[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11300-S11309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H.R. 3061, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3061) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle amendment No. 2044, to provide collective 
     bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by 
     States or their political subdivisions.
       Gramm amendment No. 2055 (to amendment No. 2044), to 
     preserve the freedom and constitutional rights of 
     firefighters, law enforcement officers and public safety 
     officers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from New Hampshire is recognized to offer an amendment, on 
which there shall be 60 minutes debate to be equally divided.


                           Amendment No. 2056

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the two 
managers of the bill in setting up a timeframe for this amendment.
  We have discussed this issue innumerable times in this Chamber. This 
is the issue of whether or not we are going to fund, at the expense of 
low-income children, school construction. The amendment is very simple. 
It takes money which is not authorized--in fact, the dollars which are 
being spent under this school construction account, that authorization 
was rejected by this Congress, by this Senate on innumerable 
occasions--it takes the money which is being spent under this 
appropriations bill, which is therefore not authorized, and moves it 
into the authorized account of the title I targeted formula, the 
targeted formula being that formula which benefits low-income children 
in this country.
  The purpose of funding under the Federal education initiatives has 
basically two goals. Our primary responsibility as a Federal Government 
involves two basic areas in elementary and secondary school education. 
The first is special education funding, IDEA funding.
  I congratulate this committee and Senator Harkin and Senator Specter 
for the tremendous job they have done in the area of funding special 
education. They have added over $1 billion in the special education 
accounts. That is very appropriate.
  The second primary purpose authorized by the Federal Government and 
chosen by us as a Congress as to where we were going to focus Federal 
attention is in helping low-income children be more competitive in 
their school systems and have an opportunity to succeed along with kids 
who do not come from low-income families. Thus, we have put an 
exceptional commitment of resources into those accounts.
  Unfortunately, it is a formula which was put in place 6 years ago to 
target the Federal money for kids who come from low-income backgrounds. 
It has never been adequately funded--in fact, was never funded at all 
until this bill. Instead, we have peeled dollar after dollar off for 
other programmatic activity, which is not the primary thrust of the 
Federal effort.
  Specifically, in the area of school construction, which we have 
rejected as a purpose of Federal responsibility, it being traditionally 
the responsibility of the States and the local communities to make the 
decisions as to what school construction should occur, we have now put 
in this bill $925 million for this program of school construction which 
is not authorized. We have essentially taken that $925 million away 
from the title I children--the low-income kids. We have taken it away 
from the targeted funding formula.
  My amendment very simply takes the unauthorized construction money 
and moves it back to the authorized new targeted title I formula so 
that low-income children will get the dollars and the support from the 
Federal Government.
  The practical implications of this for each State are reflected in a 
chart which is going to be made available to every Member of the 
Senate, which I hope they will take the time to review. It shows that 
every State is essentially a winner under this amendment. The new 
targeted formula, when initially funded by the $925 million, 
significantly increases the money under title I that flows to low-
income kids for every State.
  What is happening under the school construction money? It doesn't go 
to low-income children. It can go to rich districts. It can go to poor 
districts. It can go anywhere you want in the school system. It can 
also go, for example, for the purposes of school safety, which makes it 
not only unauthorized under this bill but duplicative of the money we 
already put into the system for school safety in the Commerce-State-
Justice bill.
  We are spending $925 million for bricks and mortar. That was a 
program rejected by both the Senate and the House. It does not have any 
strong component of poverty in it. This basically can be a welfare-to-
rich-district funding mechanism. It is being done at the expense of 
low-income kids.
  We know for a fact that our low-income children simply aren't getting 
what they need out of the school system. We are about to reauthorize 
the ESEA bill in an attempt to do a better job with the dollars that 
are directed to low-income schools. But we know, regrettably, that 70 
percent of the children in high-poverty schools score below the most 
basic levels in reading; that two out of three African-American and 
Hispanic fourth graders can barely read; in math in high-poverty 
schools, they remain two grade levels behind their peers; in reading, 
they are three to four grade levels behind their peers; that half the 
students in our urban school districts don't graduate at all.
  It makes no sense, when we are supposed to be funding a formula 
targeted for low-income kids who obviously need more support as 
reflected by those statistics, that we end up instead funding a bricks-
and-mortar program that can go to high-end school districts and which 
is not authorized and which is duplicative of at least three other 
major programs we have at the Federal level that are authorized and 
that are funded.
  The result of my amendment is essentially this. A State such as 
Louisiana--I see the Senator from Louisiana in the Chamber--would 
receive a 21-percent increase as a result of this amendment in their 
title I count. It would be targeted. A State such as California would 
receive a 37-percent increase. It would be targeted to the low-income 
poverty districts and students.

  When we pass the ESEA bill on which we reached agreement in 
conference,

[[Page S11301]]

we will give those low-income districts strong, new tools to help those 
kids in those districts catch up with their peers. But those tools will 
only work if there are dollars to support them.
  This amendment goes a long way down the road to accomplishing the 
goal of getting the dollars where the Federal Government has set the 
priorities, the dollars to the low-income child instead of to some sort 
of grandiose bricks-and-mortar program that may not benefit the low-
income child at all.
  That is the concept of this amendment. It is really pretty simple. It 
takes $925 million out of a program which has been on two different 
occasions rejected by this Senate, the school construction program, and 
moves it to the new targeted formula for low-income kids under title I.
  I hope everybody here will review how their State benefits from this 
in their title I accounts.


                           Amendment No. 2056

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 2056.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding for targeted grants under the Elementary 
                  and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       Beginning on page 54, strike line 19 through ``and 
     renovation:'' on line 14, page 57, and insert the following:


                    Education for the Disadvantaged

       For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 as amended by H.R. 1 as passed by the 
     Senate on June 14, 2001 (``ESEA''); the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act; and section 418A of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, $12,804,900,000, of which 
     $5,029,200,000 shall become available on July 1, 2002, and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2003, and of 
     which $6,953,300,000 shall become available on October 1, 
     2002, and shall remain available through September 30, 2003, 
     for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That $7,398,721,000 
     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 of Education on October 1, 
     2001, to obtain updated educational-agency-level census 
     poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, 
     That $1,364,000,000 shall be available for concentration 
     grants under section 1124A: Provided further, That grant 
     awards under sections 1124 and 1124A of title I of the ESEA 
     shall be not less than the greater of 95 percent of the 
     amount each State and local educational agency received under 
     this authority for fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, grant awards 
     under 1124A of title I of the ESEA shall be made to those 
     local educational agencies that received a concentration 
     grant under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 
     2001, but are not eligible to receive such a grant for fiscal 
     year 2002: Provided further, That $1,437,279,000 shall be 
     available for targeted grants under section 1125 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6335).


                               Impact Aid

       For carrying out programs of financial assistance to 
     federally affected schools authorized by title VIII of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by 
     H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June 14, 2001, 
     $1,130,500,000, of which $954,000,000 shall be for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b), $50,000,000 shall be 
     for payments for children with disabilities under section 
     8003(d), $68,000,000 shall be for formula grants for 
     construction under section 8007(a), $50,500,000 shall be for 
     Federal property payments under section 8002, and $8,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, shall be for facilities 
     maintenance under section 8008.


