[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 3, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11003-S11021]
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--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we just completed a very important vote 
prior to the break. Senator Bingaman and I offered an amendment to 
increase funding for programs relating to Hispanic children. There was 
a point of order raised and that amendment was defeated.
  I understand that. But I have trouble understanding a communication 
released today from the White House. On this very day we were voting on 
important issues relating to Hispanic children in America, they 
released this communication that talks about an historic partnership to 
improve educational opportunity for Hispanic children. This is nothing 
but fluff, big piles of fluff.
  When it comes to putting the programs where their mouth is, nothing 
ever happens. We had an opportunity this morning to vote to help 
Hispanic children, and what do we get from the White House? We get a 
press release talking about an opportunity to sit down and talk. Here 
is the statement: The partners will work with local communities to 
reinforce positive expectations.
  The positive expectations were the programs that have been cut and 
eliminated by this White House.
  I hope the American public sees what is happening. What we have from 
the White House is nothing but piles of paper, nothing to help the 
children about whom I spoke earlier today, including Ted Eubanks, 
Mississippi Valley State University, or Maria de Lurdes Reynoso, who 
talked about programs that changed her life, or Oscar Guzman, who talks 
about programs that have given his family dignity as the first person 
in his family to attend college.
  I repeat for the third time in these few minutes, I am willing to 
understand the defeat that has just occurred where, with rare 
exceptions, the majority voted against the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico and me to help Hispanic children. I understand 
that. However, to have the hypocrisy, the same day, issuing this 
release, ``Historic partnership to improve education for Hispanic 
Americans,'' is absolutely ridiculous.


                Amendment No. 1552 To Amendment No. 1542

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to join with my colleague from 
Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce a bipartisan amendment to increase 
the funding for nursing programs. I send this amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside. The clerk will the report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), for herself, Ms. 
     Collins, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
     Corzine, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered No. 1552 to amendment No. 
     1542.

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

[[Page S11004]]

(Purpose: To increase funding for programs under the Nurse Reinvestment 
         Act and other nursing workforce development programs)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for programs and activities under the Nurse 
     Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205) and for other nursing 
     workforce development programs under title VIII of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296 et seq.), there are 
     appropriated an additional $63,000,000 for such programs and 
     activities: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this 
     Act for the National Institutes of Health, $80,000,000 shall 
     not be available for obligation until September 30, 2004: 
     Provided further, That the amount $6,895,199,000 in section 
     305(a)(1) of this Act shall be deemed to be $6,958,199,000: 
     Provided further, That the amount $6,783,301,000 in section 
     305(a)(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be $6,720,301,000.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to offer this amendment so that 
we can really get behind our nurses in this country and deal with the 
critical nursing shortage facing acute care facilities and other 
important facilities that need nurses. This is a bipartisan amendment 
to the Specter substitute amendment. I am joining with Senator Collins 
to offer this amendment, along with the other cosponsors.
  Let me tell you what this amendment would do. It would provide $63 
million to fund programs that recruit and retain nurses by helping them 
pay for becoming nurses. This was created by last year's bipartisan 
effort to pass something called the Nurse Reinvestment Act and also 
other important programs to educate nurses. The Nurse Reinvestment Act 
was an important bipartisan accomplishment in which we came together 
across party lines to deal with the nursing shortage. This is a crisis 
that affects patient care across the country.
  So, what did we do? We created scholarship programs and we created 
loan forgiveness programs to bring more nurses into the profession. But 
while the legislation, the Nurse Reinvestment Act, created the 
authorizing framework, it did not put money in the Federal checkbook. 
That is our job in appropriations. We salute Senator Harkin and Senator 
Specter for trying to fund this, but they are funding it at $15 
million. You cannot keep nurses, you cannot get nurses, and you cannot 
educate nurses to be nursing faculty on $15 million. We need more 
money. Where there is the wallet, there is a will on the part of many 
women and men who want to come into nursing.
  We are in a crisis. There are 125,000 nurse vacancies in hospitals 
nationwide. This does not even deal with nursing homes, home health 
agencies, schools, and other sites.
  The Senator from Maine and I have been champions of home health care. 
She has the rugged terrain of Maine and I have the mountain counties of 
Maryland, where we know our nurses get on snowmobiles to get out there 
to visit patients who need them. There are just not enough of them, and 
we need to make sure we deal with this. In my home State of Maryland, 
there is now a 13 percent hospital nursing shortage; 2,000 full-time 
nurses are desperately needed, not only in the bustling metropolitan 
area of the Baltimore-Washington corridor but in our rural communities. 
The nursing shortage will only get worse and we expect it will double 
by 2010, to 275,000 nurses.
  While we have people who want to come into nursing, we have a nursing 
faculty shortage because nurses have so much student debt that they 
really do not have the wherewithal to go on to the master's and 
doctoral levels to do this.
  I note the Senator acting as the Presiding Officer, Madam President, 
is from North Carolina. She knows we have the wonderful urban areas of 
Raleigh and Duke University, but I have talked to her about going out 
to those rural communities. They just do not have what they need in the 
way of nurses. Yet we teamed up to make sure they could use the 
community college programs to get people into nursing and to stay in 
those communities. What we are talking about is helping people who will 
come into nursing. We will provide either scholarships or loan 
incentives if they will come into those critical shortage areas. Isn't 
this terrific?
  What we know is many young women and even young men are coming into 
nursing later in life and they have other responsibilities. This is why 
we need to help them by making nursing education more affordable, 
providing scholarships in exchange for 2 years, and also financial 
assistance to obtain advanced degrees in order to be able to get our 
people ready for nursing education. Our amendment funds other important 
nursing programs to educate and train advanced-education nurses, such 
as nurse practitioners, and also in other areas.

