[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11310-S11317]
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--Continued
Amendment No. 2058
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to get back to the subject. I
was of course happy to yield some time for the Senators from
Pennsylvania, for those fine remarks to honor a person who certainly
deserved that recognition.
I am offering this amendment today on this underlying bill in behalf
of myself, Senator Cochran, the Senator from Mississippi, Senator
DeWine from Ohio, Senator Lieberman, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett,
and Senator Ensign--all who have had a pivotal role and a leadership
role in helping to bring this particular amendment to the floor at this
time.
So because of the change in time this morning, and so many Senators
are here wanting to speak on this amendment, let me yield at this time
to my distinguished colleague from Ohio for his remarks on this
amendment. Then I will speak following the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for
her nice comments. I appreciate the fact that she has yielded to me. I
congratulate her for not only this amendment but for all the work she
does for all children, and particularly poor children. There is no one
in this Chamber more dedicated than is she to the children of this
country.
I rise today to express my support for Senator Landrieu's amendment
as well as for Senator Gregg's amendment. These amendments target our
limited, finite Federal resources to the school districts and to the
children most in need. I am cosponsoring both because each is an effort
to get funding to those school districts with high concentrations of
poor children. Each amendment will put at least $1 billion into the
title I targeted grant formula so impoverished school districts, those
children, get what they need, so the children in those school districts
get the quality education they deserve.
A little history. This grant formula, this targeted grant formula, as
it is called, was created in 1994. It recognized the great disparity in
this country between poor school districts and rich school districts,
the great disparity between children who are in poverty and children
who are not in poverty.
However, unbelievably and tragically, since the creation of these
grants in 1994, not a single Federal dollar, not one dollar, has been
appropriated to fund this grant program--that is until now with these
two amendments. These amendments would fundamentally begin fulfilling
the promise and commitment the Federal Government made to the poor
children of this country in 1994. This is unprecedented. It is
historic. So I congratulate both of my colleagues for their amendments.
Under Senator Gregg's amendment, the districts most in need would not
only receive the money they deserve but they also would have the
flexibility to decide how best to use their title I funds, whether that
is to hire more teachers, provide professional development, to put
computers in classrooms, or purchase instructional material--whatever
they wanted to do. The districts, the local communities, would be able
to decide for themselves where and how those dollars would do the most
good.
For example, one school may have a lot of students who are having
problems in math. That school district could use their title I dollars
on math instructional materials or to better train their math teachers.
Another school might have a small group of students who would need more
individualized instruction in reading and the language arts.
The point is this funding enables the local school to use this money
to help the distinct needs of their own students. By funding these
targeted grants, we are finally focusing on those kids truly in need.
This gets us back to the original intent of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and the title I program, which is to help
address the needs of children in low-income areas where the districts
simply cannot meet their basic needs on their own.
The problem has been that over the course of the last 3\1/2\ decades,
the Federal Government really has strayed from this point, from its
intent, with politics often driving education policy needs of these
low-income students. As a result, the money intended to reach the most
impoverished districts, and the most poor children, has simply not been
getting there. These amendments go a long way to begin to rectify that.
Because the Federal role in education accounts for only a small
percentage of school spending--about 8 percent--we must be especially
prudent and wise in allocating those very limited, finite Federal
resources. That means we should direct those dollars first and foremost
to America's most needy children. That means we need to fund the
targeted grant program.
The tragedy today is that not all children are getting the quality
education they deserve because our society is divided along economic
and educational lines. This division is nothing new. Scholars and
sociologists warned us really for decades that this was where our
Nation was heading, particularly if we did not properly educate our
children.
Unfortunately, we did not heed the warnings and, as a result, our
Nation today is a nation split really into two Americas, one where
children get educated and one where, tragically, they do not.
This gap in educational knowledge and economic standing is
entrenching thousands upon thousands of children into an underclass and
into futures filled with poverty and little hope, little opportunity,
and little room for advancement. That is exactly what is happening in
my home State of Ohio and across the country.
Ohio generally is a microcosm of what we see in the country. When we
look at this growing gap, when we see this development of the two
Americas, what we see in Ohio is also what we see in our Nation. In
Ohio, growing income and educational disparities are creating our own
very permanent underclass.
Most of Ohio is still doing pretty well and doing pretty well
educationally. Children in those areas have a great future. However,
when we look across our State, when we look across the Nation, we see
two areas where that is not taking place, areas where the children are
not being educated as well as we would like and where the income level
shows that disparity. One place is in rural Appalachia, our Appalachian
counties, and the other is in our core cities or our inner cities. This
is where we as a society, we as a people, face our greatest challenge.
[[Page S11311]]
The children living in these high-poverty areas are at risk, every
single one of them. The structural conditions of poverty make it very
difficult for these children to succeed in life and to move up and out
of their impoverished circumstances.
The fact is that with poverty often come drugs, crime, broken homes,
unemployment, violence, and lower educational levels. In fact,
according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 1999,
young adults living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 percent
of all family incomes were five times as likely to drop out of high
school as their peers with families in the top 20 percent of the income
distribution.
