[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10991-S11003]
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, 2004--Resumed
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2660, which the clerk will report
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2660) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Specter amendment No. 1542, in the nature of a substitute.
Byrd amendment No. 1543 (to amendment No. 1542) to provide
additional funding for education for the disadvantaged.
Akaka amendment No. 1544 (to amendment No. 1542) to provide
additional funding for the Excellence in Economic Education
Act of 2001.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the
Chamber, it would be appropriate to comment about the colloquy which
the majority leader and I had on August 1, the last day of session
before the August recess. As the majority leader stated, this bill
would be the first matter taken up on September 2, which we did take
up, and gave everyone notice.
I made the comment at that time about the problems I have observed
with quorum calls taking up so much time, and I stated that it was my
hope as manager--and which was concurred in by my distinguished ranking
member, Senator Harkin--that we would have amendments prepared to go.
We got off to a start yesterday with two
[[Page S10992]]
amendments. We were unable to find any more amendments. We have a
couple lined up this morning.
It is my hope that Members will come to the floor with their
amendments and be prepared to go and that we can work through orderly
time agreements and proceed, with the hope of finishing up this bill--
at least a major part of it--by the end of the week.
As I said on August 1, I would like to see the Senate proceed to a
third reading when there are a lot of quorum calls and amendments which
are not prepared to be offered, especially where there is adequate
notice, as there has been for more than a month on this bill, and as
matter of general Senate business of what I hope would be accomplished
here.
I understand, after discussing the matter with the assistant leader
for the Democrats, that there is one amendment where the Democrats may
need to bring all of their people in who might otherwise be absent.
That single amendment might have to go over to next week. If that is
so, at least we should complete the bill with the exception of that
amendment, or as much of it as we can.
Let me urge my colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments
and notify the managers of the bill about amendments they have so we
can proceed in an orderly way. It is my hope that we can work into the
evening to debate amendments, subject to the decision of the majority
leader, and stacking votes perhaps in the morning, if we are not to
vote in the evening, with the same procedure available tomorrow night
because there are some 40 amendments pending. It is obvious we are
going to have considerable work to do and considerable debate to
address these amendments.
In advance of the August recess, I conferred with the distinguished
chairman of the full committee, the President pro tempore, the ranking
member of the full committee, and many of the members of the Democratic
caucus who I knew would have amendments to offer so that we ought to be
in a position to move forward.
Again, I urge colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber,
having heard the distinguished manager of the bill on two separate
occasions--yesterday and today--talking about his desire to complete
the bill, all members of the Appropriations Committee want to complete
this bill and I would like to finish this bill. The Democratic leader
has indicated that he wants to cooperate in any way we can to move
these bills along.
Having said that, we have some real problems. Today is Wednesday.
Tomorrow is Thursday. That is my reason for asking the distinguished
majority leader if he would respond. Does the leader have an idea about
what we are going to do on Friday? One of the problems we have, of
course, is even when we have votes on Friday, it is on a relatively
unimportant matter most of the time. If we are going to work tomorrow,
there is not a chance we can complete this bill, no matter how late we
work tonight and Thursday.
We have 40 amendments we have already identified. I said to the
manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, that
probably 25 percent of those the managers could agree on. That still
leaves 30 amendments. There are a number of them that are quite
controversial. If we are going to leave here Thursday night, I just do
not think we can do it. Miracles happen.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response, I wish to
restate what our distinguished manager just said; and that is that 5
weeks ago, at the end of our session just prior to the recess, we did
have a colloquy on the floor to state the importance but also the
absolute necessity of having the time managed on the floor be
disciplined and orderly to get the amendments and, as my request I made
just a few minutes ago, to have our colleagues come forward.
So far that is progressing well. And we are going to stay here and
stay on the bill to finish it, which means--and we will have more to
say on that, and I talked to the Democratic leader last night--I expect
we will be voting on Mondays and Fridays.
I think the votes we have this Friday will be important votes. We
have a lot of people traveling, on both sides of the aisle, maybe more
on your side of the aisle than ours. But for many different reasons it
is absolutely critical that we recognize, as a body, that our
responsibility is to complete this important piece of legislation,
which means being here, and we will be here Friday. Later, as we talk,
and people are back--I don't know how late we will be here Friday, but
we will be voting on substantive amendments on Friday.
It is critical we move ahead. I know the same discussion went on a
little bit yesterday, and it went on for the week or 2 weeks on the
Energy bill, that we have so much to do there is no way we are going to
be able to finish it. So now I am getting used to it. It is true, we
have to debate these amendments. Whether there are 40 or 50--and I know
there are some very important ones--I want to share with my colleagues
that we do need to stay here, although hopefully we will not have to
vote at night too much because I know people have plans. We need to
stay here, and the managers have expressed a willingness to stay here
at night in order to continue that business as we go forward.
As I told the Democratic leader yesterday, we will probably be voting
on Mondays and Fridays not just this week but over the next several
weeks. Then if there are certain days we come to an agreement that we
don't need to vote, we can continue the business. And we will share
that with both sides of the aisle. Just one final matter: the energy
conferees. I will hopefully have more to say about that later. But we
were prepared to appoint energy conferees before we left. On the
Democratic side of the aisle the request was made not to quite yet
appoint those. I did mention to the Democratic leader yesterday that we
are ready to go and do those appointments as soon as possible. I am
very hopeful that the leadership on your side of the aisle and our side
of the aisle can announce that today.
We are ready to go. We have our conferees in line, so I would like to
do that. I would like to make clear that we have been ready to go for
the last 5 and a half weeks with our conferees. People come forward and
say this is a hugely important issue, so I hope we can address that.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through you to the distinguished majority
leader, I was in a meeting yesterday with the Democratic leader, and I
think we are at a point where those conferees can be appointed. I am
very confident it can be done today.
Mr. President, has the bill been reported this morning?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it has.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1547 To Amendment No. 1542
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1547.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase funding for certain education and related
programs)
At the end of title III, insert the following:
Sec. 306. (a) In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
(1) an additional $20,000,000 to carry out part H of title
I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(dropout prevention);
(2) an additional $85,000,000 to carry out title III of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (language
instruction);
(3) an additional $6,449,000 to carry out part A of title V
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Hispanic-serving
institutions);
(4) an additional $4,587,000 to carry out part C of title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(migrant education);
(5) an additional $11,000,000 to carry out high school
equivalency program activities under section 418A of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEP);
[[Page S10993]]
(6) an additional $1,000,000 to carry out college
assistance migrant program activities under section 418A of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (CAMP);
(7) an additional $12,776,000 to carry out subpart 16 of
part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (parental assistance and local family information
centers); and
(8) an additional $69,000,000 to carry out migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs: Provided, That such sum shall
be in addition to funds reserved for migrant, seasonal, and
other Head Start programs under section 640(a)(2) of the Head
Start Act.
(b) Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the National
Institutes of Health, $150,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until September 30, 2004.
(c) The amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this
Act shall be deemed to be $7,105,011,000 and the amount
$6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be
deemed to be $6,573,489,000.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment relates to programs that help
Hispanic children. This is more than just numbers, statistics; it deals
with real people, kids who can be helped by special programs.
What does this mean? Does it mean we are spending more money to be
spending more money? What it means is we will be spending more money to
save money. For every $1 we spend in our country for these programs, we
save $10 in welfare costs, educational costs, costs to the criminal
justice system. These programs deal with children, I repeat.
One of the programs is a program called the High School Equivalency
Program which assists students of migrant parents who have dropped out
of high school to earn their GED.
Here is what Tedrel Eubanks said:
[The high school equivalency program] exposed me to college
life. This was something beyond my wildest dreams. I had
never given any real thought to finishing high school, not to
mention going to college. The more I attended GED classes,
the more excited I became. The more time I spent on the
University campus taking part in various activities, the more
determined I became about getting my GED certificate and
graduating and enrolling at [Mississippi Valley State
University].
And that is what he did.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I just
offered be on my behalf and on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Bingaman.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Another program that is a tremendously important program
that is greatly affected in an adverse way by this bill we have before
us is a program called the College Assistance Migrant Program, referred
to as CAMP, which assists migrant students in their first year of
college with personal academic counseling and stipends. These programs
have been enormously successful. But rather than talk about, again,
statistics, let me talk about a person by the name of Maria de Lurdes
Reynoso.