  Our chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee faced a very 
tight allocation. They did a fantastic job. What we need to do, though, 
is get the Senate behind them and increase the funding for these 
nursing education programs. We have all of the nursing groups behind 
us. We have groups such as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, 
the Men's Health Network, the Federation of American Hospitals, and 
AARP. Why? Because we know behind every great doctor there is an 
outstanding nurse.
  We need it for patient care. Where there is a nursing shortage, there 
is going to be an impact on patient care. Our patients need it. The 
baby boomers are getting older. The need for nurses is only going to 
expand, and certainly by making a public investment to make nursing 
education more available and more affordable, we are helping not only 
to educate the nurse but I believe we are making an investment in 
saving lives, in preventive health care, and home health care.
  I hope my colleagues will join in supporting this amendment and I 
yield the floor so others may speak about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very pleased to join my friend and 
colleague from Maryland in offering this important amendment to the 
appropriations bill. Senator Mikulski and I have teamed up on many 
health care issues, ranging from home health care, ensuring adequate 
reimbursements to diabetes research, to helping draft the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act as members of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee.
  Today we team up once again to increase the funding for the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act and other nursing workforce development programs by 
$63 million. I join my colleague from Maryland in saluting the efforts 
of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in providing some significant 
funding for nursing education programs. Our amendment, however, would 
bring the total level of funding for these vital programs up to $175 
million in fiscal year 2004. That is not up to the full authorized 
level, but it is an amount that we believe would allow us to make real 
progress in remedying the extreme nursing shortage facing our Nation.
  In fact, the United States is facing a nursing shortage of critical 
proportions. Moreover, this shortage is only expected to worsen as the 
baby boom generation ages and their need--our need--for health care 
grows. According to the American Hospital Association, there currently 
are more than 126,000 nursing vacancies in hospitals alone. The 
Department of Health and Human Services estimates that by the year 
2010, there will be a shortage of 275,000 registered nurses, more than 
double the current number. In Maine, almost 1 out of 10 nursing 
positions at hospitals across our State is vacant.
  We also face persistent shortages of certified nursing assistants and 
other front-line health care workers in our hospitals, home health 
agencies, nursing homes, and other health care facilities.
  The current nursing shortage poses a significant threat to the 
ability of our health care system to deliver quality care. The New 
England Journal of Medicine published a disturbing study last year 
which found that nursing shortages in hospitals are associated with a 
higher risk of complications and even death. The study reported in the 
New England Journal of Medicine found that patients in hospitals with 
fewer registered nurses were more likely to suffer from complications 
such as urinary infections and pneumonia; they were more likely to stay 
in the hospital longer; and they were more likely to die from treatable 
conditions such as shock and gastrointestinal bleeding.
  The fact is that nurses are the eyes and ears of our hospitals. They 
often serve as an early warning system when complications begin to 
develop. But