The point is not that money solves all problems. The point is we have
an obligation, with the finite dollars we have available to us, to
spend them wisely and prudently. We need today to fulfill to what we
have committed in the past and have not done; that is, help poor
children of this country.
In conclusion, because of the cyclical nature of poverty and the
systemic problems associated with it, I believe the best way we can get
to these children before we lose them is through quality education.
Education is the ticket out of poverty. It has been throughout the
history of this country.
We need to provide all children, regardless of their economic
circumstances or family backgrounds or how poor the school district in
which they live, with the tools they need to make it as adults in our
society, with the tools necessary to rise above individual situations
in poverty and instability and individual situations of hopelessness
and despair. When education is not working to give our kids the tools
they need to move ahead in life, those children suffer.
We can't solve all the problems of this country. We can't fix all the
broken homes. But we can use Federal dollars in ways that help close
the educational gap in America.
That is exactly what we are doing with my colleague's amendment and
with Senator Gregg's amendment. We are finally putting our money where
our mouth is. No more lip service. This funding would go to enable
schools to provide opportunities for low-income and low-achieving
children to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in
school and later in life.
In doing so, we will help education equalize the environment for our
children. That is the right thing to do.
I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, and I again congratulate her
for the excellent amendment and for the work she does for children
every day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for those
remarks, and, of course, for his hard work on this amendment. I often
say to our other colleagues that any Senator who is a father of eight
children certainly is an expert when it comes to the matters of
children and families. He has demonstrated that over and over again.
I see my colleague from Mississippi coming in to also speak on this
amendment. I am mindful of the time and his patience because our
amendment has been rescheduled so many times. I would be happy to yield
to him at this time or in a few moments if he wants to speak on this
particular amendment because he has most certainly been a leader in
this regard.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
Louisiana will yield, I would be happy to speak in support of her
amendment and acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I
believe that it does redirect some of the funding allocated under the
bill for title I programs so that it goes to the States with the
highest percentage of poor students in their student population. These
are students we decided needed special attention many years ago when
the program was first authorized as title I under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The Federal Government has the responsibility
to address that program--not by supplanting the primary responsibility
of the States to run their education programs and to provide the
resources for teachers and school districts to educate those students
in the States.
We have decided some States have such serious problems in this
respect that the Federal Government ought to step in and provide some
additional assistance. When the program was authorized, not all of the
authorized activities were funded. This is one example of an unfunded
but authorized activity and a program that was designed to help those
States with very special needs. Obviously, my State is one of them.
Sixty-five percent of the student population in the State of
Mississippi is classified as eligible for title I support. These are
poor children. Most of those children reside in small towns and rural
communities; some in urban settings, of course. But most of them are in
areas with high rates of unemployment and low-wage rates where people
do have jobs, and with real estate that doesn't generate the kind of
taxes that are needed to operate top-of-the-line education programs.
They start out with the deck stacked against them because of where they
live and the fact that they are poor.
This is money that is now going to be targeted and redirected to
those areas of special need. I think it is totally justified under the
circumstances that we see in our country today, and also to be used in
a program that has been tested and proven to be helpful.
We had hearings in our State earlier this year talking to
administrators in school districts that are eligible for title I
funding; talking to teachers and meeting with the State board of
education members to try to assess how effective the program has been
and what would happen if the funds were cut. For example, we were told
if the funding under title I was reduced in our State, the effect would
be devastating. We were also told the more money they could get into
the program, the better job they could do in providing educational
opportunities to those who are harder to teach and who need special
assistance in many cases in order to achieve their goals and to be what
they could be if they were given the right kinds of educational
opportunities.
One of our witnesses turned out to be a school superintendent in
Yazoo City, MS, who had been a title I student. He talked about his
personal background and his history and the fact that there was no
opportunity for him. But because of additional funds in the school that
he attended that added some instructors, that added some teachers who
concentrated on those students with special problems because they were
poor, he benefitted from that. He talked about how he then ended up
going to college. He is now a leader in our State in education,
devoting his life to helping others who are in similar situations. He
was a very impressive, and as you might understand, a very persuasive
witness.
I am here today to speak for people like him and others in our State
who because of their lives and experiences show that this program
works. It has been of great benefit to him. We want it to benefit many
more.
That is why I am cosponsoring the Landrieu amendment. I hope the
Senate will vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the remarks of
my colleague from Mississippi and my neighbor to the south right across
the line because we share a lot of common challenges in Mississippi and
Louisiana. The Senator spoke about the need for this amendment and
called the attention of the Nation to the fact that about 60 percent of
the students in Mississippi--that would be about the same for
Louisiana, probably about 65 percent--live below the poverty line or
are so close to it that opportunities are hard to come by. I think it
is important for us to step back and take a moment to recognize that
great inequity.