Maria said she went to the Boise State University CAMP. She said:
[The] Boise State University's CAMP scholarship has been a
stepping-stone in my college career. CAMP is much more than a
scholarship. From academic support to career opportunities,
CAMP helps its students become successful individuals. One of
the most important goals of my life was to receive a college
education. But more than anything, I have always wanted to
travel and see new places. CAMP placed me on the right track
and assisted me with a career and extracurricular
opportunities. This summer I will be traveling out of the
country to do an internship in Guadalajara, Mexico with the
Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture.
This Spring I will be graduating with a degree in
International Business and minors in Finance and Spanish,
thanks to the guidance and support of the people who make up
the . . . CAMP program [at Boise State University].
Mr. President, this isn't a statistic that is a throwaway. This is a
statistic that deals with a young lady who would have never, ever been
able to go to college and then complete college.
We have another program called the Migrant Education Program. These
funds are used to identify and recruit migrant students, to provide
screening for health problems, and to provide resources to enable the
children to receive appropriate medical care.
As to this program, I would like to take just one case history of a
young person who said:
At my new school, I was identified for the Migrant
Education Program.
Oscar Guzman said:
The teacher who was in charge of my class helped my mother
with all of the paperwork and records transfer. He also
arranged for a health check up for me, which I continued to
get every year through the eighth grade. The Migrant
Education Program had a special reading group for migrant
students, which helped me with my English.
I am the first person in my family to go to college. My
parents are very proud of my decision to go to college and
expect me to go far. My dad always tells me that I am going
to [be able to] work in an air-conditioned office with a
secretary. My aunts and uncles are also very proud of me and
use me as an example for my cousins. I hope to be in a
position where I can make a difference in education and
agriculture in order to improve the lives of families like my
own.
I would not be here today if it were not for the Migrant
Education Program in fifth grade that put me on a path of
academic achievement and the other migrant programs that
helped me succeed.
``Because of these programs,'' Oscar said, ``my life was made easier
and my parents' dream of a better life for me and my brother will come
true.''
That is what these amendments are about. These amendments are about
improving the lives of young people. I think we all learn a culture by
listening to its native language, its native tongue. Every time I hear
someone speak Russian, I think of my deceased father-in-law who was
born in Russia. He came as a little boy. I am confident that he didn't
speak a word of Russian but I do know that his parents spoke extremely
broken English. I didn't know his parents, my wife's grandparents. I
think of a series in public radio recently about trying to bring back
people who have written books in Yiddish. Of course, both of my in-laws
used to speak Yiddish when they didn't want me to know what was going
on. I think we learn a lot about a culture by listening to people's
languages.
Among Latino Americans, ``aspirar'' has special meaning. It is
similar to our verb ``aspire'' but it carries a greater sense of
urgency. It invokes dreams of a better life, striving for a better
future, among people who work hard just to make ends meet.
Children are the hope of every culture, and it is no different for
Latino Americans. They are the youngest demographic group in our
country and the fastest growing. More than one-third of Latino
Americans are under 18 years of age.
So the great aspiration of Latino Americans, as all immigrants who
have come to our country, is a good education for their children. We
recognize that with this wave of immigrants, as with previous waves of
immigrants, the parents are the ones who are uneducated and doing the
menial work. They have aspirations, desires, wishes, and prayers for
their children to be able to become educated so they don't have to do
the menial work that they are doing.
We recognize that there is an unacceptable gap in academic
achievement between Latino students and the overall student population.
We have agreed that it should be this Nation's policy to leave no child
behind. Now it is time to live up to those words.
That is why this amendment I have offered with Senator Bingaman--the
Hispanic education opportunity amendment--to help Latino students
achieve dreams is important.
This amendment would invest an additional $210 million in our
Nation's future by strengthening these programs. I have talked about
the programs--not all of them--such as the Hispanic-serving
institutions, the high school equivalency program, the College
Assistance Migrant Program, the local family information centers,
dropout prevention, bilingual education, and Head Start for children of
migrant workers.
These programs give Latino students a step up the ladder of education
so they can realize their aspirations. The 252 Hispanic-serving
institutions which have at least 25 percent Latino enrollment are the
main bridge between Hispanic communities and higher education. Despite
appropriations under title V, these institutions still haven't reached
Federal funding parity with other degree-granting institutions. This
amendment adds $6.4 million to help address this inequity.
The high school equivalency programs provide academic instruction,
counseling, computer-assisted teaching, and career awareness to migrant
students studying for the GED. The Senate's bill--the one before us--
slashes funding for these programs by
[[Page S10994]]
43 percent and would eliminate 23 programs to achieve a combined GED
completion rate of almost 73 percent.
The proposed budget also cuts the College Assistance Migrant Program
by $400,000. As I indicated with the example I gave earlier, these
recruits are important. They are talented migrant high school graduates
and GED recipients, and this mentors them through their first year of
college. Before CAMP was created, there was no record of a migrant
child having completed college. Since its inception, almost three-
quarters of all CAMP students received baccalaureate degrees.
The existing HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000
students. Of these 15,000 students, the vast majority--about 75
percent--will graduate from college. They will not be welfare dependent
and will not have problems with the criminal justice system. And, of
course, they won't be creating problems in the educational system. Over
the next years, about 170,000 migrant children will become eligible for
HEP, while 140,000 will qualify for CAMP. Funding for these programs
should be increased, not cut. That is why this amendment adds $11
million for HEP programs and $1 million for CAMP.
We also need to make the Head Start Program available to more
children of migrant workers so they have a fighting chance to do well
in school.
In Nevada, we have probably a thousand migrant students, and they
make up more than half the students in Amargossa in Nye County, where
my brother lives. These children have hard lives, and if any child ever
deserved a head start in school, they do. Yet we have not had a single
migrant Head Start Program in all of Nevada. People think of Nevada
only as a place where you have the bright lights of Las Vegas and Reno
but we have farming communities.
In the Amargossa Valley, there are very large dairy farms. In Lyon
County, we have the largest producer of white onions in America.
Migrant farm workers come there in waves. Yet we don't have a single
program in Head Start for these children. They are left behind even
before they begin school. We need to offer Head Start to 10,000 new
migrant children. My amendment would move us toward that goal.
We know parental involvement is a crucial factor in a child's school
success. That is why the local family information centers were created
by the No Child Left Behind Act. These are community-based centers that
provide parents of title I students with information about their
children's schools so they can get involved in their education. An
additional investment will strengthen the ties between Latino families
and their children's schools. This is good for the whole community.
This amendment also addresses the programs for dropout prevention and
bilingual education. Senator Bingaman and I have worked for years
together on the dropout programs. We believe there should be a dropout
czar in the Department of Education that works on nothing but doing
something to prevent dropouts in our country.
In Nevada, we have 50,000 students with limited proficiency in
English. And Latinos have the highest dropout rate of any demographic
group in our State. These programs will help Nevada, and many other
States, too, with growing Hispanic populations.
In the past, we have received Federal grants for two dropout
programs, at Pyramid Lake High School, a Paiute Indian school, and the
Washoe County School District. But now the Senate HHS budget would
eliminate all funding for these programs. The amendment I have offered
would restore $20 million for dropout prevention.
None of these programs by themselves might seem that important, but
taken together they give Latino Americans a better chance of realizing
their hopes and dreams. Just as important, these measures will
strengthen the American economy by building a more productive
workforce.
Already, one-third of the new workers who join our labor force are
Latino. In 20 years, it will be half. These are the workers who will
pay taxes to keep our military strong, to educate our children,
grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and provide our Social Security
in the future. So, you see, our future depends on the hopes and dreams
of our Latino neighbors.
Aspirar--to hope. No matter what language we speak, we all understand
what that means. We all have a stake in making it possible.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished
assistant Democratic leader, we have agreed upon a time for the vote.