[[Page S11005]]

the problems cannot be detected and treated early if nurses do not have 
sufficient time to spend with their patients.
  Another study reported in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association last year found that each additional patient in a nurse's 
workload meant an increase of about 7 percent in the likelihood that 
the patient would die within 30 days of admission.
  This is literally a matter of life and death. If there are more 
nurses, if hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care facilities 
are adequately staffed with nurses, the quality of care provided to 
patients and the likelihood of a successful outcome are much higher.
  While the situation is grave today, we face even greater threats and 
crises in the future. Our current nursing workforce is aging. In Maine, 
61 percent of our registered nurses are at least 40 years old. As a 
consequence, many of them will be retiring just as we aging baby 
boomers begin to place additional demands on our health care system. 
The nursing shortage therefore is sure to worsen if we do not make the 
critical investments today--now. We need to act more to support our 
current nursing workforce and to encourage more young people to choose 
nursing as their profession.
  Last year, Congress passed the Nursing Reinvestment Act to do just 
that. This legislation had overwhelming bipartisan support. It 
authorizes scholarships to nursing students who agree to provide at 
least 2 years of service in a health care facility with a critical 
nursing shortage. It creates career ladders to help nurses and other 
health professionals advance in their careers. It provides loan 
cancellation for nurses with advanced degrees in exchange for teaching 
at schools of nursing.
  Let me expand on that point.
  Last year, I had the privilege of meeting with the nursing deans of 
Husson, the University of Maine, and what is now Eastern Maine 
Community College. They told me that they are being overwhelmed with 
applications from students who are eager to study nursing, but they 
simply cannot accommodate the qualified applicants who wish to enter 
the nursing program. The reason: A shortage of nursing professors.
  There is a very important provision in this bill that encourages 
nurses with advanced degrees to teach at schools of nursing to help 
close that gap and lessen that shortage so that we can start training 
more nurses. It is not only a matter of encouraging more people to go 
into nursing but also to make sure that we have the nursing faculties 
available to educate these young students.