                      School Improvement Programs

       For carrying out school improvement activities authorized 
     by sections 1117A and 1229 and subpart 1 of part F of title I 
     and titles II, IV, V, VI, parts B and C of title VII, and 
     title XI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, as amended by H.R. 1 as passed by the Senate on June 
     14, 2001 (``ESEA''); and the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 
     $7,792,014,000, of which $240,750,000 shall become available 
     on July 1, 2002, and remain available through September 30, 
     2003, and of which $1,765,000,000 shall become available on 
     October 1, 2002, and shall remain available through September 
     30, 2003, for academic year 2002-2003: Provided, That 
     $28,000,000 shall be for part A of title XIII of the ESEA as 
     in effect prior to Senate passage of H.R. 1 to continue the 
     operation of the current Comprehensive Regional Assistance 
     Centers:
       On page 69, strike lines 14 through ``2002'' on line 6, 
     page 73.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I wonder if the Senator is speaking to my amendment or her 
amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will speak, unfortunately, against the amendment of 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I presume the Senator is taking her time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take the time from my side.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield 
time to the Senator from Louisiana?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I yield such time as the Senator desires.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I find myself in an unusual and awkward 
position because I normally come to the floor to support the amendments 
of the Senator from New Hampshire and to support his great efforts and 
his leadership in reforming education. He truly has been a clarion 
voice to lead us in many of the ways we really need to go in this 
country. His commitment is really exemplary. I find myself in an 
awkward position to oppose the amendment he has offered on a couple of 
very valid grounds.
  One is, while in a bipartisan way we certainly have supported, along 
with the President, targeting our dollars more carefully so that the 
Federal dollars actually bolster the reform efforts at the State level 
by helping Governors and mayors and school board members who are on the 
front lines who are trying to reform education, we have attempted this 
year for the first time --which is a pretty extraordinary victory we 
are about to achieve--to target more of our Federal dollars to reach 
those Governors, to reach those school boards, and to reach those 
mayors who are struggling to rebuild their systems. So the Senator is 
correct when he speaks about the need to target.

  Senator Harkin and Senator Specter have done a magnificent job on 
this great piece of legislation to accomplish many of these new goals. 
The underlying bill indeed does that. For the first time, we will be 
laying down $1 billion through the targeting grants to help close the 
gap between those counties, and parishes in Louisiana, that have 
greater capacity to fund their schools and those counties and parishes 
that have less capacity. That is clearly one role where there is 
virtually no disagreement that the Federal Government should fill: to 
be actively engaged in leveling the playing field between the richer 
and the poorer districts. That is the American way. That is what the 
underlying bill does.
  I understand Senator Gregg is saying: Let's not put any money in 
school construction; let's take that money and add it to targeting. I 
would normally be supportive of that because many of us have been 
leading the fight for targeting. But as important as it is for teachers 
to be given new tools, and for us to support these reform efforts, 
children cannot learn without the right physical facilities. It is very 
important.
  They do not need palaces such as this one or Taj Mahals, but they do 
need warmth in the wintertime. They do need to have fresh air in hot 
summers. They do need to be able to walk in safety in schools and not 
have inadequate windows or light fixtures or be in buildings that make 
it impossible to learn. They do need to have electrical systems in 
their buildings so they can install their computers and get on line and 
have other high-tech tools of learning.
  I do not have to explain to the Presiding Officer or to many Members 
in this Chamber how deficient our schools are. So let's not move money 
from one very important program, which is school construction, to 
targeting. That

[[Page S11302]]

is why I will have to oppose the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  We can do the school construction funding so that we can help build 
our schools and give our children the kind of physical facilities they 
need to meet these new goals and standards.
  This is not the time to stop job creation in America. Let me repeat, 
this is not the time to stop job creation in America. Millions of 
people are out of work because of the September 11 attacks and 
subsequent attacks because of their effect on our economy.
  One billion dollars under Senator Harkin's and Senator Specter's 
amendment--of which there is the attempt to move--will put 24,000 
people who live in Georgia, in Louisiana, in Iowa, and in New Hampshire 
to work.
  One billion dollars spent on school construction will employ 24,000 
people. Believe me, there are people in all of our States who want the 
Federal Government to spend money on public investments. What better 
place could we be spending money than building schools for our future, 
giving our children a chance for a first-class quality education?
  Finally, I will say this: I know the Republican leadership has not 
been excited about school construction. They have fought it every step 
of the way. There have been some Republicans who have supported it. The 
Republican leadership is against the idea of the Federal Government 
getting involved with school construction. And that argument has merit. 
I am not saying it does not.
  But in light of September 11, I would hope the arguments on the other 
side would weaken because we need to be putting Americans to work. 
These are good construction jobs. And they do two things. They give a 
man or a woman a job, so he or she can bring home a pay check to feed 
their family and pay their mortgage. By doing that, you are also 
investing in our children by building schools so they can compete in 
the challenging world which we all now face.
  Those are the arguments. Again, I hate to oppose the Senator, but I 
am opposing this amendment on those grounds. And I ask other Members to 
join with me in that opposition and to support the mark of the chairman 
and the ranking member.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask Senator Gregg to yield me 1 minute.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator whatever time he needs.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, because we are 
debating this amendment, that I be able to proceed on my amendment, 
which is also pending, for 1 minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2055, As Modified

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk, a very 
simple modification. This amendment would be in order when this other 
amendment is over, so rather than just wait I thought I would do it and 
get out of everybody's way.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2055), as modified, is as follows:

       After line 7 on page 9, insert the following:
       ``(6) Protecting the constitutional right of all 
     firefighters, law enforcement officers and public safety 
     employees who risk their lives on a daily basis to protect 
     our property, freedoms and loved ones in exercising their 
     right to follow their conscience in whether or not to join a 
     labor organization or pay dues or fees to a labor 
     organization in connection with their decision to pursue a 
     career dedicated to service and sacrifice in defense of the 
     innocent in order to provide for their own families.''

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, when I offered my amendment yesterday, in 
guaranteeing the right, under the Daschle amendment, for people to join 
or not join a union, I did not include the critical right for them, if 
they choose not to join a union, to not have to pay union dues. I have 
corrected this with this modification. It fits the principle we set 
out.
  The Daschle amendment preempts State law and preempts county 
ordinances and city ordinances to set up a structure for unionism in 
police and fire and sheriff departments. I am opposed to that. But it 
seems to me, if the Federal Government is going to preempt State law 
and preempt counties and cities to set up a structure for unionism, it 
ought to also allow people to decide if they do not want to be members 
of the union and they do not want to pay union dues. So through this 
modification, I have corrected that problem.
  I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?