I ask unanimous consent that at noon today, the Senate proceed to a
vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1547 with no amendments to
the amendment in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend to modify that request
following the word ``vote,'' that at 11:45 a.m., the amendment recur
and that the time until 12 o'clock be equally divided and controlled
between Senators Reid and Bingaman and Senator Specter. In effect, we
will debate the matter from 11:45 a.m. until 12 o'clock and vote at 12
o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from
Nevada leaves the floor, and I know he has other commitments and will
not hear my reply to his presentation, the question that I would
address to the Senator from Nevada is how he picks a figure of $210
million? As I will outline in the course of my presentation, there are
quite a number of programs which are directed to this issue.
The appropriations subcommittee has considered many programs. We have
increased some 26 programs and decreased some 6 programs, what we
consider to be a balance. I ask my colleague from Nevada how he comes
to a figure of $210 million when comparing it to all the other programs
in this bill which are directed to this generalized effort?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what we have done is meet with educators, we
have met with members of the Hispanic community, and we have come to
the conclusion that the programs that are included in this amendment
are vital and should be increased and not decreased, and that these
programs are, we think, programs that, as I indicated briefly in my
statement, will not cost this country money but will save the country
money in the long term.
While the figure we have come up with may not be magically correct--I
would like to have had more, but in working with the minority staff, we
recognize there is a limit to what we can do, but we believe this is a
small enough number that people should simply vote to waive the Budget
Act. And I am confident there will be a budget point of order raised
against this amendment on a bill such as this bill.
I say to my friend that a few months ago we were going to give Turkey
$6 billion to help us in Iraq. Maybe we should say that $200 million to
help people here who are going to help our country is just as important
as that gift we were going to make to the people of Turkey.
I do apologize for being rude to my friend because I always
appreciate his efficacy. I am sure not everyone in the Senate has read
his book. I have. I know what a fine lawyer he is and the work he has
done. But probably not listening to his response will make my day
easier because I will then not realize all the inadequacies in my
amendment and I would have to come back and respond to that argument.
This way I can just speak from the high level and not have to worry
about his--I will not say nitpicking but his really good debate. In
this way, I will have one of my staff tell me some of the high points
of his debate, and I will just hit the high points when I return.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for
those charming, complimentary remarks. He exits the Chamber with grace.
He has to present a judge from his State. We will miss him. I would
[[Page S10995]]
prefer his being here so all of the contentions I will make will be
presented directly to him. There are many demands on every Senator. I
understand why Senator Reid cannot be present.
When the Senator from Nevada advanced this amendment for $210 million
additionally for education programs for Hispanic students, I asked him
how they came up with this figure. I do so in the context of chairing
this subcommittee which has had many hearings and has analyzed the
needs of Hispanic students in the context of many other needs this
subcommittee has to fund.
Without going through the entire list, I had referenced the fact that
the bill contains increases for some 26 programs and decreases for some
6 programs. In making an evaluation as to what are the needs of the
Hispanic community, we have taken into account that there are many
other programs which have been funded which are directed to the
Hispanic community or programs where the local education agency has
funding which can be directed to the Hispanic community, depending upon
the needs for that community in a given area. The needs for the
Hispanic community may vary materially in San Antonio, TX, which is
more heavily populated with Hispanics than, say, my hometown of
Russell, KS, a small community on the plains of Kansas with 5,000
people where the need is different.
One of the major education allocations of this bill is
$12,350,000,000 on Title I grants to local education agencies. This is
directed to take care of the achievement gap between students in low-
and high-poverty schools. This covers to a very material extent
communities where these funds can be allocated for Hispanics.
Our bill also includes some $300 million for the Gear Up program
originated by a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives
from Philadelphia, Congressman Chaka Fattah, who coordinated the
program with me, with the thrust coming from the House but most of the
funding thrust coming from this subcommittee, where we now have some
$300 million in this GEAR UP Program, and 70 percent of the 1.3 million
students served by this program are minorities, including almost 30
percent who are Hispanics. I point to this GEAR UP Program as
illustrative of a program which can accommodate the kinds of concerns
which the Senator from Nevada is talking about.
Our bill also has some $665 million for the English Language
Acquisition State Grant Program, which is designed to help students who
have limited English proficiency. Here again, this funding is already
available for Hispanics on the line where the Senator from Nevada seeks
to add additional funding.
There are many other programs in this bill. For example, $13 million
in this bill is being directed to the high school equivalency program
which can be used for Hispanic students; some $15 million directed to
college assistance migrant programs, which again can be used for
Hispanic students.
On the English Language Acquisition Grant State, which was already
identified, there is some $665 million, and with respect to Hispanic-
serving institutions, more than $93 million is being directed to
colleges and universities which have 25 percent or more Hispanics.
In the context of these appropriations, it was the conclusion of the
subcommittee, and then the conclusion of the full committee, that the
interests of Hispanic students were adequately taken care of.
When I asked the Senator from Nevada how he picked a figure of $210
million, his response was, it is not excessive but it would be helpful;
that it might be good to have even more money.
That might be said about any program which is on the agenda, to add
more money.
The Senator from Nevada said we were considering giving substantial
money to Turkey. Well, why not give a portion of that money to Hispanic
students? That is a very frequently advanced argument. If we took the
cost of the B-2 bomber, how many items in some other line could that
accommodate?
The reality is that the Federal budget is gigantic. It is $2.2
trillion. Does anybody know how much money that is? Not really. It is a
staggering amount of money. It is said that if one took a large hall
like the Senate Chamber there would be insufficient space to stuff
$10,000 bills for that sum of money.
The Congress of the United States has, as a principal function, the
job of appropriating, figuring out where the money goes. There may be
some disagreement about how much money should have been offered to
Turkey to aid in the Iraq war, and we will hear a great deal of talk in
this Chamber about Iraq, not Iraq's educational program but how much
money is being allocated to Iraq. I submit that the long-range
interests of the United States are very well served, and when we are
successful--and we will be successful--in establishing order in Iraq
and establishing, I think, a democracy in Iraq. Democracies are
contagious.
The only democracy in the Mideast today is Israel. The Saudis'
leadership are in fear of democracies becoming popular, as are the
ruling elites in all of the other Mideast countries.
I do not intend to prolong a debate about Iraq. It is my hope that
the President's efforts to bring in other nations, which is the banner
headline in this morning's press, will reach fruition. I hope there
will be people from other countries, especially Muslim countries,
Pakistan and Turkey, to share in the responsibility and to give the
Arab world confidence so that the United States will not carry that
burden and our own personnel will not be subjected to the casualties
which are currently present.
I mention Iraq in response to what the Senator from Nevada says about
the money which we have proposed to give to Turkey. So we are trying to
make an allocation of a gigantic sum of money, $2.2 trillion. It comes
to this subcommittee to make an allocation on discretionary funding of
$137.6 billion. I think we have exercised real care and thoughtfulness
in making these allocations.
I would like to see additional money for many items in the line, but
there has to be an evaluation and an assessment of priorities. I am
aware of the political impact on having my vote, and the votes of other
individual Senators, be against expanding this Hispanic education
program. It is worth a brief comment on the so-called 30-second
commercial, where individual votes are picked out and are featured at
election time to say to one group or another, and in this case
Hispanics, why Senator X or Senator Y ought to be defeated because
there was a vote against a specific matter. That does not tell even a
part of the story as to how that vote is cast in the context of other
programs which are devoted to this very important issue, as I think
this record shows, which I have explained, and why it is with
reluctance that I oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished
Senator from Nevada.
Yes, it would be good to have more funds here and more funds in many
other places, but it is an overall evaluation which we have to take
into account. I believe a fair analysis of this program overall shows
that there are adequate funds being directed for this important
purpose. How you pick $210 million in this amendment as opposed to $310
million or $410 million or $10 million remains an open question, when
we add up the millions of dollars which are devoted to programs and
items in this appropriation bill which are directable to this important
objective.
I am advised other Senators will be coming to speak on this
amendment. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has asked that
all Republican members of the committee be available for a meeting at
this time. So in the absence of any other Senator wishing to speak and
in the instance of my own presence being required at another meeting, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are awaiting other Senators to speak
on the pending amendment of the Senator
[[Page S10996]]
from Nevada, Mr. Reid. In the interim I ask other Senators to come to
the floor to offer amendments. Procedurally, as is well known, we can
set aside the Reid amendment and proceed to debate other amendments.