As I refer to my notes, I am reminded that in order for students to
be eligible for title I, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi
knows, it means a family of four can make no more than $22,000. It is
hard for an individual to live on $22,000, much less a family, whether
they live in rural Mississippi or rural Louisiana or right here in
Washington, DC. But there are many working families who have incomes at
that level, and all they are asking is for their children to get a
better education, so that instead of bringing in that $22,000, they
could bring in $45,000 or $65,000 or $100,000, and not only help
[[Page S11312]]
themselves and their families, and the children they will ultimately
have, but help this Nation to fulfill its economic promise.
One of the great effects of this amendment, as the Presiding Officer
knows, because you yourself have been supportive and outspoken and
effective in your advocacy as a former Governor of Delaware and now as
a Senator who speaks so directly about this issue, is it helps us to
begin. It is only a modest beginning to help solve a great inequity in
this Nation. It is the inequity that the Senator from Mississippi
brought up and the inequity that I want to spend a few minutes speaking
about again this morning.
The fact is that among these 50 States there are some States and some
communities and some districts and some counties and some parishes that
simply do not have the resources to make the grade. They have the will.
They have the skill. They have the desire. And the children, because of
the way God created them, have the brains. They are not sitting down on
the job. These are children who want to learn. These are parents who
work very hard, who do not have flexible schedules, who wake up early
in the morning before the Sun comes up, who stay at work until the Sun
goes down.
These are the children title I tries to reach: first-generation
immigrants, families that have been in this country for many years
struggling to get ahead, families that work hard and save their hard-
earned dollars. These are the children title I tries to reach. Yet when
we do not provide the funds through the targeted grants, we often miss
the opportunity to meet these families halfway.
I think we have an obligation, on the Federal level, because of the
disparity, because of the great inequity, to do what we can to try to
level this playing field.
Let me be the first to say, although I am a sponsor of this
amendment, this amendment does not correct that inequity. We would need
many billions of dollars more to correct that inequity. But this is a
beginning. That is why it is so important for us to vote overwhelmingly
for this particular amendment. It is a beginning. It will be the first
time the targeted grant formula has ever been funded in the Senate. It
will build on the work of the House. It will support what the President
wants us to do.
As we push our schools to greater heights, as we expect higher
standards from our students, from our educators, and from our parents,
then we can help them by giving this additional funding, so that even
schools in the places that are poor, such as Louisiana and Mississippi,
and places in Delaware that may be disadvantaged, have a chance to meet
these higher standards. That is what this amendment does.
I am proud of the bipartisan support we have received. And I know it
is tough because there are some States where funding maybe goes up
slightly and there are some States where funding decreases.
I do not see my partner, Senator Lieberman, in this Chamber. He has
been working for hours, for days, for months on this amendment. Senator
Lieberman is a cosponsor. Clearly, as the Senator from Mississippi
said, Mississippi will benefit. He has more poor children in
Mississippi per capita than any State in the Union. My State is a close
second. So to Mississippi and Louisiana, this is serious business. This
is about whether these children, in homes where parents are working,
doing their best, have a chance or not. That is what this amendment
means. It is literally a life-and-death opportunity.
There are some States that are wealthier, Connecticut being one of
them. Senator Lieberman supports this amendment. I tell you, he is a
great inspirational leader to me. Just to give an example of how great
his leadership has been, Connecticut will not benefit as much as
Louisiana, but Senator Lieberman knows, as do other Senators from
wealthier States, that it is ultimately in the interest of all the
businesspeople and families in Connecticut if every child in this great
Nation has a chance for an excellent education. The benefits will come
back to Connecticut in indirect ways, if not directly. That is the kind
of long-term leadership, the kind of vision that we need more of in the
Senate.
So while in some ways it is easier for Senator Cochran and I to stand
in this Chamber and argue for it because our State will be a tremendous
beneficiary, I recognize the sponsorship of Senators from States that
do not immediately do better, but in the long run they know this is
best for their State and for the Nation; to them goes tremendous
credit.
Let me take a moment to speak about the underlying bill. Many of us,
including the Presiding Officer, have been working for many months to
try to put forward some of the new principles that are in this
particular piece of legislation.
The appropriations bill that we are discussing today helps to frame
or give substance to the authorization bill that is in committee. There
are some principles that I think are important, and I will address
those for a moment.
First of all, the underlying bill recognizes the importance of
teachers. We always say teachers are important, but sometimes we do not
put our money where our mouths are. The underlying bill gives $1
billion more to help improve the quality of teachers.
We know that a good teacher instructs but a great teacher inspires.
We need to have more great teachers; we need to help them become great
teachers, taking their great motivation and their enthusiasm, and
helping them build their skills to inspire our children in every
school, in every district, to become the very best citizens they can be
for our Nation and to become the very best leaders in the world. This
challenging time certainly calls on us to make those investments. That
is one of the initiatives in this bill.
In addition, it has been important to work on this particular bill at
this time because I think there is a sense that while we have a very
good public school system, it works pretty well most of the time, and
we can be proud of the work we do, I think the Landrieu-Cochran
amendment, and the work that is being done in the underlying bill, to
push forward on some of these points, demonstrates there is a sense of
urgency to move our schools to a higher level, expecting performance
and not concentrating on process, but expecting results,
accountability, improvements, and working with the local people in a
partnership to do that.