  The Nursing Reinvestment Act builds on existing title 8 nursing 
education programs that provide loan repayments to nurses, improves the 
diversity of the nursing workforce, and expands opportunities for 
nursing education at all levels. All of these programs play a vital 
role in recruiting nurses and making sure that they have the training 
required to effectively and compassionately care for their patients.
  The promise of this new law and other nursing educational programs 
will not be kept without an adequate investment of funds. That is why I 
felt so strongly about joining with my colleague from Maryland in this 
amendment. Increasing the funding level for these important programs to 
$175 million in fiscal year 2004 will allow them to expand to address 
nursing shortages in communities across the country.
  I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this vital 
amendment.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment of 
Senators Mikulski and Collins that would bring the total funding in the 
bill for these programs to $175 million, the amount requested by over 
30 bipartisan Senators and groups ranging from AARP to cancer patient 
groups to nursing and provider groups.
  The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that more than one million 
new nurses will be needed by the year 2010. Yet in my State of New 
York, the number of undergraduate nursing program graduates has dropped 
each academic year since 1996.
  Even as the workforce shrinks, the patient population is projected to 
grow. Baby boomers across the Nation are aging, and their healthcare 
needs will put an extra burden on the system. In New York State, the 
population over 80 will double by the year 2020.
  As I travel across New York State, every type of community--urban, 
suburban, rural--and every type of provider--hospitals, nursing homes, 
home health agencies, hospices is affected by this shortage. All around 
the State, nurses are facing an emergency of their own. That is why 
last Congress I worked so hard to pass the Nurse Reinvestment Act which 
will provide scholarships, public service announcements, and other 
provisions to encourage people to enter the profession. But the current 
nursing shortage exists not only because fewer individuals are entering 
the nursing profession, but also because the healthcare industry is 
having trouble retaining the nurses already on staff.
  This amendment will help fund important nurse retention programs that 
we authorized last year in the Nurse Reinvestment Act, based on proven 
workplace principles, such as promotion of patient-centered care and 
nurse leadership, that are shown to improve retention. The amendment 
does not take any funding from other programs in the bill.
  As so many studies have shown, our nursing care can often be the 
difference in medical outcomes. For all the new technologies, talented 
surgeons, and breakthrough drugs, I want people to remember that 
nursing care is essential in keeping our healthcare system the best in 
the world. Study after study has cited a direct link between the type 
and quality of nursing care that is delivered and patient outcomes. We 
trust nurses. In fact in a CNN/USA Gallop poll our Nation's nurses rank 
second for their honesty and integrity, with 84 percent of Americans 
rating them ``high'' or ``very high.'' If you are interested in who was 
ranked first--it was firefighters, for their selfless acts of bravery 
after the September 11 attacks.
  We too admire nurses for their self-sacrifice, as individuals who 
embark on a caregiving profession and found themselves on September 11 
on the front lines of the battle against terrorism and bioterrorism. 
Nurses were on the frontlines when anthrax first appeared, when SARS 
hit, and nurses rose to the challenge and continue to rise to the 
challenge.
  This is why I am so concerned about the nursing shortage. Nurses are 
more vital than ever, and that is why we must fund these programs and 
make good on the promise of the Nurse Reinvestment Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, I rise to speak on another matter 
related to health care. I commend the distinguished Senators from 
Maryland and Maine for their legislation which I will be proud to 
cosponsor.
  It is a matter I wish to address regarding the health and safety and 
well-being of thousands of people in the area of my State of Minnesota 
surrounding the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
  The Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization conference report 
which was signed before the recess by 24 Republican conferees and none 
of the 14 Democrat conferees from either the Senate or the House 
contains some very significant measures that were not provided for in 
either the Senate or the House legislation. One of those which directly 
affects my State very adversely would prohibit the use of airport 
improvement program funds for the insulation of homes and apartments 
surrounding the metropolitan airport that is in a DNL decibel range of 
60 to 64 DNL. That is a technical term. But it basically means that 
those who are most severely impacted, most of whom have received some 
mitigation over the last few years through a pool of funds, including 
airport improvement funds, passenger facility funds, as well as the 
Metropolitan Airport Commission's own fees and the like, achieved a 
certain measure of mitigation. But there are many thousands--over 8,000 
homeowners and an estimated 3,200 apartment dwellers--who are in the 
next phase scheduled to be insulated. And since the airport's location 
decision was made, the Federal Aviation Administration, as a matter of 
its record and decision, insisted that this program continue.
  At the last minute, in a measure that was not considered by or voted 
on by

[[Page S11006]]