The majority leader has already expressed his intention to vote
through Friday, so the sooner we address these issues the sooner the
Senate will conclude its business. I urge my colleagues to come to the
Senate floor to offer amendments.
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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in
favor of the amendment that Senator Reid of Nevada has offered relating
to funding for various programs in this appropriations bill that are of
particular importance to the Hispanic community. I strongly support
Senator Reid's amendment and believe that it would be a very important
step for us to take in keeping the commitment that we have made to the
people of this country when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.
I have just completed spending 4 weeks in my State, most of the time
in my State, and much of that time I was talking to people who were
involved in education and were preparing for the new school year. It is
clear that one message comes through in those discussions. That message
is, What is the Federal Government going to do to keep its share of the
bargain?
The Federal Government has imposed all sorts of new requirements on
States and school districts about how they are to reform education, how
they are to improve instruction in the schools, how they are to improve
student performance in the schools. Unfortunately, when those educators
see that the administration, first, in its request to Congress, and
then the Congress itself, does not put forward the money which was
committed in the No Child Left Behind Act, the cynicism on the part of
many people working in education is understandable.
The amendment the Senator from Nevada has offered is an effort to
correct some of that. I strongly support it. Let me talk about one
particular aspect of it that I know better, perhaps, than I know some
other parts. That relates to the dropout prevention program. This is a
subject that has been debated and discussed and talked about in
Washington and at the national level for a great many years. I remember
when President Bush senior, the former President Bush--not this
President Bush but this President Bush's father--convened all the
Governors of the country to have a first and only, as far as I know to
this day--first and only national summit on education. That was in
Charlottesville, VA. It was in 1989, I believe. At that time the
Governors and the President committed the country to a series of goals
in education, things that we would all agree, jointly, to work on and
accomplish over the coming 10 years. That was in 1989. That 10 years
has come and gone. But one of those goals was that we would ensure that
at least 90 percent of the students who started high school actually
completed high school; that we would reduce the dropout rate very
substantially in this country. That was one of the goals the President
and the Governors signed onto.
I should say one of those Governors was former President Bill
Clinton. Of course, there were many others who are still in key
positions in our Government who were part of that group. The
unfortunate reality is that after we adopted that set of goals,
national education goals, there was no strategy to achieve them.
There was absolutely nothing done here in Washington and in many
States, I fear, to actually get us to where we had committed to travel.
Particularly in this area of dropout prevention, there was no Federal
money committed. The first Federal money that was committed was a
demonstration program in fiscal year 2001. I believe we committed $10
million to a demonstration program so that for the first time the
Department of Education at the national level would have some funds
available to help local school districts reduce the number of students
who were leaving school without graduating, and to reduce the number of
students who were dropping out.
This is of particular importance in my State because in my State we
have a very high dropout rate. Unfortunately for everyone involved,
that dropout rate is concentrated in the Hispanic community. Over 40
percent of the students in my State are of Hispanic background, and a
great many of those students--particularly young Hispanic males--leave
school without graduating from high school. That is not only
unfortunate for them, but it substantially reduces their ability to be
productive citizens, to earn a good income, to raise a family, and to
do the things we all aspire to do. But it also is an unfortunate
reality for our State's economy.
We do not have the ability to generate the wealth because we lack
some of the skilled workforce we need, and that we could have if we
keep those people in school longer.
In fiscal year 2001, the Congress stepped forward. This was before
the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted. We stepped forward and said,
OK, we will commit $10 million nationally to try to deal with this
problem. That funding can be used to help school districts that have
strategies which they want to pursue to reduce the dropout rate. That
was an appropriate thing to do. When we had the debate and the hearings
and the markup on the No Child Left Behind Act, we talked long and hard
about this problem of the dropout rate and how to come to grips with
it. In the final bill, I was very pleased to see the administration
agreed with the Congress, and that we authorized $125 million a year to
be spent to reduce the dropout rate. That bill was signed in January of
2001. Since then, we have had two budget requests from this President.
In both of those budget requests--in 2001, and again this year--in each
of the budget requests we have received, there has been zero funding
proposed for dropout prevention. Absolutely nothing was requested for
dropout prevention at the Federal level. The Congress stepped in last
year and corrected some of that. Instead of putting in $10 million, the
Congress put in $10.9 million. I appreciate that. That was a step the
Congress took in spite of the fact there was zero funding requested by
the administration.
This year, there are zero funds requested by the administration for
dropout prevention. Unfortunately, this year, the bill we are
considering on the Senate floor today follows the administration's
recommendation and contains zero funds. The House bill follows the
administration's recommendation and contains zero funds.
We are going from a situation where we committed $10 million to this
program before we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to a situation
where we are committing zero funds now that we have passed the No Child
Left Behind Act. Understandably, people in the education community
doubt the sincerity of those of us in Washington who keep talking about
how important it is to reduce the dropout rate.
Why is this dropout rate issue relevant to a discussion, or
particularly relevant to a discussion of No Child Left Behind? The main
thrust of the No Child Left Behind Act was to increase accountability,
raise standards, require more of teachers, and require more of
students. The great concern which I heard in my State, and which I
think lots of us heard, was if we are going to do that--which is a good
thing because we all favor higher standards, we all favor better
performance, we all favor better trained teachers and better performing
students--but if we are going to do that, let us not kid ourselves and
allow the students who are not keeping up to just go away and forget
about it. That is the concern. That is why we also put a provision in
the No Child Left Behind Act for some funding for dropout prevention.
It is not a major amount. It is $125 million a year. But it was at
least a commitment at the Federal level to help deal with the problem.
It was a commitment that the Hispanic community--at least leaders of
the Hispanic community who focus on education issues in my State, and
virtually all the leaders of the Hispanic community in my State who
focus on
[[Page S10997]]
education issues because they understand the importance that education
holds for their community--all of those leaders would know this was a
priority and that we would be able to move ahead and begin to deal with
it systematically.
I hope very much we can adopt Senator Reid's amendment so we can add
some funding and do something. I am not of the view that we are going
to add $125 million. Senator Reid's amendment proposes to add $20
million. That is inadequate, but it certainly is much better than
nothing, which is what we are now proposing.
There are other provisions in Senator Reid's amendment which I think
are also very meritorious. He indicated in his description of the
amendment funding for the Hispanic-serving institutions. That is
important funding as well. Clearly, I support the effort to add some
reasonable increase to that. There are 157 Hispanic-serving
institutions which have received money from title V. A third of those
institutions that are eligible have received no assistance. These
grants are made on a competitive basis, and there are not enough funds
to award grants to each of the institutions that meet the criteria.
The migrant program: Again, this is an area in which I think the
Federal Government has a peculiarly important responsibility. You
cannot expect each local State to have in place the kind of support
system for migrant children of migrant families which is needed.
We are requiring in the No Child Left Behind Act that school
districts raise the performance and the achievement level of all
students. That includes those students who are students of migrant
families who come into that school district for a few months, perhaps,
and then leave. But the school district is held accountable for the
performance of those students, as it should be held accountable for the
performance of those students.
The number of those students is increasing. It has grown from 624,000
in fiscal year 1999 to over 800,000 this year. That growth, combined
with the new mandates from this No Child Left Behind Act, will require
that additional funding be made available. So I urge all Senators to
support the amendment by my colleague from Nevada.
These are important programs. They need to be adequately funded. We
have committed to fund these programs at an adequate level and,
unfortunately, the bill before us does not do that. I hope very much
this amendment will be adopted. It is a very modest amendment, frankly,
compared to the size of the budget we are dealing with, compared to the
size of the appropriations in this bill itself. So I hope this modest
amendment to assist those most in need of educational services in our
country can be supported.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through you to the distinguished Senator
from New Mexico, the Senator from New Mexico has worked on these issues
for many years, and he keeps referring to this as the Reid amendment.
This is the Reid-Bingaman amendment. It is offered in that way, and it
was meant to be offered in that way because of the work he has done for
the many years prior to this.
The question I would like to ask the Senator: One of the provisions
in this amendment calls for more money for afterschool programs for
Hispanic children. Does the Senator from New Mexico have the same
problems in New Mexico that we have in Nevada with respect to Hispanic
children dropping out at larger numbers than non-Hispanic children?