Why is that important? It has always been important. It has always
been important, but I think since September 11 it has become even more
obvious why it is important to have excellence in our schools and to
give every child, regardless of whether they come from a wealthy
district in Connecticut or the cotton fields of Mississippi and
Louisiana, the chance to succeed, to carry the flag that we all share
as Americans, and to do the very best we can to hold up that flag when
our Nation calls upon us to do so.
I have been very impressed with the work of the Business Roundtable
on education. They, along with many corporate executives, have
supported some of the educational reform efforts that are being made in
this Congress. I commend them for their focus.
They issued a poem, written by one of their members, that I will ask
to print in the Record. I want to share it with my colleagues this
morning because it so clarifies where we are today in America and why
the underlying bill is important, and why the targeting amendment is
important.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. It is entitled ``Pretty Good.'' It reads as follows:
Pretty Good
(By Charles Osgood)
There once was a pretty good student,
Who sat in a pretty good class
And was taught by a pretty good teacher,
Who always let pretty good pass.
He wasn't terrific at reading,
He wasn't a whiz-bang at math;
But for him education was leading
Straight down a pretty good path.
He didn't find school too exciting,
But he wanted to do pretty well,
And he did have some trouble with writing
And nobody taught him to spell.
When doing arithmetic problems
Pretty good was regarded as fine.
Five plus five needn't always add up to be ten,
A pretty good answer was nine.
The pretty good class that he sat in
Was part of a pretty good school,
And the student was not an exception,
[[Page S11313]]
On the contrary, he was the rule.
The pretty good school that he went to
Was in a pretty good town.
And nobody seemed to notice
He could not tell a verb from a noun.
The pretty good student in fact was
Part of a pretty good mob.
And the first time he knew what he lacked was
When he looked for a pretty good job.
It was then, when he sought a position,
He discovered that life could be tough,
And he soon had a sneaky suspicion
Pretty good might not be good enough.
The pretty good town in our story
Was part of a pretty good state,
Which had pretty good aspirations,
And prayed for a pretty good fate.
There once was a pretty good nation,
Pretty proud of the greatness it had,
Which learned much too late
If you want to be great,
Pretty good is, in fact, pretty bad.
We have some pretty good schools. We have some pretty good students.
We have some pretty good teachers. We have to have great schools, great
students, and great teachers. We need them in Mississippi. We need them
in Louisiana. We need them in Connecticut. We need them in
Pennsylvania. Our country depends on educated, well-skilled citizens to
lift this democracy, to help lift this world, and to become a beacon of
light. We can do that. It is not that complicated. It just takes some
principles, some determination and some funding levels, partnerships
with local governments, to make it happen.
The underlying bill, with this amendment, and the work that has been
done in the authorizing committee will get us from pretty good to
great. That is what our Nation needs at this time.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted to support,
enthusiastically, the Landrieu-Cochran amendment. I am proud to be an
original cosponsor of this amendment. I believe this is a balanced and
bipartisan amendment. I am especially pleased that this amendment
represents a change in the way the title I formula is funded. My State
of Utah has been socked by this formula for years. Correcting the title
I formula has long been a priority of mine and this amendment is a good
step in the right direction.
This amendment would direct Federal funds to go out to States using
the degree to which States equalize resources among their school
districts as a proxy for their commitment to education.
This so-called ``equity provision'' of the Education Finance
Incentive Grant section of the title I formula rewards states that have
a policy of fairly distributing resources among school districts.
I have been beating a steady drum relative to this issue for years.
As many of my colleagues know, wealthy school districts can afford to
provide more resources to their schools than can poorer school
districts. This sends an incredibly bad signal to students in so much
as it can appear that wealthy students have access to scholastic
resources such as computers and up-to-date science labs which may be
unavailable to students from less affluent areas.
We should work to eliminate what has been called this ``Savage
Inequality'' between more wealthy and less wealthy school districts. I
believe that support for the equity provision of this formula sends a
strong signal to these students that the Congress deems it a priority
for States to find a way to eliminate this barrier to academic
progress. I am very proud that my State of Utah has had a policy of
equalizing resources among school districts for decades.
A majority of States have either been taken to court or been
threatened with lawsuits over the issue of equalized resources among
school districts. This amendment would assist States which currently
are being compelled to address this issue.
As a conservative, I am pleased that the equity provision does not
mandate to States how they should achieve a more equitable school
funding strategy, it merely rewards them when they do achieve a more
equitable school funding strategy.
I am also pleased that this amendment would establish an alternative
proxy for determining a State's commitment to education. Currently, the
only measure of a State's commitment to education has been its per-
pupil expenditure. That measure unfairly evaluates a State like Utah's
commitment to education. Utah has a relatively low tax-base and the
highest percentage of school aged children.
This means that based on the per-pupil expenditure, Utah ranks
relatively low. But the per-pupil expenditure is only one measure to
judge a State's commitment to education. It makes sense as a matter of
good policy to have a variety of measures to establish a State's
commitment to education. This amendment moves us soundly in that
direction.