either the House or the Senate in this conference report, a Senate 
conferee reportedly inserted this language into the report. Now it 
comes back and is scheduled to come at some near date before this body 
to be voted up or down, which is, of course, the purpose of these 
circumventions of the legislative process. They do not go through 
committee for up-and-down votes nor a public debate back and forth. 
They don't go to the Senate floor for debate back and forth and a vote 
up or down. Instead, they are stuck in at the last minute in secret 
proceedings with not even all of the conferees present--certainly not 
all of the Senators present--and then it comes back in a matter that 
adversely affects thousands of people in my home State; a measure 
inserted without any notification to me, without any discussion by a 
Member of this body at the behest of a lobbyist for Northwest Airlines, 
which opposes this mitigation measure, and has done so and is within 
its rights to do so but is responsible for altering an agreement that 
has been reached; a record of decision made by the FAA as part of the 
approval of this airport expansion which, if Northwest Airlines wants 
to alter or eliminate, as they say they do, it is responsible for doing 
so in a public process before a public body, and not by sneaking in an 
amendment or language into a conference report that was not considered 
or voted on by either the Senate or the House.
  I find it highly objectionable that a Senator from another State 
would act in such a way as to adversely affect, to cause potential 
harm, if this were to go through, to thousands of constituents in my 
State without consultation, without discussion or forewarning.
  Regretfully, this is not the only instance in this legislation of 
matters that were added to it in conference that received no 
consideration in either the House of Representatives or in the Senate, 
language that runs directly contrary to what the Senate adopted. I 
speak specifically of the Senate adopting the Lautenberg amendment 
which prohibited privatization of our air traffic control system.
  Despite that amendment being added to the Senate bill, being the 
official position of the Senate, despite the fact that the House did 
not consider the matter, as the House bill was silent on it, out of 
this conference committee comes a report which would immediately, upon 
enactment, provide for partial privatization, for the privatization, 
first, of smaller airports around the country.
  Curiously enough, certain States, those that are proponents of this 
measure, were exempted from inclusion because I suspect they recognized 
that this is a highly speculative, highly risky, highly irresponsible 
action, taken with no debate or forethought but simply to fit some 
groups' rigid ideological biases that the private sector does 
everything right and the public sector does everything wrong.
  The trouble is, when they get elected with that ideology, they then 
go about running Government so as to prove themselves right, and they 
systematically dismantle functions, such as air traffic control, which 
in this country is about as perfect as a human system can be, which has 
a nearly impeccable record of performance over the years, by far and 
away the best, most safety conscious, life-protecting, life-preserving 
air traffic system anywhere in the world.
  Yet this administration wants to start to dismantle it for no cause 
whatsoever other than, as I said, to fit its own ideology. Rather than 
coming to this body and having that debate, rather than going to the 
House of Representatives and having that debate, they would rather wait 
and have conference committee time where they can sneak back in with 24 
of their caucus Representatives and Senators and put this matter before 
535 elected representatives of the people, myself being one, who don't 
have then any opportunity to delete it but simply to vote it up or 
down.
  I find this to be an egregious abuse of the legislative process, one 
that consistently excludes Members such as myself who don't have the 
necessary years of seniority to be appointed to these conference 
committees. It is bad enough that the process is so skewed in favor of 
those who simply, by the basis of having been here for more years than 
others, get to dominate that critical phase of the process. But it is 
intolerable to me, to this Senator--it is intolerable--when that 
authority is abused and those conferees contrive to write legislation 
that supersedes the legitimate authority of 100 Senators to decide 
upon--by voting, by majority rule decisionmaking--what will and what 
will not become part of those reports which then, if they are passed 
and signed by the President, become law.
  That is fundamentally a violation of the trust that the American 
people put equally in each 1 of the 100 Members of this body. The 
people of Minnesota, who sent me here, and who sent my colleague from 
across the aisle, have the same rights to full representation from us 
as do the constituents of the Senators from any other State regardless 
of whether they have been here a longer or lesser time than I.

