.
This amendment is the one that has a chance to succeed in spite of
the limitations imposed by the budget resolution. We can take the money
from a brand new program, which we are doing, and shift it over to IDEA
where I believe it ought to be our first priority. That is something we
can do on this bill. We can't tap the surplus now, as I tried during
the budget resolution. That was turned down.
Mr. HARKIN. As the Senator knows, I supported that when he offered
it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.
Mr. HARKIN. That was on the budget. This is on appropriations.
I say to my friend, offer an amendment. The Senator can offer an
amendment right now to fully fund IDEA and take it out of budget
surpluses. I will support him on it right now.
Mr. JEFFORDS. It will take 60 votes and fail.
Mr. HARKIN. Who knows if it will fail? Wouldn't it be nice to try?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Sure. If I fail, you can try. All right?
Mr. HARKIN. We should not be taking it out of school construction and
modernization--not at all. Our local school districts need this money.
Go out and talk to your school districts. The people who are paying our
property taxes are getting hit pretty darn hard. Ceilings are falling
down. They are leaking. They need this help from the Federal
Government. We have the wherewithal to do it. And that is what we ought
to stick with.
If the Senator wants to offer an amendment to fully fund IDEA, take
it out of the $1.9 trillion budget surplus--``take it out of the budget
surpluses,'' as my friend said, I am in lockstep with him because that
is what we ought to be doing with that surplus. We ought to be meeting
this basic goal of our Federal Government.
Of course, while I believe some of the surplus should be invested in
quality education, we don't need to touch the surplus to meet the goal
of fully funding IDEA. There are many savings we could achieve that
could more than pay for the investment.

For example, look at Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. While we've cut
it over the last few years, the HHS IG testified before our
Subcommittee this March that last year Medicare made $13.5 billion in
inappropriate payments. Eliminating that waste alone would more than
pay for IDEA. Yet, the House passed Labor-HHS bill actually cuts
funding for auditors and investigators. That means we would lose
hundreds of millions more to fraud and abuse.
In addition, I've introduced The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1999 to
promote greater fiscal responsibility in the Federal government by
eliminating special interest tax loopholes, reducing corporate welfare,
eliminating unnecessary programs, reducing wasteful spending, enhancing
government efficiency and requiring greater accountability. This bill
would result in savings of approximately $20 billion this year and up
to $140 billion over five years.
For example, by enhancing the government's ability to collect
defaulted student loans, the bill would save $1 billion over five
years. By ending tax deductions for tobacco promotions that entice our
children to smoke, we'd save $10 billion. And by limiting the foreign
tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape paying their
fair share of royalties, we'd save about $3.1 billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Good.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am willing to yield back my 1 minute.
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania may want a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield back his
minute?
Mr. HARKIN. I want to see if the chairman wants to say anything.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont believes
very deeply about the importance of the IDEA program and the necessity
and desirability of the Federal Government to fund it.
The difficulty is--and we wish we had more funds in the education
budget, although this budget has $4.5 billion more than last year, and
$100 million more than the President's figure--but when it comes out of
the construction account, or any other account, they are very carefully
calibrated to provide the appropriate balance.
The construction account is one of the President's priorities. We
have met that, as with class size, subject to the discretion of the
local school boards. If they make a finding they do not need additional
buildings or additional teachers, they may use it for what they choose.
It may be that they could use it for the purposes articulated by the
distinguished Senator from Vermont. So it is with reluctance that we
are opposing his amendment. And I move to table.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3645

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes for debate prior to the
vote on the Landrieu amendment.
Who yields time?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we would ask the proponent of
the amendment to step forward to debate.

[[Page S5993]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Landrieu amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has already been made on
the Landrieu amendment.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I just moved to
table the Landrieu amendment, and the Chair advised me a motion had
already been made to table. And I might ask, by whom was that made?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, prior to the
quorum call, made a motion to table.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, I believe the
Senator from Pennsylvania was moving to table the Jeffords amendment
and not the Landrieu amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 7:45, the Landrieu amendment was pending.
The motion to table was made.
Mr. HARKIN. I believe the hour of 7:45 had not arrived at that point,
and that Senator Jeffords had made his remarks. I believe the Senator
from Pennsylvania was moving to table the Jeffords amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I moved to table, I withdraw the
motion and yield to the Senator from Iowa to make a motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, now I understand the Senator from
Louisiana is here, and she wants a minute. I will make my motion to
table after her minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was under the impression that perhaps
the other amendment would go first on the vote, but I thank my
colleagues for giving me a moment to get here.
I want to object, of course, to the tabling of this amendment. As I
described earlier, I believe very strongly, as do some others, that
this money should be better targeted. That is what this amendment does.
It does not add new money to this bill. It simply says, of the money
that we are going to spend--whether it is a 20-percent increase that
Senator Gramm earlier spoke about, or an 8-percent increase--whatever
the increase, if we are going to increase funding in this bill, the
money should go to help the poorer children first, the communities
around this Nation that need the most help, whether they be in rural
areas or urban areas.
Every State will gain. Every State will leave with additional money
for title I. The States that need the most help will get that help.
That is simply what this amendment does. I object to the tabling.
I thank the Senators for granting the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table Landrieu amendment
No. 3645. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

YEAS--75

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--23

Bayh
Biden
Breaux
Bryan
Bunning
Cleland
DeWine
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Helms
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Torricelli

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
Inouye

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3655

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes for debate on the
Jeffords amendment.
The Senator from Iowa requested order in the Chamber. We need order
in the Chamber. We will withhold business until there is order in the
Chamber.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is the Jeffords amendment relating
to title VI of the bill. It takes money which is dedicated to school
construction and puts it into IDEA and special education.
We have over and over again pledged to fully fund up to 40 percent of
the cost of educating children in special education. We have not done
that. All of you committed to doing that. We have no comparable
historical obligation to contribute money for school construction. That
is an option under title VI and will remain an option even if my
amendment is approved. We believe we should fund and pay for our
current Federal obligations first before we take on new and open ended
obligations. It is a promise we have all made. It is a promise we
should keep.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague
from Vermont that it would be desirable to put more money into the
program for individuals with disabilities. But in constructing this
bill, we have tried to fashion it in a way that it will be signed by
the President. We have put the money into construction to meet requests
with the proviso that if the local boards do not need it for
construction, or want it, they can use it as they choose. If we had
additional funds, I would be delighted to acknowledge Senator Jeffords'
request. But in its present form, we cannot take those funds without
increasing the chance of a veto.
This carefully constructed bill ought to stand. Therefore, I move to
table the Jeffords amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No.
3655. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

[[Page S5994]]

NAYS--47

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Leahy
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--2

Gregg
Inouye

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

____________________