And would the Senator also agree, for every child we are able to keep
in school, we save the Government--State, local, and the Federal
Government--money as a result of these children being able to be
educated rather than being out on the streets, so to speak?
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to the question, let me say,
I do very much agree we have the problem in New Mexico of way too many
of our students leaving school before they graduate. Unfortunately, a
disproportionately large portion of those students who leave school are
Hispanic students.
Now, on the second point the Senator raised, that every time one of
those students leaves school before he or she graduates, it may, in
fact--and probably does--cost the Government something in various ways,
the main thing that I see it does is it robs the society of the benefit
of having a better educated citizen and a more productive citizen for
the rest of that person's life because each of those people, if they
will stay in school and complete high school, has a much greater
ability to earn, a much greater ability to provide for their families.
And all of that, of course, inures to the benefit of the entire
society. They pay more taxes. They are able to contribute more to their
community.
It is a very well-chosen investment of public funds to keep these
students in school. That is all we are trying to do, to say that the
Federal Government should do something to assist school districts which
want to work on that problem. That is all we are saying.
The Federal Government cannot take the place of the school district,
and should not be trying to, but it can, in some small way, assist
local school districts which want to deal with the problem.
This last year, with the $10.9 million which was appropriated--this
is in the current year, I should say--with the $10.9 million that was
appropriated, my understanding is the Department of Education was able
to make 24 grants to individual school districts in 19 different States
to try to help them reduce the dropout rate. Two of those grants went
to school districts in my home State of New Mexico. These are grants to
assist those districts which have come up with a plan, a way to reduce
the dropout rate, that they want to try to implement in their own
district.
There are some proven strategies that have been shown to work. We
need to give school districts more opportunities to implement those
strategies. And that would be a major thrust of the amendment the
Senator from Nevada has proposed. So I again urge my colleagues to
support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I agree with the argument
made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico about the importance
of school dropout and combating that problem. This is an issue which
has concerned me for many years. When I was district attorney of
Philadelphia, the dropout problem was a major factor and a major cause
of juvenile delinquency. When a child is not in school, not only is the
child not getting the education, but the child is likely to be engaged
in not only no productive activity but in counterproductive activity,
frequently crime.
So this is an issue that I think has to be addressed. I think the
committee has addressed it through the funding which we have made
available in this bill, although not on a categorical grant. The
categorical grants are where the Government makes a specification as to
saying a given amount of money is to be used for a specific purpose.
It is true we had a program called the Dropout Prevention Program for
slightly under $11 million in the current fiscal year. But we have in
Title I a requirement that 1 percent of the total funding be allocated
for dropout or related activities, and that 1 percent amounts to some
$80 million. So there is a very considerable sum of money which is
available under Title I.
There is also a considerable sum of money which can be used for
dropouts under the $345 million for innovative educational programs.
What we are trying to do is put funding at the local education agency.
So in Title I they have a very substantial sum of money--$12.3-plus
billion--but not to tell them exactly what to use for each specific
item but to leave it to the local school district.
When I addressed the amendment of Senator Reid earlier today, I made
a comment about the needs in San Antonio of Hispanics would be
considerably different than the needs of say Russell, KS, my hometown,
a small town of 5,000 on the plains of Kansas, where it is a very
different issue. And where the Senator has Albuquerque, which has a
much higher Hispanic proportion of population, it would be very
different.
[[Page S10998]]
So the thrust of what the subcommittee has done in this bill is to
try to provide funding which leaves discretion in the local districts
to use money for dropouts. When the Senator from New Mexico says that
$20 million is a start, but inadequate--if I can get his exact
language--that really is a characterization which might apply to so
much of the funding anywhere in this Education bill. There is always
more that can be added. It is hard to find a figure which is generally
regarded as adequate, education being such a high priority.
But in structuring this bill, the Senator from Iowa and I, as
managers, have tried to make the allocations within a budget and within
our 302(b) allocations. I think we have made an allocation which
addresses the needs which the Senator from New Mexico expresses. The
Senator from New Mexico said $20 million was inadequate but better than
nothing. Well, that characterization, I think, might be applied just
about anywhere in this bill or in so many other bills.
When the Senator from New Mexico talks about the afterschool
programs, that is an item of special concern to this Senator as well.
Again, during that lull between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock, we find so
much delinquency occurring. The subcommittee increased the allocation
on afterschool programs to $1 billion. The figure that had been in the
President's budget was $600 million. We had extensive hearings.
It might be of some interest that Arnold Schwarzenegger had a
longstanding interest in this and he made a very compelling argument. I
don't want to get involved in the California primary, but there was a
very protracted hearing devoted to this subject.
We took the figure of $600 million, which was in the President's
budget, and I don't have to tell the Senator from New Mexico that
finding $400 million over and above what the President asked for was
very difficult. We recognize the things we agree on--afterschool
programs and dropout. I believe we have made an appropriate allocation
of funds. It is true that $210 million is modest when you are looking
at a $53 billion education budget. But we have tried to make
allocations on many, many lines--for student loans, Pell grants, and
many other items. I think we have taken into account the concerns the
Senator from New Mexico has articulated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and assure him
that I appreciate his commitment to trying to do what is right in this
area. I know he has been substantially supportive on a lot of these
efforts over many years. I very much appreciate that.
Let me try to be clear as to my understanding, and he can correct me
if I am wrong. He has indicated that, yes, there is no money for the
program that we authorized for dropout prevention--the $125 million per
year authorization; there are zero funds in there for that. Although
there was nearly $11 million in the current year funding, there is
nothing in this upcoming year.
He has indicated that there are a couple of other places where school
districts can use funds for this purpose if they choose to. One is that
they can spend up to 1 percent--or they are required to spend 1 percent
on either failing schools or dropout prevention, as I understand it.
Mr. SPECTER. The 1 percent is for dropout, and the term used is
related activities. So it is focused on dropouts. Some $80 million is
available for dropouts.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not doubt that there is funding
available for this if a school district can find it within its budget
to use it for that purpose. The problem we have in my State--and I
think all over the country--is that these school districts are under
greater and greater pressure to increase their test scores, to
demonstrate improved student performance. That is where the pressure
is. That is where the money is going to be spent, unless we have some
funds cordoned off that are available only for this kind of purpose--
this dropout prevention.
Clearly, everyone is well-intentioned here. A school superintendent
or a school board will decide, OK, we have a lot of needs but the
pressure we are feeling is to get these test scores up; we have to
concentrate on getting these test scores up. Once that is done, a few
years down the road we will be able to give more attention to the kids
who are dropping out.
In the No Child Left Behind Act, we tried to say, no, we are going to
cordon off some portion of the Federal funding that can only be used
for this purpose. That doesn't mean every school district has to take
that money or even has that need. If Russell, KS, doesn't have a
dropout problem, they don't need to apply for one of these grants. A
lot of communities in New Mexico have that problem and would love to be
able to get one of these grants so they can deal with that problem. If
it is left to them to take some of the funds they get under title I, or
some other basket of funding, and devote it to that purpose alone, it
is much less likely to happen.
So that is why we made provisions for dropout prevention as a part of
the No Child Left Behind Act. That is why this Senate and this Congress
were persuaded to add nearly $11 million to that line item last year
and in the current year, even though the President requested nothing. I
think the least we can do is do something similar in this Congress--
perhaps $20 million is the right figure--to ensure that this program at
the Department of Education level, the Federal level, does not just die
at the very time we are going around giving speeches about what a great
thing No Child Left Behind was. That seems to me contrary to logic, and
it is also contrary to what we told the American people we were about.
I see the manager wishes to speak again. I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I understood the comment of the
Senator from New Mexico, it was that the money would be available in
title I if the local school board wanted to use it for dropout. That
isn't precisely the statutory construction. The Department of
Education, in delineating its 2004 budget request, specifies that
States would reserve approximately $88 million from their allocations
that are title I, part A, to support dropout prevention programs in
local education agencies. So the figure, more precisely, according to
their budget request, is $88 million. It is to be directed to the
dropout program.