                           Amendment No. 2056

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-three minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are again. Senator Gregg, my 
friend from New Hampshire, is trying to say we have no obligation to 
help our local schools meet safety and fire codes and to renovate and 
rebuild our schools.
  I find it kind of an odd argument to say we have no responsibility, 
to say what he said earlier, that this is a State and local 
responsibility. After all, we use Federal moneys for rural water 
systems in this country. Should that be a State and local 
responsibility? His State gets some of that. There are waste water 
programs, bridges, highways, all kinds of things that the Federal 
Government is involved in in terms of construction.
  As we look around the country, we see our schools are falling down. 
The average age is 42 years old. Fourteen million kids attend school in 
buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. So, quite frankly, there is a 
crying need out there for school construction.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers, in their report card on 
America's infrastructure, listed schools as the worst. They listed 
bridges and roads and highways and sewage disposal systems and 
airports, but the one that got the lowest grade was our public schools 
in America.
  My friend, with his amendment, basically is going to take the money 
and put it into title I. So I think what he is trying to do is put all 
the money in title I to send poor kids to poor schools.

  I am not saying we should not be doing more for title I. That is why 
I am going to be supporting the Cochran-Landrieu amendment, which I 
think is a better formula for title I. But I find it odd that the 
Senator from New Hampshire said we don't need to fix up these schools; 
we just need to put more funds in for these poor kids. And they will go 
to schools that are unsafe, insecure, with ceilings that are cracked 
and with water leaking in. They do not meet fire and water safety 
codes. They are not wired for the Internet. That is all right; we will 
send them there anyway. I find that an odd argument.
  I believe this is, indeed, a Federal responsibility. The way we have 
constructed this, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is that the 
money goes to the States. Then the States decide how to allocate this 
money out to local school districts. So we are not saying exactly how 
it is spent. This is sort of a State grant. I think my friend from New 
Hampshire has been a big supporter of block grants in the past. This 
basically is what it is. This goes out to the States and lets the 
States decide where it goes.
  Quite frankly, I have a chart in the Chamber which shows how much 
money goes out to the different States and where this money goes. The 
fact is, we have already seen that in the last year we put in $1.2 
billion for school repair and renovation. Forty-one States have already 
asked for and received their grants. That indicates to me there is a 
real need out there. If there was not a need out there, the States 
would not have asked for this money.
  Thirdly, this money is leveraged greatly. From the experience we had 
in my own State of Iowa, $28 million over 3 years went out for school 
construction and renovation.
  That $28 million was leveraged by State and local governments to the 
tune of $311 million, over a 10-to-1 leverage. It seems to me any time 
we can spend a taxpayer's dollar and we can get a 10-to-1 leverage in 
our local communities and States and we can do something of lasting 
value, which is to

[[Page S11303]]

repair schools and build new schools so that our kids have the latest 
technologies, that is a pretty good investment of taxpayers' money. 
That is exactly what is happening. They are leveraging this money in a 
big way.
  Here is a chart; it is kind of busy. I will hold it up. This 
indicates all of the renovation funding that went out this last year 
for different States. I see that some of the States received more than 
others based upon population and a few other factors. This would be the 
kind of money that would be lost for school construction if, in fact, 
the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire prevailed.
  Lastly, everyone is talking about a stimulus package. We have 
stimulated the economy. This is what Senator Landrieu was discussing. 
We want to put people to work around this country. What job needs to be 
done more than repairing and modernizing our schools? We get a lot of 
bang for this buck. We get economic stimulus. We will put people to 
work immediately. These jobs are ready to go. There are schools all 
over this country that already have their plans in place, that have 
requests in for modernizing, for fixing up their ceilings, meeting fire 
and safety codes. This is something we can do right away. It stimulates 
the economy. It puts people to work. We get better schools. We leverage 
the money all over the country.
  I don't see why we would want to pull the rug out from underneath 
this right now. This money goes to the States and from the States to 
the local school districts. I believe this is an important element for 
us in the Federal Government. People say we haven't done it before, 
that this is something new. Is that the reason we are here? Just to 
continue to plow the same old ground over and over again?
  I keep asking, where in the Constitution of the United States does it 
say elementary and secondary education is to be funded only by property 
taxes? It is nowhere in the Constitution. That is just the way it 
sprung up because in the early days of our country we wanted to have a 
free public education for everyone--for white males at that time but 
for everyone later on. There was no taxing base. All they had was 
property taxes and a few excise and tariff taxes. It was not until 1914 
or 1917 that we had the income tax. So there were no other tax bases. 
We grew up a system in this country based on property taxes.
  That is all broken down. We provide Pell grants for kids to go to 
college. Under elementary and secondary education, we provide teacher 
training, funding for special education. We do all of this. Why 
shouldn't we use the power in the Federal Government to help our State 
and local schools repair and modernize, build new facilities for the 
new century for our kids.
  In every case where I have seen this work, the money has been 
leveraged 6, 7, as much as 10 to 1 in those State and local 
communities.
  Especially with the economy going down, this is not the time to pull 
the rug out from underneath school construction.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
Senator from Mississippi.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire for yielding time to me.
  I will take just a minute or two and suggest that this amendment that 
is offered by the Senator from New Hampshire has great merit because it 
shifts funds into a program that has historically been grossly 
underfunded. The title I program has about four different categories of 
authorized funding in it. Over the last several years only two of those 
programs have been funded by the Congress.
  I am supporting an effort to increase the funding in the targeted 
assistance so States such as mine, who have high concentrations of poor 
students, will have a better chance of providing the quality of 
education opportunity those students deserve and which is needed so 
much by the poor students.
  Sixty-five percent of the students in my State have been classified 
by our State department of education as poor within the meaning of the 
term in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that contains this 
title I funding.
  This program was begun in an effort not to supplant the State's 
responsibilities but to emphasize the importance of reaching out to 
those who had not been well served by the public education school 
system, and those were the poor students. Most of those communities 
have low tax bases, not much business activity, high rates of 
unemployment. The funding that goes into education in most States comes 
from real estate taxes and other taxes at the local level. States 
provide some of the funds, but most of the money comes from local 
property owners. The deck is stacked against those students who live in 
those poor communities.
  The Federal Government realized it had a responsibility to try to 
help. We are not trying to take over the running of the schools in 
title I. We don't want that.
  Just as recently as this spring, I had hearings in my State and 
meetings with the State board of education to talk about the title I 
program and how we could better design it so it would provide the 
needed financial resources to deal with these particular problems of 
poor students.
  Uniformly, I was told that losses in these funds or reductions in 
these funds would be devastating for our school system in Mississippi. 
So I am supporting the Gregg amendment because I think it tries to 
emphasize the importance of title I and provides more funds for title 
I. I will also cosponsor and vote for the Landrieu amendment. It is not 
an either/or proposition for the Senate. That is what I am saying. We 
can vote for both. I think we should.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
making that very excellent point. This is not an either/or choice. We 
can vote for the Landrieu-Cochran amendment, and we can vote for this 
because essentially what this amendment does is take the construction 
money and move it into the title I targeted formula. What the Landrieu 
amendment does is restructure the new money for title I and reallocate 
some of it to the targeted formula, some of it to the equity formula.
  As a practical matter, the two are not exclusive. You can support 
both. If you are interested in getting more money into the title I 
accounts and especially more money into the accounts that benefit low-
income kids under the targeted formula, then you should definitely vote 
for this amendment which takes the money from the school construction 
accounts.
  Just to cite a couple examples: California, under present law, gets 
$1.15 billion; under this proposal, they would get $1.5 billion. So 
they pick up about $430 million out of this account which would be 
going into the targeted formula.
  Florida gets $400 million. Under this proposal, they get $558 
million. That is $158 million going to the targeted formula.
  The State of the presiding Senator from Georgia would get $250 
million under present law; $330 million would go into the title I 
formula.
  Yes, it means there wouldn't be school construction money going into 
those States, but what would be happening is that dollars would now be 
flowing directly into the accounts which benefit low-income kids rather 
than into a general account which, as the Senator from Iowa mentioned, 
is basically where the States make the decision. It can go to a rich 
district or a poor district. It can go to Safe and Drug Free Schools, 
which we already fund under another account, or it can go to security, 
which we fund under another account, which is duplicative. The purpose 
of the Federal dollar should be to get the money to low-income kids. 
That is why we need to fund these targeted formulas, especially in 
areas where you have a large concentration of low-income children. That 
is why this amendment makes a lot of sense.
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his comments and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Gregg amendment.