Funding for the Education Finance Incentive Grant program is good
policy. It just makes sense. I am pleased to support the Landrieu-
Cochran amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from
Louisiana makes changes in the formula so that there are more funds
targeted to poor areas, and States which have already targeted poor
areas are going to receive more funding. Pennsylvania is a winner in
this formula fight. I tend to support the amendment.
Nobody has appeared in opposition to the amendment, and there are a
number of States which are adversely affected.
It is my hope that other Senators wishing to protect their interests
will come to the floor to present their arguments.
Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. If we now go to a quorum call,
the time can't be charged against the Senator from Louisiana because
she has no time remaining. So is the time charged against the opponents
of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I realize my time has expired. Since no
one is here to speak against the amendment, would there be any
objection to my taking an additional few minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the
Senator from Louisiana how much additional time she wants?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would only need 2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. I have no objection.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I would be happy to yield to Senator Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be kind enough to yield 1 minute to
the Senator from Massachusetts in opposition to the Gregg amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. I will accommodate the Senator from Massachusetts on
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, to go into some more detail about the
importance to Louisiana, Louisiana is slated to receive approximately
$212 million in title I funding. Under this amendment, that will be $21
million more than we received last year. We spend about $600 per title
I student. This amount will increase by almost a third for the students
in Louisiana, increasing it by $200.
Caddo Parish may receive a 21 percent increase in title I funding.
East Baton Rouge, the capital parish, will receive a 16 percent
increase. Orleans parish could receive a 24 percent increase. These are
several examples of how beneficial this will be to the parishes in
Louisiana, and I am sure to counties in Mississippi as well as to the
State of Delaware.
This is an amendment that will help all school districts by trying to
target more of the resources to those school districts that have high
concentrations of poor students and limited opportunities to raise
their own funds locally. That, clearly, is a role the Federal
Government should play.
I will submit for the Record a more comprehensive list of what it
will mean to all of the States, as well as the State of Louisiana, in
terms of percentages of increase.
Again, this is a beginning. I know Senator Kennedy will join me in
saying that $1 billion is not really enough. But given the other pulls
on our budget, it is what we can do this year.
[[Page S11314]]
I hope to work with the Presiding Officer and the chairman, the
Senator from Massachusetts, and others to see that this money is
increased next year so that it will be beneficial to all of our States.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list to which I
referred:
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landrieu/ Increase over Percent
State Fiscal year 2001 Cochran Committee FY01 increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... $133,800,000 $154,808,000 $153,957,000 $21,008,000 16
Alaska....................... 23,064,000 27,995,000 28,159,000 4,931,000 21
Arizona...................... 137,446,000 169,204,000 170,954,000 31,758,000 23
Arkansas..................... 83,258,000 95,772,000 96,280,000 12,514,000 15
California................... 1,155,139,000 1,417,777,000 1,432,338,000 262,638,000 23
Colorado..................... 78,563,000 98,316,000 97,204,000 19,753,000 25
Connecticut.................. 83,813,000 103,824,000 104,422,000 20,011,000 24
Delaware..................... 22,221,000 26,731,000 25,879,000 4,510,000 20
District of Columbia......... 26,603,000 32,900,000 33,276,000 6,297,000 24
Florida...................... 400,840,000 501,169,000 498,469,000 100,329,000 25
Georgia...................... 250,856,000 304,676,000 314,986,000 53,820,000 21
Hawaii....................... 25,773,000 33,025,000 32,461,000 7,252,000 28
Idaho........................ 26,557,000 32,447,000 31,664,000 5,890,000 22
Illinois..................... 357,248,000 430,003,000 432,244,000 72,755,000 20
Indiana...................... 128,798,000 157,498,000 157,634,000 28,700,000 22
Iowa......................... 55,103,000 65,450,000 62,033,000 10,347,000 19
Kansas....................... 61,260,000 74,550,000 75,206,000 13,290,000 22
Kentucky..................... 130,625,000 149,864,000 148,913,000 19,239,000 15
Louisiana.................... 191,576,000 212,407,000 201,954,000 20,831,000 11
Maine........................ 32,489,000 37,653,000 37,393,000 5,164,000 16
Maryland..................... 124,098,000 154,435,000 152,827,000 30,337,000 24
Massachusetts................ 180,987,000 217,491,000 221,497,000 36,504,000 20
Michigan..................... 349,306,000 407,508,000 407,952,000 58,202,000 17
Minnesota.................... 95,313,000 117,407,000 115,332,000 22,094,000 23
Mississippi.................. 124,800,000 133,668,000 124,752,000 8,868,000 7
Missouri..................... 140,579,000 163,214,000 163,875,000 22,635,000 16
Montana...................... 28,243,000 33,223,000 33,876,000 4,980,000 18
Nebraska..................... 32,936,000 38,708,000 36,259,000 5,772,000 18
Nevada....................... 32,382,000 42,083,000 40,750,000 9,701,000 30
New Hampshire................ 21,390,000 26,684,000 25,049,000 5,294,000 25
New Jersey................... 209,372,000 255,415,000 257,744,000 46,043,000 22
New Mexico................... 68,504,000 80,281,000 81,129,000 11,777,000 17
New York..................... 822,655,000 989,767,000 1,008,629,000 167,112,000 20
North Carolina............... 172,307,000 212,181,000 214,399,000 39,874,000 23
North Dakota................. 21,081,000 25,247,000 24,639,000 4,166,000 20
Ohio......................... 303,990,000 345,855,000 329,733,000 41,865,000 14
Oklahoma..................... 101,344,000 119,647,000 121,149,000 18,303,000 18
Oregon....................... 76,714,000 93,722,000 94,465,000 17,008,000 22
Pennsylvania................. 346,293,000 401,635,000 394,496,000 55,342,000 16