So that is money for this specific program. That is why the
administration, in submitting the budget request, did not include the
slightly under $11 million for a categorical grant because it is taken
care of in other places. The Department of Education budget request
also specifies the dropout funding availability innovative programs,
which I mentioned earlier, of some $345 million. In the innovative
programs for $345 million, there is not a direction for dropouts, as
there is a direction for dropouts for $88 million under title I.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SPECTER. I will.
Mr. BINGAMAN. My understanding is that this funding--in reference to
students who have dropped out--contemplates what many States are doing,
which is to use some of their title I funds for students who are in the
criminal justice system. This is not dropout prevention; this is taking
students who have dropped out. Maybe they have dropped out because they
have been thrown in jail, but whatever the reason, they are no longer
in the school system.
My understanding was that essentially the administration was saying
you are required to use at least 1 percent of the title I funds that we
provide to you to deal with these students who have left the system and
are in the criminal justice system primarily. That is what States are
doing.
What we were trying to do in the provision I am arguing for and
Senator Reid is arguing for here in the No Child Left Behind Act is to
get ahead of the problem and say we don't want these students leaving
the school system. We want to help the school district to keep those
students in school.
That is what we wanted to see funds devoted to, dropout prevention
rather than assisting students who had already left the school system.
Am I confused about that? Let me ask that question.
Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to respond to the question, which was in
the
[[Page S10999]]
nature of a debate, but I understand our processes here. I say to the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, these funds are not for students
who have left the education program and entered the criminal justice
system. There are other funds for people who are out of the education
system and in the criminal justice system.
These funds specifically are directed to dropout prevention programs.
That is the language which is included in the budget request for the
Department of Education which supports their request for $13 billion
plus for title I and has the requirement for 1 percent, and the
language prevention programs is specifically here. They are using these
funds, as the Senator from New Mexico appropriately says, to get ahead
of the program.
The long and short of it is that these are funds to prevent dropouts.
Mr. BINGAMAN. May I ask one additional question, Mr. President?
Mr. SPECTER. Sure.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee has indicated that
these are funds which, in the request from the Department of Education,
are to be allocated for this purpose. Is there language in the bill
before us which specifies that a portion, some percent, is to be used
for dropout prevention? I am just not aware of that. If there is
language to that effect, I have not seen it.
Mr. SPECTER. The bill does not duplicate the requirements which have
been set forward in the budget request. We could put in additional
language. If the Senator would like to have that language, I would
certainly consider that, but I think it would be duplicative and
unnecessary. Under existing law, under title I, the 1-percent
requirement is present for dropout prevention. That is the law.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will review this language and then
perhaps be in a position to discuss further with the chairman what the
language of the bill ought to provide to ensure that funds can be made
available in grants to school districts in a way that they would
actually use them for this purpose.
My concern is, the way the bill now stands, I do not see the
opportunity being there for school districts to pursue these
strategies. For that reason, I would like to review it a little further
and then get back in touch with the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be delighted to work with the
Senator from New Mexico to provide whatever assurances he would like,
additional assurances, that the $88 million will be for dropout
prevention. That is the law, but, again, I will be glad to work with my
distinguished colleague to satisfy the concerns he has raised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the two Senators have been discussing
this amendment, we should not be diverted from the fact that this
amendment is related to specific programs that help Hispanic children
in America today. Dropout prevention, of course, is one of those
programs. We cannot lose the goal we are attempting to accomplish in
this amendment, and that is that we help people, and there are various
programs I discussed earlier today that are set forth in detail in the
amendment before the Senate. There is nothing more important than the
dropout prevention program, but there are programs that are just as
important to which this amendment is directed.
We are talking about, of the tens of billions of dollars in Federal
programs that go to education, $200 million that will be directed to
specific programs that will save our country huge amounts of money. It
is estimated by some groups that for every dollar we spend in these
programs which are the subject matter of this amendment, the Government
will save up to $10.
I appreciate the discussion that has been held this morning between
the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New Mexico dealing
with dropouts, but this amendment deals with far more than just that
program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief recapitulation, the
thrust of the amendment by the Senator from Nevada on Hispanics I think
has been covered by the enumeration of programs I outlined earlier
during the course of this debate. There are very substantial funds
available in the bill, as it stands now, which can provide assistance
for Hispanics.
I concur with the Senator from Nevada that this is an important item,
but I do believe the Education appropriations accommodate this very key
interest for the specified reasons given earlier in the course of this
debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend the
distinguished Senator from Nevada for his sponsorship of this
amendment. There has been some discussion already about the importance
that we as a country need to put on the extraordinary challenges we
face with regard to the education of Hispanic children.
The number of school-age Hispanic children has actually grown by 61
percent in the last 2 years, a rate faster than any other American
community. One out of every 6 children who attends public school today
is Hispanic.
Hispanic children continue to perform below their non-Hispanic peers
in reading, math, and science. By age 9, more than one-third of Latino
students in high school are enrolled at below grade level today.
Hispanic youths suffer from the highest dropout rate of any group.
Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as likely to drop out
of school as African American students and four times as likely to drop
out today as white students.
In the Nation's 17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts,
Hispanics lag behind white students in reading achievement by an
average of 30 points and in math achievement by an average of 27
points. Yet the bill before us cuts $21 million in bilingual education,
$11 million in dropout prevention programs, $10 million in high school
migrant education, and $15 million in college migrant education.
What Senator Reid has done is simply propose to reverse these
proposed cuts and enhance English instruction for non-native speakers,
dropout prevention, and migrant education funding.
This really sets the tone for a series of amendments that I know my
colleagues will be offering over the course of the next several days.
It is important for us as a country to make the investment in education
perhaps more than in any other endeavor in Government. If we empower
our youth--Hispanic, African American, Asian American, Native American,
in addition to European American--we give them the opportunity to be
the productive, capable, and contributing citizens we know they can be.
It is so much easier to build a child than to repair an adult. We are
talking about building children. The only way we are going to build
those children is to give them opportunities in education by funding
these programs at a level that will allow us to meet the expectations
and, I would say, the obligations our country holds today.
This is a very good amendment, and I hope the Senate will support it
on a bipartisan basis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with much of what the Democratic
leader has said about the importance of education. In fact, I agree
with all of what he has said about the importance of education. But
again, for the reasons which have been advanced during the course of
this debate yesterday and today and on this amendment specifically, I
believe we have accommodated a good balance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Reid-
Bingaman amendment which addresses Hispanic educational opportunities.
This is an extremely important measure.
Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to put together a
summit of Hispanic elected officials, families, interested people, in
my home State. There was an overwhelming turnout that day. We had
everyone from elected officials to people who are active in the
community or members of the Hispanic community who just wanted to come
and find out what we were doing at the Federal level on issues that
affected them. The No. 1 issue people talked
[[Page S11000]]
about that day was education and opportunity for the young Hispanic
students in our schools, in their communities, and across the country.
I was astounded to listen to leaders in the community, elected school
board members, city council members, who told me that when they were
growing up, very few people, if any people, looked at them and said:
You can be a success. You can pass first grade--many of them had
flunked first grade. You can go on to college. You can become something
in this country.
I think it is so important that this amendment pass so we can put the
education in place that says to these young students in our country
today that we need them, we need them to be the next generation of
engineers; we need them to be the next generation of teachers; we need
them to be the next generation of CEOs. We are missing out on an entire
young population and what they can give back to this country someday in
leadership, in economics, in paying taxes, in being viable members of
this community, if we do not fund opportunities for them today.
So I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Reid-Bingaman amendment and
I encourage my colleagues to support it. It is really critical.
Amendment No. 1543
Mr. President, I also want to talk about the Byrd amendment that was
offered yesterday. As we all know, children across the country this
week are returning to school. We in the Senate now have a choice to
make that will determine whether they are successful in school and,
ultimately, in life. The choice is, really, will our country's most
vulnerable children get the education they need? When we vote on the
Byrd amendment, that is really what we are going to be voting on: Are
we going to help low-income children succeed in school or are we going
to leave them behind?
I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on this amendment and on so
many other important debates. This particular fight is one that will
impact many children across the country. I am not talking about a few
kids in a few classrooms. I am not talking about kids who are well off.
I am talking about millions of children who are growing up in poverty
today. These are kids who are in the most danger of falling behind
right now, and they are the kids who most need our help.