[[Page S11304]]

This amendment would entirely eliminate the $925 million in this bill 
that is intended to help school districts with critical construction 
and renovation needs, and instead divert it to title I. I strongly 
support both of these important programs. Title I serves our Nation's 
most disadvantaged children and helps ensure that they have the same 
educational opportunities as more affluent children. I am pleased that 
the bill before us includes a nearly $1.5 billion increase in title I 
for fiscal year 2002. I am committed to working to further increase 
title I funding this year and in future years, as it is the cornerstone 
of our Federal commitment to help low-income students succeed.
  While I appreciate the goals of the Gregg amendment and agree that 
title I must be one of our top priorities, I cannot support it at the 
expense of legitimate and urgent school construction needs. In my home 
State of Wisconsin, nearly 80 percent of schools were built before 
1969. In a recent survey of 881 Wisconsin schools, the total statewide 
cost of all repairs and renovations that are needed to put schools in 
good overall condition was $1.55 billion. Clearly, we have a serious 
need to address school construction and renovation.
  Unfortunately, this amendment presents the Senate with a false and 
unnecessary choice. I agree that we need to do more for low-income 
children, and I intend to support the amendment to be offered by 
Senator Landrieu that will put more money into title I and target it to 
the lowest income students. But we cannot expect a child to learn in an 
old, dilapidated, or unsafe school with no access to the tools and 
technology that are so much a part of education today.
  The Gregg amendment would force us to abandon one critical education 
program for another, but I believe we can and must make both a 
priority. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gregg amendment and to 
support the Landrieu amendment later on, to ensure that the Federal 
Government provides funding for both school construction and assistance 
to low-income students. We can afford to do both.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are debating allocation of Federal 
funds among quite a number of very worthwhile programs. When you talk 
about basic State grants, concentration grants, an effort for targeted 
assistance, they are all very meritorious. The difficulty our 
subcommittee has in making an allocation is in trying to establish 
priorities. We have $925 million allocated for school construction.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has a laudable purpose. The Senator 
from Mississippi articulates laudable goals. But we have done the best 
we can in the appropriations process in making the allocations among 
many priorities that we think to be appropriate. Title I has in excess 
of $11 billion going to needy children, which is the largest 
allocation. We have been debating the issue of school construction for 
a long time. The former Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, 
brought this forward several years ago, as has Senator Harkin.
  My conclusion is to support what the subcommittee report has and, 
reluctantly, to oppose what the Senator from New Hampshire wants, and 
what the Senator from Mississippi would like to have, because their 
goals are laudable.
  I think it is important, as the Senator from Iowa points out, that 
there was leveraging of these funds. It is never easy to say where a 
Federal responsibility ends and where a State responsibility begins. 
Ideally, the funding perhaps should come from State and local 
government, not the Federal Government at all.
  We have been in the field, and we have added very substantial 
dollars. There is now in excess of $41 billion. We added $6 billion 
last year.
  One of the difficulties with school construction is that the $925 
million allocation is questionable, as to how far that will go on the 
school needs of America. We had a very tough debate on this issue last 
year when Republicans controlled the Senate and President Clinton, a 
Democrat, was in the White House. We ended up with an allocation for 
school construction of $1.175 billion, but we put in language that if, 
after due deliberation, the school boards on a local basis decided they 
did not want the money for school construction, they could use it for 
other educational needs--virtually a block grant. That language and 
that approach has been maintained here.
  I am not saying local boards are going to turn down school 
construction money. But in the event that does happen, the school 
districts will be able to make the allocations as they see fit on a 
local basis.
  Senator Harkin has been a strong advocate for school construction 
beyond any cap. I was supportive of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun when 
she advanced this idea several years ago to sort of give it a start. 
Although you could allocate these funds in many different directions, 
arguably with forceful positions, it is my stance that we have made an 
appropriate allocation and this $925 million is appropriate. So I am 
going to support the chairman and the subcommittee report, which we 
have submitted.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself another 3 minutes.
  I thank my colleague and the ranking member, Senator Specter, for his 
support of this amendment. We have worked very closely together over 
the years, and it was sort of a sign of Senator Specter that allowed 
some of this money to go out to the States and if in fact they do not 
need it for construction, they can use it for other purposes. So this 
is a great help to those local school districts.
  Mr. SPECTER. If my colleague will yield for a moment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we called those the ``Harkin hoops'' last 
year. They have to survive the Harkin hoops. If not, they go to local.
  Another comment is worth articulating, and that is, when we sit down 
and go over these accounts, it is no surprise that Tom Harkin and Arlen 
Specter have a lot of different views. We hammer them out, and we come 
to accommodations.
  This is a program that is very near and dear to Senator Harkin's 
heart. Again, to repeat, which I don't like to do, I supported it with 
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun many years ago. There are many 
accommodations in this bill where Senator Harkin was not so 
enthusiastic and I was more enthusiastic, so that when we come to the 
time of presenting the arguments and the position on the floor, I am 
going to stay with the agreements we reached in the subcommittee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. We have had a good 
working relationship. I think this is just another indication of how we 
can reach bipartisan agreements in committees by working together.
  Mr. President, I have a letter from Rebuild America's Schools. This 
is a consortium of gripes including the National PTA, National 
Education Association, National School Boards Association, National 
Rural Education Association, and a number of others. This letter is 
dated October 30, 2001. It says:

       Rebuild America's School writes in strong support of the 
     $925 million for the Emergency School Repair Program included 
     in the Senate version of H.R. 3061.