Puerto Rico.................. 267,301,000 301,864,000 319,602,000 34,563,000 13
Rhode Island................. 27,057,000 33,129,000 33,875,000 6,072,000 22
South Carolina............... 112,033,000 135,117,000 137,578,000 23,084,000 21
South Dakota................. 21,251,000 25,465,000 25,248,000 4,214,000 20
Tennessee.................... 137,351,000 156,990,000 149,399,000 19,639,000 14
Texas........................ 692,899,000 819,583,000 817,235,000 126,684,000 18
Utah......................... 37,418,000 46,924,000 43,580,000 9,506,000 25
Vermont...................... 18,016,000 21,783,000 21,324,000 3,767,000 21
Virginia..................... 138,409,000 170,508,000 172,966,000 32,099,000 23
Washington................... 118,080,000 145,491,000 144,721,000 27,411,000 23
West Virginia................ 73,751,000 81,121,000 79,001,000 7,370,000 10
Wisconsin.................... 129,070,000 153,714,000 148,120,000 24,644,000 19
Wyoming...................... 19,059,000 23,077,000 22,383,000 4,018,000 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the time. The Senator
from Massachusetts is recognized.
Amendment No. 2056
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for
allowing me a minute. We have been in a markup. Everyone is pressed.
I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment
deals with public school construction but doesn't cut out charter
school construction resources. I appreciate the fact that Senator Gregg
understands that we need additional resources in title I. We are only
reaching about 35 percent of all of the children. Even with the
increases that we anticipate this year, with the increasing challenges
we are facing economically, we are still only going to reach a
relatively small percentage of children that are needy.
We understand we need additional resources. The fact is, we shouldn't
be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to invest in and increase title
I. We need an effective program of construction, public school
construction and charter school construction.
Every day, until relatively recently, in my own city of Boston, when
the temperature went below 20 degrees, we had 15 schools that closed,
where there are a number of title I children, because of the fact that
they didn't have the heating and because of the construction lapses. We
were denying these children the opportunities for learning.
This is a carefully targeted program that Senator Harkin has
directed. It is a necessary one for needy children. I hope the Gregg
amendment will be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides on the
Landrieu amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time on the side of the Senator
from Louisiana. The opponents have 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. REID. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania be willing to yield
back the time? Then we could go to the vote on the Gregg amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. I would. I think we should proceed with the business of
the Senate. If I might ask my colleague from Nevada, what would happen
then to those who want to make arguments in opposition to the Landrieu
amendment?
Mr. REID. They would not be able to make any argument.
Mr. SPECTER. Then it is the suggestion that we proceed to two votes
now?
Mr. REID. That is right. The order that is now in place would be the
Gregg amendment. As soon as that is completed, we would vote on the
Landrieu amendment. For 3 days Senators have known what has been taking
place on the floor. We announced this vote last night. We structured
the debate so there is no reason in the world that someone who opposed
the Landrieu amendment would not be here.
Mr. SPECTER. With the assistant majority leader's suggestion we
proceed to two votes, I raise no objection.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a
10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:
[[Page S11315]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 316 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--54
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2056) was rejected.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2058
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes for debate evenly divided prior to the vote on the Landrieu
amendment No. 2058.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we only have 1 minute. I yield 30
seconds to my colleague from Connecticut and 30 seconds to my colleague
from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Landrieu-Cochran
amendment. Frankly, I do not see why any Member would vote against this
amendment. It is the most progressive advance in reform in title I
since the founding of this program in 1965. It is a program that is not
working now. Every State gets more money under this program. Within
every State, poor children, who were the focus of ESEA when it was
created in 1965, will get more support for their education.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah may proceed.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as the Senator from Connecticut has
said, title I is not working as well as we had anticipated. One of the
rules of life is that if you want to keep getting the same results, you
keep doing the same things.
This is the first significant change in title I in its philosophy and
approach that we have had in many years. It rewards effort and it
brings equity. If we want to have true education reform, we vote for
the Cochran-Landrieu amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, is there time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute in opposition.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in
opposition be yielded back and we begin the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Members should be advised this is a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2058.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Breaux
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--19
Allen
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Carnahan
Clinton
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Helms
Hutchinson
Kyl
McCain
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Schumer
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
The amendment (No. 2058) was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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 West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I say to Senators that the Chair has
been trying to get order. The Chair has been trying to get order. The
Chair has been trying to get order.