Today, it is estimated that there are 9 million needy children in
America. For many of them--in fact, for all of them--education is the
only way out of the poverty they see before them. Often these children
need extra help before and after school. They might need tutoring or
mentoring or one-on-one attention from somebody who cares, from
somebody who looks at them and says: You can be somebody; you can
succeed in school; you can go on and be a success in this country. That
kind of tutoring and mentoring and one-on-one attention needs to come
from somebody they see in their everyday lives, and that is why this
amendment is so important.
Fortunately, in this country today we try to provide that one-on-one
help with a program called title I. That is a program that targets
funding directly to disadvantaged children and to low-income schools,
and it makes such a critical difference for so many of our vulnerable
children today.
Unfortunately, this year, once again, the President has offered a
budget that falls exceedingly short of what these kids need. The budget
that has been proposed by the President and is now before the Senate
would serve only 4.1 of those 9 million needy students in our country.
That means we are helping fewer than half of those kids who need help
in this country today. I think we can do better. I think we must do
better, and the Byrd amendment provides $6.15 billion in additional
funding for title I.
Let me help put that number into context for everyone. The Byrd
amendment is going to help 6.2 million children. That is a huge
improvement over the President's plan. If we just go with the
President's budget, 2.1 million disadvantaged kids are going to be left
behind. So I ask all of my colleagues, how do we leave behind 2 million
children in this country? Do they not deserve a road out of poverty? Do
they not deserve an education that will help them rise above tough
circumstances? Of course they do. These kids will get the support they
need if we pass the Byrd amendment.
The Byrd amendment is not asking us to do something new or
extraordinary. It is asking us to do what Congress and this President
said they would do nearly 2 years ago when we passed the No Child Left
Behind Act.
That education act was passed on two related ideas, two promises:
First, that we would hold schools accountable for their progress;
secondly, we promised we would provide schools with the resources to
meet those new requirements we were putting in place.
Both accountability and funding are needed to make progress. Since
that act was passed 2 years ago, the second part of that promise has
simply been abandoned.
I have been across my State, as I know all Senators have over the
August recess, and I have talked with educators and visited classrooms.
It is really clear that schools need help meeting these requirements. I
think it is important to not forget that our States today, in this
economy, are in no position to provide the extra funding that Congress
promised but has not delivered. Most of our States, including mine, are
facing huge deficits and are cutting back on education and other
priorities. So it is clear that the Federal Government needs to step in
and provide this funding for our most vulnerable kids.It is not
something new. It is something we said 2 years ago we would do.
I should also point out that this debate in the Senate is taking
place as many schools are now getting the results of their State tests.
In Washington State, a number of schools have been labeled as failing
because of these test results. These schools need the resources now to
improve. They want to improve. They want to be held to high standards.
They want to meet the accountability standards we have put in place,
but they cannot do it with the resources that have been provided.
Before I conclude, I commend Senator Byrd for the way he has chosen
to fund this amendment. The Byrd amendment uses the exact same funding
method that our Republican colleagues have used to fund their
priorities. So if anyone criticizes the Byrd amendment, I do not see
how they could argue against the funding source because it is exactly
what has been done already.
With no real challenge on the funding size, that leaves us to debate
the substance of this amendment. I do not see how anyone could vote to
prevent millions of low-income children from getting the help they need
in school.
So let me make the choice before us as simple as possible. A vote
against the Byrd amendment is a vote to leave 2 million poor kids
behind. A vote for the Byrd amendment will help those 2 million poor
kids get a great education and lift them out of poverty. So I urge my
colleagues to hear the voices of more than 2 million children who are
depending on us as their lives hang in the balance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of reply, the amendment offered by
the Senator from Nevada as to Hispanic students is adequately covered
in other specific programs.
For the reasons which I have specified earlier in the course of this
debate, and the issue raised by Senator Byrd, seeking to move the
funding for title I to the fully authorized amount, is
characteristically not a matter of the appropriations process to meet
the full authorization.
Yesterday, in response to the Senator from West Virginia, I had
referenced the appropriations bill for the year 2002 when Senator Byrd
chaired the Appropriations Committee and the appropriated amounts were
less than the authorized amount. In title I, the authorization was
$13.5 billion. The appropriation was $10.35 billion, $2.850 billion
under. Similarly, the appropriation for improving teacher quality
education was $325 million under the authorized amount and the century
community learning centers was $250 million under the authorized
amount.
In the analysis as to the increases requested by President Bush, on
the 3 years of his budget request, increases have been made from $40
billion to some $53 billion for a 33-percent increase. That contrasts
very fairly with the 3 years of President Clinton's budget increases
for fiscal years 1996, 1997,
[[Page S11001]]
and 1998 which went up from $26 billion to $32.5 billion or 23 percent.
Picking a higher sequence, the budget requests for 1999, 2000, and 2001
went from slightly under $30 billion to slightly over $40 billion, here
33 percent.
I believe on the record it is demonstrable that the support in the
budget increases requested by President Bush have been at least as good
as or better than the years of President Clinton and no one ever said
that President Clinton had shortchanged the education budget. Similar
credit is due to President Bush that his budget requests have not
shortchanged the education budget.
To repeat what I said yesterday, my preference would have been to
have had a larger allocation for this subcommittee. I would like to
have had more money. I would like to have seen more funds in title I,
but on the allocation which this body passed, the Congress passed on
the budget resolution, the allocations which we have received on the
so-called 302(b) allocations, an appropriate appropriation has been
made in these accounts.
Again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. We will be voting
on the Reid amendment at noon. The plan is to vote on the Byrd
amendment shortly after we reconvene from the policy luncheons. It is
our hope Senators will come to offer amendments and advise us where
they stand on the amendments. More than 40 amendments have been listed
for possible argument. If we are to complete this bill in a timely
manner, again, it is necessary for Senators to come to the floor to
offer their amendments with the intent, at least of the managers, this
manager, to proceed to third reading and not to sustain long-term,
long-range time-consuming unproductive quorum calls.
In the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment we will vote on at 12 noon
that has been offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from
New Mexico has the support of many groups around America. I will
mention just a few: National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, National
Council of La Raza, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities,
League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, Migrant Legal Action
Program, National Association for Bilingual Education, National
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, National
Association of State Directors of Migrant Education, National Migrant
and Seasonal Head Start Association, National Puerto Rican Coalition,
Inc., National HEP-CAMP Association, ASPIRA Association, Inc.
These are just a few of the groups. I would say when this matter is
voted on at 12 noon today, there are no excuses. In effect, what has
happened is the President has recommended these programs to be
eliminated in general, dropout programs specifically. This is the
opportunity for the Senate to speak that this is wrong. This is the
opportunity for the Senate to recognize that there are programs that
are important to the safety and salvation and security of this country
other than those addressing things that explode.
One of the things that is important to protect the security of this
Nation is an educated population. That means educating all young
people, no matter their background, their ethnicity, their religion,
where they come from, because it is better for us all when that occurs.
We will shortly begin the final 15 minutes of debate on this matter,
and I ask that everyone realize that there are groups who believe this
amendment is important. They believe it is important because their sole
function is to protect children. This amendment will help children.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now in the
time where there will be 15 minutes equally divided for the proponents
and opponents of this amendment; is that true?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. I would reserve the final 3 minutes, in that we are the
movers of this amendment, for Senator Bingaman. That would be 3 minutes
before the hour that Senator Bingaman have the final 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. When my time is up, which would be in 4\1/2\ minutes, would
the Chair so advise me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I will.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, some of my distinguished colleagues have
asked whether we can afford to give this helping hand to a select group
of students, namely Hispanic students. I say we cannot afford to ignore
them. Take, for example, Clark County, which is in Las Vegas, in
Nevada. In the Clark County School District, which is the fifth or
sixth largest school district in America with more than a quarter of a
million students, about 30 percent of the students are Latinos. This
amendment would apply to those students. We need to give a helping hand
to the Clark County School District through additional moneys.
It is unfair that the President of the United States has recommended
eliminating the dropout prevention program for Hispanic students--
eliminated it. He has cut other programs to which this amendment
applies. It is simply not right. People in Nevada will suffer as a
result of that.