  They go on to say:

       The resources provided under last year's legislation 
     combined with the funds included in the FY02 Senate 
     appropriations bill will help fix leaky roofs and repair 
     faulty plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. These 
     resources will also enable districts to address other 
     dangerous health and safety concerns in their schools, such 
     as the presence of lead paint and asbestos in the classroom.
       The importance of an FY02 school repair program gains even 
     more relevance in the face of revenue shortfalls resulting 
     from the recent downturn in our Nation's economy. These 
     expected losses might force State and local governments to 
     cut or roll back education spending, particularly in the area 
     of capital projects. In addition to providing much-needed 
     fiscal relief to States and local school districts, funds for 
     emergency school repairs will help to create construction 
     jobs on the local level as each billion dollars invested in 
     school construction is estimated to generate approximately 
     24,000 jobs. Also, these expenditures will have a multiplier 
     effect on local economies by benefiting all of the 
     construction-related industries that provide material and 
     other types of support for infrastructure projects.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

[[Page S11305]]

                                    Rebuild America's Schools,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health 
         and Human Services and Education, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: Rebuild America's Schools (RAS) writes 
     in strong support of the $925 million for the Emergency 
     School Repair Program included in the Senate version of HR 
     3061, the FY 02 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations 
     bill. RAS is a coalition of national organizations and school 
     districts from across the nation working to increase federal 
     support to assist local communities to build, renovate and 
     modernize school facilities. We strongly oppose any amendment 
     that may be offered that would cut or eliminate funding for 
     this critical program.
       This appropriation addresses the rapidly growing need to 
     improve our nation's school buildings at a time when 
     communities across the country are struggling to renovate and 
     repair aged school facilities. Students in virtually every 
     state are attending classes in overcrowded buildings with 
     leaky roofs, crumbling ceilings and outdated ventilation and 
     heating systems. In fact, according to the American Institute 
     of Architects, one in every three public schools in America 
     needs major repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers 
     recently reported that school facilities are in worse 
     condition than any other part of our nation's infrastructure. 
     In addition, a June 2000 study report by the National Center 
     for Education Statistics reported that 11 million students--
     one in every four--attended schools in less than adequate 
     condition, and 3.5 million of these students in school 
     buildings in poor condition.
       HR 3061 builds on legislation passed in the 106th Congress 
     that provided $1.2 billion in grants to high-need school 
     districts to pay the cost of urgent repairs and renovations. 
     As of the beginning of the 2001 school year, 42 states and 2 
     outlying areas had submitted applications for their funding 
     grants under this program. The resources provided under last 
     year's legislation combined with the funds included in the FY 
     02 Senate appropriations bill will help to fix leaky roofs 
     and repair faulty plumbing, heating, and electrical systems. 
     These resources will also enable districts to address other 
     dangerous health and safety concerns in their schools, such 
     as the presence of lead paint and asbestos in the classroom.
       The importance of an FY 02 school repair program gains even 
     more relevance in the face of revenue shortfalls resulting 
     from the recent downturn in our nation's economy. These 
     expected losses might force state and local governments to 
     cut or rollback education spending, particularly in the area 
     of capital projects. In addition to providing much needed 
     fiscal relief to states and local school districts, funds for 
     emergency school repairs will help to create construction 
     jobs on the local level as each billion dollars invested in 
     school construction is estimated to generate approximately 
     24,000 jobs. Also, these expenditures will have a multiplier 
     effect on local economies by benefiting all of the 
     construction-related industries that provide material and 
     other types of support for infrastructure projects
       Rebuild America's Schools and its membership supports 
     inclusion of a $925 million Emergency School Repair program 
     in HR 3061, and provisions that continue to ensure that the 
     urgent repair needs of our high poverty, rural and Indian 
     schools are all addressed. In addition to these funds in this 
     education appropriations bill, we support providing a larger 
     amount of assistance for school repairs as part of the 
     economic stimulus bill. We believe extending this initiative 
     will go a long way in helping communities across America fix 
     crumbling, unsafe, and unhealthy schools, and ultimately help 
     to create the learning environments our children will need to 
     succeed in the 21st century.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert P. Canavan,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I keep hearing this argument that 
this money can go to rich as well as poor districts. The Senator from 
New Hampshire says take this money and put it all into poor districts. 
I find that an odd position for my friend to take since he is a very 
strong supporter of States rights. This money goes to the States. If 
the State government in New Hampshire wants to put that money into the 
richest school districts, I assume they can do that. I don't think 
State governments would do that.
  Our experience from the last year is that States take this money and 
focus it on those very districts where they have a low tax base because 
they have poor housing in low-income areas. That is where they focus 
the attention for school construction, not in rich areas. So I assume 
the Senator is saying he doesn't trust the State governments to do 
this. Well, I think they will do this. They will focus it on the poor 
districts.
  Lastly, I wish to make this point, and I think my friend knows this. 
In the conference that we are now in on the education bill, the 
reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, there is a 
provision the Senate adopted unanimously that provides for the full 
funding, 40 percent funding that the Federal Government should be doing 
for special education. That is supported strongly on the Senate side. 
The House is sort of wavering on that, but they may actually come 
across in support. If that is the case, that will free up a lot of 
money which we can then use to help our title I schools. I am making 
the argument in conference right now that if the House will help us to 
provide the mandatory funding for special education, that will free up 
a lot of money which we can then put into title I programs. We should 
not sacrifice school construction for that. As I said before, it does 
not make much sense to put a lot of money in to sending poor kids to 
poor schools. Let us help both. Let us help title I, and let us help 
rebuild our schools.

  Mr. President, there is an article that appears in Education Week 
about Federal funding for school renovation. The title of it is ``Iowa 
Is Laboratory For Federal Role In Building Schools.'' They went out and 
looked at a number of schools that received some of the Federal funds 
for innovation and rebuilding.
  I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From Education Week, Oct. 24, 2001]

        Iowa Is Laboratory for Federal Role in Building Schools

                          (By Joetta L. Sack)

       The teachers at Decatur City Elementary School had become 
     accustomed to the eccentricities of their 1915-era building. 
     Despite its sloping concrete floors, its basement room used 
     as both a gym and a cafeteria, and its out-of-the-way 
     location, some admit they'd even grown fond of this little 
     block-shaped, brick schoolhouse.
       Sentimentality aside, leaders of the Central Decatur 
     schools here on southern Iowa's rolling plains knew the 
     structure was impractical and potentially dangerous. So they 
     raised, local funds to add a wing to the district's secondary 
     school, making room for the elementary school's staff and 115 
     pupils.
       To help the cause, the district received a $500,000 federal 
     grant through a program earmarked for Iowa districts that was 
     created in 1997 at the behest of the state's Democratic U.S. 
     senator, Tom Harkin.
       While Washington lawmakers were debating whether the 
     federal government should wade into school construction aid, 
     the veteran senator used his considerable influence to set up 
     a ``demonstration project'' in his Midwestern state. Now in 
     its fourth year, the program has channeled, $37 million to 
     the state, and the 750-student Central Decatur district and 
     other Iowa school systems are seeing the rewards.
       The program could be construed as pork, yet another example 
     of a powerful lawmaker feathering his political nest by 
     bringing home the maximum number of federal tax dollars. Iowa 
     after all, does not qualify as the state most in need of 
     school construction help, according to recent data.
       But Sen. Harkin, who chairs the subcommittee on education, 
     labor, and health of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
     speaks proudly of the program a success. And with Congress at 
     odds over whether to continue a much larger school renovation 
     program begun in the just-ended 2001 fiscal year, the senator 
     contends that the Iowa program is proof that money for school 
     buildings should remain in the federal government's 
     portfolio.
       Nobody questions the need for school repairs and 
     renovations nationwide, estimates range from $112 billion to 
     $250 billion or more to bring all school facilities to basic 
     levels, and nearly every district has seen problems with 
     overcrowding or decaying buildings. Mr. Harkin's program in 
     Iowa gives grants for emergency repairs or new construction.
       ``The most pressing needs are the schools that need to be 
     brought up to fire and safety codes,'' Sen. Harkin said last 
     week. ``And then, we just have a lot of old schools in 
     Iowa, like a lot of states do, that need to be rebuilt or 
     totally refurbished.''
       In the final days of last year's appropriations process, 
     the senator--then the ranking minority member on the 
     subcommittee he now chairs--helped win approval of the 
     national program, which is based on his Iowa experiment. The 
     fiscal 2001 budget included $1.2 billion for emergency 
     repairs.
       Now, Congress must decide whether to continue the national 
     program and the Iowa grants. As the fiscal 2002 
     appropriations bills make their way through the process this 
     year the version passed by the now-Democratic-controlled 
     Senate appropriations committee includes continuation of the 
     funding at about 80 percent of the 2001 level, while the 
     House version eliminates it.
       President Bush favors eliminating the school renovation 
     funds.
       ``School construction is an area where the federal 
     government does not have a meaningful role, and never did,'' 
     said Lindsey