I think it is about time that Senators pay some respect, show some
respect toward the Chair.
Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.
I have sought the floor at this time to urge that we get on with
action on this bill. I believe today is the beginning of the period
allotted by the fourth CR.
Mr. STEVENS. Right.
Mr. BYRD. Which extends from November 1 to the 16th. It is not a very
pretty picture when we pause to reflect on the work that remains to be
done--remains to be done on appropriations bills. Here we are on
November 1. We have 2 months left in this year, in this calendar year,
and we are far into the fiscal year: Two conference reports have passed
the House and Senate and are pending at the White House, the Interior
bill and the military construction bill.
Three conferences have been completed with floor action pending--the
House will act on these three conference reports and may have already
acted on them by this time; I am not sure--on Treasury, on energy and
water development, and on legislative branch. The Senate could proceed
quickly to finish those. If the Senate is able to finish those 3
conference reports by the end of the day, that will make a total of 5
out of 13.
There are five conferences that are expected to be completed by
Tuesday, November 6. They are these: VA-HUD, foreign operations,
Transportation, Agriculture, and Commerce-State-Justice. That will make
a total of 10 if those conferences can be completed.
Senator Stevens and I have talked with the chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee and urged that we get our conferees together
and get these conferences going. So there is a lot of effort being
expended. A lot of time is being expended that isn't seen on this
floor.
We do a lot of work off this floor. We are here in the evenings. We
are here when darkness has fallen over the city. It is not a safe city
to be in. It has not been for a long time, for that matter. But that is
an aside.
We need to get this work done on the floor. We have a bill here that
we ought to move. I urge all Senators who have amendments not to put
them off until next week thinking they can do better next week. They
are not going to do as well next week. I urge Senators to call up their
amendments and let the managers know. Both managers are here. They have
been here. Let's get on with this business.
Let me remind Senators how important this bill is. If any Senators
are here expecting to increase the amounts of money for anything in
this bill, or to add moneys, let me tell you what you
[[Page S11316]]
are doing. If there is any effort here to alter the 302(b) allocation,
you had better forget it because I am here ready, as one Senator, to
move to table any such amendment. Just as quickly as I can get the
floor, I will move to table it.
I have discussed this with my counterpart, my distinguished friend,
Mr. Stevens. He is here to speak for himself. But I can tell you one
thing. You had better forget it if you are thinking about adding money
to this bill.
Let me tell you what you will be doing. You will be creating problems
for items that are vital to you and your constituents. You will be
creating problems in the House if you do that because the House
Appropriations Committee and subcommittees have the same allocation
that we have over here in the Senate.
This bill includes $51 billion for the Department of Education, $4
billion above the President's request. I fought to get that additional
$4 billion. We wrestled like Jacob with the angel overnight to get that
additional $4 billion for education in this bill.
Let some Senator come on this floor and try to alter the allocation.
They are going to have a fight. You might as well get ready when they
come here. I fought to get that additional $4 billion for education. It
wasn't easy. All of us agreed on it. The four appropriators--the
chairman of the House committee, the chairman of the Senate committee,
the ranking member of the House committee, and the ranking member of
the Senate committee--agreed to the $4 billion.
I say to all Senators that I don't mean to be mean spirited, but I am
trying to be realistic. We have to get this work done. If you are
counting on coming here and adding moneys on this bill and calling the
addition an emergency, forget it, because we included in that agreement
among the four House and Senate chairmen and with the President that
there would be $2.2 billion for emergencies. Please don't come on this
Senate floor with the idea that you are going to add something and you
are going to designate it as an emergency. We are going to fight you
over that, if you do it, because we have fought over this and we have
worked over there. There is no point in going through the motion just
so you can get a headline in your papers.
It is $4 billion above the President's request and nearly $6.4
billion for education. That is an increase of 15 percent over last
year.
Also in this bill is $1.549 billion, an increase of $136.4 million
for dislocated worker programs. These funds are used by States for
rapid response assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and
plant closures. These fund are critical now more than ever with layoff
figures increasing across the country. That is a very important item in
this bill.
There is $1.343 billion for community, school, homeless, and migrant
health centers, an increase of $175 million. That is doing pretty well.
These centers provide primary health care to over 12 million Americans,
the majority without health insurance. By providing access to basic
health care, health centers save the health care system billions of
dollars in reduced use of costly emergency room, specialty, and
hospital inpatient care.
What an important bill this is. That is important.
Senators and staff should not contemplate coming here messing with
this bill. If you can really improvement it, we will be for you. But we
think this bill is the best that can be done with the limited resources
we have. Of course, we would like to spend more money for all of these
things--some of us would.
There is $4.419 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. That is an increased of $300.6 million, including funds for
childhood immunization, HIV prevention activities, epidemic services,
funds to strengthen the ability of State and local health departments
to respond to bioterrorism, and to maintain the pharmaceutical
stockpile.