Latino children have the highest dropout rate of any ethnic group in
America. It is nothing they are proud of; it is something they are
trying to work on. Hispanic leaders talk about education. For the Latin
Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas, and it is a huge organization, that
is their No. 1 priority: What are we going to do to keep our children
in school? They have a scholarship program to send kids to a community
college, to our colleges in Nevada. It is working well. But we need to
do something to help the public school system keep these children in
school.
We know for every dollar spent on preventing dropouts, we save more
than $9 in the future. Today, one in every three new workers in our
labor force is Hispanic. In 20 years, half of our new workers will be
Hispanic. That means the money to pay for Social Security in the
future, and our national security in the future, will come from
Hispanic workers who are starting in school today. If we shortchange
these children, we shortchange ourselves and our children in the
future. But if we invest in these children, we invest in our future.
This amendment, offered by Senator Bingaman and this Senator, would
provide a helping hand to Hispanic children by investing an additional
$210 million in Head Start, dropout prevention, bilingual education,
college assistance for children, and other programs. The fact is, there
is an unacceptable gap in academic achievement between Latino students
and the overall student population. We have made a promise to all
children in America that we will leave no child behind. It is time to
live up to those words.
I spoke today about this being more than statistics and numbers, more
than cuts and percentages of cuts, but of programs that actually help
children. I, today, spoke about Maria de Lurdes Reynoso, who is a
better person today as a result of these programs. I spoke about
another young person by the name of Oscar Guzman, who is now in a
program so that he is going to graduate from college. That is what this
is all about--helping children.
Tedrel Eubanks of Mississippi Valley State University--one of these
programs allowed her to get a high school diploma and then go to
college, something her family never dreamed that any one of them could
do.
We have learned this morning from actual cases about one child in the
family is not only making a tremendous impression on his siblings but
on all of his cousins.
For every dollar spent here, we save our country $10. We are talking
about spending $200 million and saving the country $2 billion. My math
may be a
[[Page S11002]]
little bit wrong there, but you get the point.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Reid-Bingaman amendment would provide
an additional $210 million for Hispanic education. I am pleased to
support it.
Since 1990, the number of school age Hispanic children has grown by
61 percent. This means that one out of every six children who attends
public school is Hispanic. Yet, only about 60 percent of them graduate
from high school. Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as
likely to drop out of school than African-American students and four
times more likely to drop out of school than white students. In the
Nation's l17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanics lag
behind white students in reading achievement by an average of 30 points
and math achievement by an average of 27 points. And according to the
2000 census, only 8.5 percent of Hispanics between the ages of 25 and
34 had earned a bachelor's degree.
These statistics are troubling, and we need to address them. After
all, education gives individuals the tools that they need to succeed.
But education programs are underfunded, and the bill before us cuts $21
million from bilingual education, $11 million from dropout prevention
programs, $10 million from high school migrant education, and $15
million from college migrant education.
The Reid-Bingaman amendment would reverse these proposed cuts and
would increase funding for English instruction for non-native speakers,
dropout prevention, and migrant education.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this very essential and worthwhile
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of the bill isn't here. I have
asked unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for the
last 3 minutes. No one is here for the majority to respond, and I ask
unanimous consent that the time run against the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the distinguished manager of the bill and
others need additional time, I will be happy to agree to that. I just
want to make sure there is no time wasted.
I suggest the absence of a quorum under the previous condition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me use my 3 minutes to make the
point that this is a very important amendment which the Senator from
Nevada put forward to provide some additional funding for the programs
that are most important in assisting Hispanic students and school
districts that are serving Hispanic students around our country.
I believe very strongly that we need to adopt this amendment. One of
the key provisions in it, which I spoke about earlier this morning,
would add $20 million for dropout prevention. That is $20 million out
of the $125 million that is authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The President asked for zero funds for that dropout prevention
initiative.
I believe we in Congress should add something in the current year. We
are providing nearly $11 million. I believe this amendment would allow
us to provide at least $20 million, which is a start and which is a
help. I hope very much it will be adopted.
In my home State, the Farmington public schools received a grant
under the funding this last year for dropout prevention. It is funding
they are using to assist students through individualized school reentry
support activities, an alternative for remediation, transition-based
life skills and career awareness, adult advisory and intensive
mentoring services. They are working with these individual students who
are at risk of dropping out.
My colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee,
said, Well, there are already funds in the bill that can be used for
these purposes. The funds he is referring to are funds which are
allocated on the basis of the percentage of children and youth residing
in locally operated correctional facilities. This is funding which is
used by school districts to deal with this element that winds up in
correctional facilities or are at risk of winding up in correctional
facilities.
What I am advocating, and what I think the Senator from Nevada is
advocating, is that we get out ahead of the problem and assist students
who are at risk of leaving school. We try to help school districts keep
those students in school and not wait until they get involved with the
correctional system. We do not think it should be simply said, OK, if a
kid gets thrown in jail or gets in trouble with the Department of
Justice or the judicial system, then we will come to assist in some
respects.
This is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will
support the Reid amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I raise a point of order under section 504
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that
the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits specified in this
section and is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, pursuant to the Budget Act, I move to
waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Wyden
NAYS--48
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--6
Graham (FL)
Inhofe
Kennedy
Kerry
Lieberman
Miller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
48.
[[Page S11003]]
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. 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 Nevada.
Mr. REID. I know the hour is 12:30 and we will recess for the weekly
caucuses. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr.
Levin, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
united nations security council resolution
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this morning's newspapers brought the
welcome news that the administration is finally waking up to the need
to seek greater international support for and participation in our
stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by seeking a new U.N.
Security Council resolution. There has been a tragically long overdue
recognition of the importance of doing so.
While this welcome news was attributed to an unnamed administration
spokesman, hopefully some named spokesman will soon confirm it. The
delay in arriving at this new approach, along with too much lone-
ranger, bring-them-on rhetoric, will make the effort to
internationalize the situation in Iraq more difficult and perhaps more
costly in terms of the conditions exacted by the international
community for its participation.
The word games that have been played by administration officials who
have stated that they would ``welcome'' the participation of troops of
other nations but refused to request that participation have also not
been helpful.
While the need to internationalize this effort and obtain a U.N.
mandate has been apparent to many of us from the beginning, the recent
report of the Congressional Budget Office, requested by Senator Byrd,
concerning the difficulty of sustaining a large U.S. military force in
Iraq reinforces the need to reach out to the U.N. for support in this
effort. There will not and should not be any need to compromise with
respect to command and control of U.S. troops. There is ample precedent
for the nation that provides the bulk of military forces to provide the
senior military commander and for the senior military commander to
exercise overall command of all the troops participating in a U.N.-
mandated mission.
A recent example of that approach was the case of East Timor, where
Australia led a coalition of the willing pursuant to a U.N. resolution
and provided the senior military commander for the operation. Once
circumstances permitted it, the Australians turned over control to a
U.N. blue helmeted peacekeeping force. The first gulf war was an
earlier example where one nation, the United States, led a coalition of
the willing with U.N. sanction. There will, however, be a need for
compromise with respect to the control of civilian reconstruction and
political development of Iraq. We should be willing to agree to a
reasonable sharing of decisionmaking with respect to the physical and
political reconstruction of Iraq. If we are willing to do so, Germany
and Russia will proudly go along and France would then have little
choice, I believe, but to go along as well.
Statements by administration officials, when we went to the U.N.
before the war, which denigrated the importance of U.N. support and the
work of U.N. inspectors, were counterproductive to acquiring U.N.
backing at that time. We must avoid a repetition of that attitude.
Given the pressures that have been brought to bear that were necessary
to get the administration to seek support from the international
community, I am afraid it will be necessary to keep the pressure on the
administration to make the appropriate compromises to work out a new
U.N. resolution.
Yesterday, three more U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, two due
to hostile action and one in an accident. While internationalizing the
effort in Iraq will not prevent all loss of life in the future, it
should help to reduce the risks and ease the burdens on U.S. forces and
will help convince Iraqis of international backing and support for our
military presence there, and hopefully will increase the sharing of
intelligence that is so critical to stopping terrorists in other
attacks.
I yield the floor.
____________________