[[Page S11306]]

     Kozberg, a spokeswoman for Secretary of Education Rod Paige.
       The administration has, however, proposed a new facilities 
     program for charter schools and wants to drastically increase 
     construction funding for schools under the impact-aid 
     program. Impact aid sends federal grants to school districts 
     whose property-tax bases are directly affected by the 
     presence of nontaxable federal facilities, such as military 
     bases.
       Appropriators won't decide whether to continue the Iowa 
     program until the two bills reach a House-Senate conference 
     committee. But a Senate Democratic aide said that Sen. 
     Harkin, because of his seniority and influence, is always 
     granted a pot of money to spend as he chooses, and the 
     program likely will continue.
       ``If he wants it, he'll get it,'' the aide said.


                        tending to constituents

       Mr. Harkin, who has named the school construction program 
     the ``Harkin grants,'' often hosts back-home events on 
     concerns such as education, health care, and agriculture.
       ``The image we see here is that he's involved in education 
     a lot,'' said Joseph S. Drips, the superintendent of the 
     4,700-student Southeast Polk district in the Des Moines 
     suburbs, which also received a Harkin grant.
       A report released last year by the National Education 
     Association, a strong proponent of federal aid for school 
     construction, ranked Iowa 25th among the states in school 
     modernization needs, with a total estimate of $3.9 billion 
     for infrastructure and technology needs.
       Iowa has seen an economic downturn and declining population 
     in recent years, which have squeezed its budget. And the 
     state has seen its center of gravity shift from farms to more 
     urban areas, meaning that some urban districts are facing 
     unprecedented growth while some rural districts struggle 
     to stay open.
       ``The needs generally run across the board,'' said Marcus 
     J. Haack, the associate executive director of School 
     Administrators of Iowa. While the money from the Harkin 
     grants has helped, his group advocates a more comprehensive 
     over-haul of school finance.
       Now nearing the end of his third term in the Senate, Mr. 
     Harkin has become a fixture as one of the Democrats' more 
     liberal members. But he represents a state almost evenly 
     divided between Democrats and Republicans--Al Gore took the 
     state in the presidential race last year by just 4,144 vote. 
     Mr. Harkin won his last election in 1996, with only 52 
     percent of the vote.
       Programs such as the school construction grants could be 
     his lifeline to elected office, said Jack Jennings, the 
     director's of the Center on Education Policy, a research and 
     advocacy organization in Washington. Although some Iowa 
     voters have qualms about his views, they are pleased the 
     Senator brings so much money back to the state, Mr. Jennings 
     said.
       ``What he has done is balance his liberalism with great 
     attention to constituent needs,'' said Mr. Jennings, who is a 
     former aide to House Democrats.
       But Sen. Harkin also has consistently pushed for a 
     nationwide school construction program. He first proposed a 
     plan during his unsuccessful 1992 presidential campaign, and 
     since then, has joined other Democrats--and a few 
     Republicans--who have proposed various approaches.
       While the issue has gained momentum in recent years, with 
     hundreds of educators lobbying for such a plan, there is 
     still plenty of opposition in Washington. Most conservatives 
     say that school construction should remain a state and local 
     responsibility.
       Some legislators argue that if the federal government steps 
     up its funding, state and local governments will just set 
     aside less for school construction, and nothing additional 
     will get built. Furthermore, bureaucratic red tape and laws 
     requiring that federally financed construction projects pay 
     union-level wages could drive up total costs, critics say.


                             matching funds

       Hoping to quell some of those concerns, Sen. Harkin 
     designed his program to require local districts to bring 
     money to the table for new construction projects.
       The competitive grants require communities to prove they 
     can pay for 75 percent of a project, thus keeping most of the 
     obligation local. Districts can receive up to $500,000 for 
     school construction projects. Another portion of funds is 
     reserved for the most urgent fire-safety repairs, and 
     districts can apply for up to $250,000 without a match.
       Under the national program the $1.2 billion was given to 
     states with instructions to distribute it to poor 
     districts that could show the greatest need for repairs.
       Sen. Harkin and other Democrats argue that by requiring 
     districts to provide the bulk of the money, school 
     construction and renovation remain local and state 
     obligations.
       According to the senator, the initial $28 million dispensed 
     in the Iowa program's first three years leveraged $311 
     million in local funding for repairs and new construction. 
     And although those funds might have been raised without an 
     incentive, he believes the Harkin grants made the difference 
     in persuading some communities to go forth with a project.
       ``It's proven that a little bit of money can go a long 
     way.'' Mr. Harkin said. ``When you can get one federal dollar 
     to leverage $10 in state and local funds, that's a pretty 
     good use of federal money.''


                            Some left Behind

       Many Iowa districts are still using the traditional three-
     story red-brick buildings like Decatur City Elementary School 
     that were constructed in nearly every small town in the state 
     at the beginning of the last century. The Southeast Polk 
     district will soon use its $500,000 Harkin grant to replace 
     one of those buildings that engineers unexpectedly deemed to 
     be unsound.
       ``The final report was, `get out as soon as you can,' '' 
     said Mr. Drips, the superintendent.
       A new building did not figure into the district's carefully 
     crafted 10-year building plan, but Mr. Drips and school board 
     members realized it would be more economical to build a new 
     facility than try to renovate the old building.
       Formerly a rural community, Southeast Polk is now seeing 
     its cornfields become middle-class subdivisions, and its 
     enrollment has increased by about 125 students annually in 
     recent years. To help manage that growth, the district's 
     residents passed a 1-cent local sales tax that generates 
     about $4 million a year.
       Without that revenue, the district would not have been able 
     to meet the grants match requirement. That requirement 
     sometimes leaves behind the neediest schools if they are 
     unable to raise funds locally, Mr. Drips said.
       Sen. Harkin, though, said the local matching requirement 
     was key to retaining local control, and that cash-poor 
     districts could still apply for the emergency grants. 
     Meanwhile, he said, Iowa districts can count on the federal 
     aid for the near future--and he's going to fight to continue 
     the national program as well.
       ``It has been such a resounding success on Iowa, and our 
     needs are so great that I intend to keep it,'' he said. 
     ``After 10 years of beating on this, I'm finally getting 
     people to realize that there is a federal role and we can do 
     this while retaining local control''.