This deals with bioterrorism. What can be more important to the
American people? The Centers for Disease Control has played a primary
role in responding to the recent anthrax attacks in Washington, New
York, and Florida.
In addition, there is $23.695 billion for the National Institutes of
Health.
If Senators want to come in here and add moneys for something, what
are they going to offset the addition with? Who wants to take moneys
out of the National Institutes of Health?
That is an increase of $3.4 billion over last year. This increase is
the fourth year of a 5-year effort to double the funding for NIH. Saved
lives, new cures and treatments, and a thriving biomedical research
industry are the result of substantial Federal investment in medical
research.
Also in this bill is $2 billion for substance abuse treatment
programs.
Who wants to take money out of that to offset something else?
That is an increase of $80 million. Studies have shown that substance
abuse treatment is effective at reducing primary drug use by 50
percent, criminal activity by 80 percent, and drug- and alcohol-related
medical visits by 50 percent.
There is $2 billion in here for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program.
Who wants to take money out that for an offset?
This program is more important than ever, given the weak economy and
the shortfalls experienced by State programs last year.
There is $1.209 billion for aging programs, an increase of $107
million, including an increase of over $5.5 million for home-delivered
and congregate meals. Last year, almost one out of every six Americans
was over 60 years of age. While the total population of the US
increased by 13 percent since 1990, those in the age category 75-84,
increased at twice that rate.
There is $10.2 billion for Title I grants to local education
agencies, an increase of $1.4 billion. These grants provide funds to
schools, especially in high-poverty areas, to help low-income, low-
achieving students learn to the same high standards as other students.
There is $3.039 billion for State grants to improve teacher quality,
an increase of $440 million. States and local educational agencies use
these funds to reduce class size, reform teacher certification
requirements, recruit teachers, provide existing teachers with
professional development opportunities, and implement teacher mentoring
programs.
The Senate bill includes sufficient funds to increase the maximum
Pell Grant to $4,000, the highest ever and an increase of $250 over
last year. Pell Grants are the foundation of postsecondary student aid,
allowing millions of low- and moderate-income students to attend
college and other postsecondary educational programs.
That is all I have to say, except, please, let's get on with this
bill. We are fast approaching Thanksgiving. We ought to be home with
our families. Let's not be tied up here.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this bill, in my judgment, is as
important in this period of time with the war on terrorism as the
Defense Department bill. It is a bill that must be finished as rapidly
as possible. It contains money to assist all of the agencies dealing
with the problems of chemical and biological warfare, as well as all of
the items Senator Byrd has mentioned.
I am told we are very near an agreement. That may mean we can finish
this bill tonight. I encourage all parties to join in that effort
because this bill is going to take a long time in conference. If I
count correctly, we have but 8 days in which we can conference this
bill within the timeframe of the next continuing resolution. We have a
holiday on the 12th. I think it is imperative we get this bill to the
President as rapidly as possible.
I also want to state to the Senate that I have agreed to join Senator
Byrd on any effort to table an amendment that would violate the
agreement we have with the House and with the President with regard to
the limitation on expenditures and the allocations within that
limitation of $686 billion. It is an agreement we made, and we hope the
Senate will enable us to keep that agreement.
Madam President, I do not know where the people are who are going to
enter into this agreement or take the steps that will be necessary to
ensure we finish this bill today, but I very much hope the Senate will
agree and follow the suggestion of the chairman of the committee and
get the bill done as rapidly as possible.
[[Page S11317]]
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend, the
former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
I wonder if we might raise a question here concerning the DC
appropriations bill. This is another bill that we could act upon, I
would think, today. I wonder if we might be able to make some
arrangement that will allow us to complete the DC appropriations bill
today.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I understand
the negotiations are underway to try to pursue the concept that we
previously discussed. That would be a means of trying to report the
bill from committee with an amendment. That has not been agreed to yet,
but I hope it will be soon. I personally will support that concept. It
would be a matter of putting one amendment on the bill as it comes out
of committee; and that amendment would be in conference. It is not an
amendment that is in the House bill.
So I would hope we would have an opportunity to take that path.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. REID. If the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee will yield, there have been conversations with the
distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. The only way out of
the problem we have is what I talked about with the chairman. If the
committee were limited to one amendment, that could happen very
quickly. It could come to the floor, and we could finish the bill
rapidly at that time.
I also say to my friend from West Virginia that during the votes,
significant progress has been made on this bill. I think the light at
the end of the tunnel will be able to be seen in a little while.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank all Senators who have spoken. I
particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.
And I thank the majority whip. I am available if I can be of assistance
to him in pursuing this matter. I believe, as he says, we can see the
light at the end of the tunnel. There seems to be a willingness on the
part of Senators who have an interest in the DC appropriations bill to
come to some agreement. As chairman of the committee, if I can be
helpful in engineering a reporting from the committee of the House bill
with an amendment, I will be happy to be of help.
I thank all Senators for listening. And I particularly thank the
managers of the bill for the progress that has been made on the bill
thus far.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa, I will
be just 2 or 3 minutes.
____________________