  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I 
have remaining, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment, 
and I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Gregg amendment is the solution to the 
problem presented in the underlying bill. With all respect to the bill 
managers, I believe the bill tries to meet new needs before addressing 
current obligations.
  The bill appropriates $925 million in new funding for school 
construction which has never been embraced in the light of open debate 
because policymakers, year in and year out, have recognized the danger 
of creating new questionable obligations in the face of our existing 
appropriate obligation to low-income and disadvantaged children.
  We already said we are going to do that. We are not doing it 
adequately, but now we say: Oh, I have this great idea for an economic 
stimulus; let's jump in on this and build some schools. It is not just 
the construction industry having a little bit of a problem. In fact, 
the construction industry is not hit as hard as other industries.
  The Gregg amendment reflects the pure policy we all espouse. His 
amendment would redirect $925 million into the title I Targeted 
Assistance Grant Program. That program disburses money based on a pure 
poverty formula. Again, that is what we all say our policy does. The 
underlying bill creates a new program with almost $1 billion in new 
spending.
  The greater concern which I have raised many times is that this bill 
would violate the prevailing wisdom that school construction is a State 
and local funding obligation.
  My policy concerns go even further. I offered an amendment to the 
ESEA bill when it was considered by the Senate earlier this year which 
addressed my concerns about providing any Federal assistance in the 
absence of maximized State and local effort and without the strictest 
eligibility requirements based on poverty.
  We somehow, to do the school construction, are going to have to get 
together and talk about that, but that is where it gets difficult. I 
can relate to some of my previous experience. The Wyoming Constitution 
requires an equal education for all kids. That is very tough to define 
and very tough to do.

[[Page S11307]]

  One of the equal education issues determined by our supreme court is 
equal buildings. What is an equal building? We have one school district 
that has about 800 students with a declining enrollment for a number of 
years. For a high school, we can determine 8 or 9 years in advance what 
the population is going to be based on the other schools that are below 
it--that it is going to be a continuing declining population. There is 
a requirement that the State build a new school for them. They want the 
school to be for 1,200 students. There is no justification for 1,200.
  We are talking about maintenance, too. The State constitution in 
Wyoming, interpreted by our supreme court, says there has to be 
equality when you tell people you are going to build school buildings 
or suggest perhaps if they do not do maintenance, they will get a new 
school building sooner.
  What is the result of this? The State is having to take over school 
construction. We are probably the ultimate State in the belief of local 
control, and we are having to go the other way. We are going to have a 
State organization now that will determine building maintenance. That 
is a pretty basic school board job. But if you are going to build the 
building, you have to have some control over the maintenance. If you 
are going to build the building, you also have to have some minimum 
requirements and maximum requirements. That has never been the case. 
Before, communities were able to build the kind of building they wanted 
to build or not build a building at all. That is not going to happen 
anymore.

  Those are issues we have not addressed at the Federal level. I can 
tell my colleagues that with the difficulty the State of Wyoming is 
having, it is new ground we do not want to cover without a very basic 
discussion.
  ``Equal school buildings'' is very hard to define, and I can tell my 
colleagues they are going to be even tougher to fund because an equal 
school building is going to have absolutely everything, and that means 
the finest football field, the finest swimming pool, and the finest 
gymnasium. In a lot of communities, that creates some controversy as to 
whether that is the epitome of education or whether it ought to be the 
finest chemistry classroom or the finest math facility.
  We have not had that basic discussion here. We have not been forced 
to have that basic discussion because we have not gotten into this 
area. We are starting to get into that area, and we better have that 
discussion before we find out that we have bitten off a bigger spending 
bill than this country would ever be able to afford and freed up local 
governments to again let us buy their votes with their dollars.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of the time. I 
ask that my colleagues support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, how much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the other side have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The other side has 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield 4 minutes--and if he needs more time, I will give 
him more--I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first, I agree with the goal of dramatically expanding 
and making the best use of title I money. The Cochran-Landrieu 
amendment, about which we will hear more later, goes much more in that 
direction. By the way, I support that goal because I believe with all 
the mandates that are coming out of Washington, DC, right now--test 
every child, every grade, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8--we better make sure we 
get the resources to the school districts so they have a chance to do 
the job.
  I reject this tradeoff. I cannot believe we are arguing that 
rebuilding crumbling schools and making sure they are inviting places 
is somehow unimportant. I do not believe we are talking so much about 
brand new swimming pools and brand new gyms. We are talking about many 
school buildings all across the country that are dilapidated. We are 
talking about children who know that if they want to see something 
great, they can go to a shopping mall or they can go to a brand new 
sports arena or they can go to the latest fanciest movie theater, but 
about the worst place they can go is their own rundown schools.
  When our children go to these schools and they are so decrepit and 
run down, the heating does not work or the air conditioning does not 
work or the toilets do not work, we are telling our children we do not 
value them.
  I refuse to accept this tradeoff which pits helping children with 
title I program funding versus whether or not we are now going to 
abandon a Federal program which has provided some funding for our 
schools for school repair.
  By the way, in every State, there is a huge backlog of repair work. I 
thank Senator Harkin for his leadership in talking about the importance 
of school renovation.
  My second point is one of the ways we can get more money for title I 
and distribute that money in the most efficacious manner is to take the 
IDEA program for children with special needs and make it mandatory. 
That is the language we now have. That is what we are fighting to keep 
in conference committee. We should be getting support from every 
Senator and the administration.
  As a former Governor, the Presiding Officer knows how strongly our 
States feel about giving the States the funding the Federal Government 
promised them for children with special needs. Then we can do a much 
better job for all the children.
  That is the direction in which to go. Then finally, actually this 
whole debate is a little bit of a fantasy debate in that I do not think 
we are recognizing we are in a recession. These are hard economic 
times, and right now what is going on is our States are having to cut 
teachers, cut teacher assistance; they are having to cut counselors. If 
anything, we should get serious about an economic recovery plan.
  I argue we need an additional $3 billion to go for school 
construction, for renovation of schools. It is win, win, win. You do 
not eliminate this program during a recession. A, the schools are more 
inviting for the children; B, you are creating jobs; C, you are 
contributing to the community; D, you are doing something about the 
recession, and you are getting money in the economy, which is all about 
what we have to do for economic recovery.
  I think the amendment of my friend from New Hampshire goes precisely 
in all the wrong directions. I hope Senators will vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the status of the time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire has 
8\1/2\ minutes. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute.
  Mr. GREGG. I do not think it is the wrong direction when one is 
trying to help low-income kids be more competitive in a school 
environment where they have been left behind.
  The goal of the Federal Government has been stated. Our goal as the 
Federal Government under title I is to help low-income kids. The 
problem is we have not adequately funded the formulas to accomplish 
that. In fact, we have not even funded the targeted formula which was 
passed in 1996.
  We funded a formula that was a pre-1996 formula or a 1994 formula, 
which has been nothing more than a hold harmless for a bunch of States 
which may or may not help the targeted populations in need.
  Now we create this new program, $925 million of new money being spent 
on a capital program for construction of facilities which can go to any 
school. As the Senator from Iowa said, it can go to the richest school 
districts. It can go to any schools. It does not go to the low-income 
children. It does not go to the school districts with low-income 
children. It can go anywhere in the school system. It can go for 
swimming pools. It can go for squash courts. It can go for whatever the 
school system decides to build.
  That is not our responsibility as a Federal legislature. We have been 
very

[[Page S11308]]

specific as to what our responsibility as a Federal legislature is. We 
have said our responsibility as a Federal legislature is to, one, take 
care of special needs kids or be a participant in that exercise and, 
two, take care of kids or try to help kids from low-income backgrounds 
be competitive with their peers. That is what the Federal policy is.
  In fact, we have rejected as Federal policy in the last two 
Congresses the need to have a construction program. What are we 
funding? We are funding a construction program at the expense of low-
income children who would get money under this targeted proposal.
  Let us talk about a few States. Under this proposal, Connecticut 
would go from $83 million targeted on low-income kids to $111 million 
targeted on low-income kids. Delaware would go from $22 million 
targeted on low-income kids to $28 million targeted on low-income kids. 
Hawaii would go from $25 million targeted on low-income kids to $35 
million targeted on low-income kids. Illinois would go from $357 
million targeted on low-income kids to $477 million targeted on low-
income kids. Michigan would go from $349 million targeted on low-income 
kids to $445 million targeted on low-income kids, under the proposal I 
am suggesting. New Jersey would go from $209 million targeted on low-
income kids to $272 million targeted on low-income kids. New York would 
go from $822 million targeted on low-income kids to $1.15 billion 
targeted on low-income kids. Washington State would go from $118 
million targeted on low-income kids to $149 million targeted on low-
income kids. Wisconsin would go from $129 million targeted on low-
income kids to $160 million targeted on low-income kids, money which 
would go directly into the school systems which are trying to serve the 
low-income child. That is our purpose.
  As we pass the new ESEA bill, we are going to make it even more 
effective in the way these dollars are used to benefit that low-income 
child. So it makes no sense to me to create this new program which is 
in the area where the States and communities have traditionally had the 
responsibility, which is the area of construction of their facilities, 
a new program which gives a carte blanche so the money can flow to 
whatever district wants to get it. The district can be a high-end 
district or it can be a low-end district that happens to spend it on 
something that does not impact the low-income kids, instead of putting 
it into the program which we as the Federal Government have said we 
want to fund.
  There is a role for block grants in our Federal system, but the 
Federal Government has also said that in the education area there are 
certain areas which we are going to carve out and in which we are going 
to try to exercise our assistance. We only put 6 percent of the dollars 
into the local school systems. What we have said is those 6 percent of 
dollars are going to be focused; they are not going to be spread all 
over the map.
  The construction dollars spread it all over the map, whereas this 
amendment puts it into a formula which is extremely focused. It is 
directed right at the low-income child who today, unfortunately, has 
been left behind. That low-income child today simply is not getting a 
fair and competitive education. We are going to try to fix that under 
the new ESEA bill. In the same process, we need to give the dollars to 
support the new initiatives. That is what this amendment does.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I understand I have about a minute remaining. I respond 
to my friend from New Hampshire, there is a chart that is being passed 
out that has fiscal year 2001, and it has Landrieu, then it has Gregg, 
and it looks as if the Gregg amendment gives a lot more to each of 
these States the Senator from New Hampshire just mentioned--Connecticut 
and a few others--but you have to add to the Landrieu column the school 
construction money, which the Senator from New Hampshire does not do.
  So if we add that up, we will get----
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure. If I made a mistake, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. That speaks to title I.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. This is the title I dollars. School construction is not a 
title I program.
  Mr. HARKIN. No. I am saying the amendment funding, the Senator is 
talking about a funding comparison total. It does not say title I. It 
says funding comparison. I am saying, under the Landrieu column, all of 
the money would have to be added that is in the amendment that would go 
to schools or to States for school construction to get a better 
comparison. That is all I am saying.
  Lastly, I say why send poor kids to poor schools? Let us help the 
poor kids, but let us rebuild our schools, too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from Iowa 
has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Iowa, of course, raises a valid point, 
which is the money is still going back to the States if it goes back to 
school construction.
  The point, however, which is the whole essence of this argument or 
debate--``argument'' is the wrong term. The essence of this debate is 
that the dollars under the title I program, especially the new formula 
which targets those dollars, is used on low-income kids and actually 
goes to the kids in low-income schools.
  The school construction money is outside title I. It is not an 
authorized program. It does not even exist as a Federal program. It 
just exists as an expenditure under the appropriating process, and it 
does not flow at all under the title I process.
  The goal of title I is to benefit the low-income child. School 
construction money does not benefit the low-income child. There is no 
structure to do that. It is money that is spent by the States however 
they want to spend it on construction. It makes much more sense to take 
this money and move it into the title I account into the new targeted 
formula so we end up with a child who comes from a low-income 
background actually benefiting from these dollars. That is the purpose 
of this amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. What is the matter now before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending 
amendment was set aside and the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, 
is to be recognized to offer an amendment on which there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided


                           Amendment No. 2058

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the ranking member 
for their fine work on this appropriations bill that is so important to 
our schools, to our health care infrastructure throughout the Nation at 
this important time, as well as to our labor community and the work 
they have done.
  I send this 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 Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Mr. 
     Cochran, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Ensign proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2058.

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


                           Amendment No. 2058

(Purpose: To redistribute certain funds under title I of the Elementary 
                  and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       On page 55, line 6, strike ``$8,568,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,172,690,000''.
       On page 55, line 11, strike ``$1,632,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,365,031,000''.
       On page 55, line 12, after ``section 1124A:'' insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That

[[Page S11309]]

     $1,000,000,000 shall be available for targeted grants under 
     section 1125: Provided further, That $649,979,000 shall be 
     available for education finance incentive grants under 
     section 1125A:''.
       On page 55, strike line 15 and all that follows ``H.R. 1'' 
     on page 55, line 22, and insert ``95 percent of the amount 
     each State and local educational agency received under this 
     authority for fiscal year 2001''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have been asked to yield a few minutes 
before I get into the essence of this amendment. I am happy to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for 
yielding, at least before she starts her presentation, to my colleague 
from Pennsylvania for a resolution.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask the two Senators from Pennsylvania a 
question, I understand how important this resolution is, but do you 
have an idea how long it will take? We have to get the votes out of the 
way before 1 o'clock.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I might respond, I think we can dispense with it in 
the course of 6 or 7 minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the two Senators each have 4 
minutes to speak on the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________