  For my constituents' own vital interests to be harmed by a 
contrivance of the process that has nothing to do with its integrity 
but simply is a reflection of who has the power, who has the money, who 
has the ability to hire full-time lobbyists to hang around these 
Chambers and to slip into conference committees, at the last second, 
where no one else is looking or can do anything about it, measures that 
abrogate the public process in my State--I think in any State, but 
certainly in my State--that is unacceptable and intolerable.
  With all due respect to this institution, I cannot and will not allow 
that measure to proceed. As I stated just before the beginning of the 
August recess, I will do whatever I must do to prevent the proceedings 
of this body leading up to the consideration of that measure. I hope we 
can find 41 Members of the Senate who will oppose the conference report 
for the 2 reasons I have just cited here and other measures that were 
also added in conference that have an adverse effect, such matters as 
regional airline operations.
  It also adversely affects one city, Thief River Falls, in my State of 
Minnesota. It imposes an additional $70,000-a-year funding requirement 
on them. Again, it is not something that this body adopted. It is not 
something that the House adopted. It is something that somebody else 
decided they wanted to add for whatever reasons.
  If this bill is not sufficient reason for the Senate to stand up and 
put a stop to this kind of legislative freelancing through conference 
committees, then I think the fundamental premise of equal 
representation and the equal rights of each one of us as Members has 
been fundamentally decimated, if not nearly destroyed--in some 
instances is destroyed. And I, for one, am not going to be able to go 
back and explain to the people of Minnesota why I sat quietly by while 
their rights in this process were abrogated by somebody else usurping 
that power and abusing it.
  So, Madam President, I will be heard from on this matter again. I 
don't know when the majority leader intends to bring this matter, the 
conference report, to the Senate, but prior to that time, if this 
matter is not satisfactorily resolved, then I am going to have to 
continue to assert the rights of my constituents to the process that 
this body established and should be following rather than some kind of 
legislative freelancing, at the last split second, which totally 
abrogates their rights and my responsibilities to protect those rights.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I see my colleague, Senator Gregg, in 
the Chamber and I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to speak to this bill, and in a 
moment I will have supportive charts to discuss this bill's efforts in 
the area of education.
  Let me begin by congratulating the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Specter, for bringing to the floor a bill which has made major strides 
every year since President Bush has been President, but especially this 
year, under Chairman Specter's leadership, major strides on the issue 
of educational funding. In the context of that funding, relative to 
what was done when the Democratic membership controlled this Senate, or 
when the President was a member of the Democrat Party, the difference 
is startling.

[[Page S11007]]

  President Bush and the Republican Senate have made spectacular 
strides in assisting and supporting education in this country while, at 
the same time, doing so during a very difficult period of America's 
history, a period when we are fighting a war, a war which has required 
huge resources, and a war which has required extreme attention by the 
administration, and at a time that we have been in a period of economic 
recession, in a period when the revenues to the Federal Government have 
been dropping precipitously because of that recession. Even in the 
context of those two very severe restraining events relative to 
domestic program activity, this President has been willing to step 
forward and focus on the issue of education, try to improve the 
education of America's children and support that effort with dollars.

  I think before we get into a discussion of the dollars, because that 
is critical to the pending Byrd amendment, I will begin by saying this 
goes beyond the issue of dollars, this goes into the question of the 
attitude and approach to education.
  What President Bush has said is we can no longer afford an 
educational system which, year in and year out, in generation after 
generation, leaves behind especially low-income children, takes those 
children and runs them through the educational system and, at the end 
of their schooling period, leaves them without the skills they need in 
order to compete for and participate in the American dream. President 
Bush has sounded a call to end that system and do something about the 
failures of that system.
  There are a lot of good-faith people, a lot of hard-working people in 
the educational community in this country. A lot of teachers spend an 
extraordinary amount of hours, time, and extra effort to try to make 
sure their students succeed. Unfortunately, the fact is that, even 
though we have radically increased the dollars in education over the 
last 20 years, the performance of our children has not improved--
especially the performance of low-income children.
  So President Bush said let's try a different way. That is where the 
bill, the No Child Left Behind Act, came in. It says, rather than 
controlling the input of legislation, rather than telling local school 
districts how to run their schools, let's take a different look at this 
and say, what are the children learning? Let's find out what they are 
learning; let's shine a light on it. If they are not learning enough to 
be competitive with their peers, or with what they need to be 
successful in society, then let's put in the remedial efforts to try to 
correct those problems.
  It is an unusual approach in our educational system because, 
basically, it calls on the educational community to be accountable, to 
actually have to look at what a child is learning and determine whether 
what they are learning is what the community expects them to learn. The 
President's program, as passed by the Congress in a bipartisan 
initiative, doesn't set a Federal standard for what a child in the 
fourth grade in Epping, NH, knows; it rather says to the people in 
Epping, you set the standard for what your children should know in the 
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Once you have set that standard, you 
are going to have to determine whether your children are learning to 
that standard, and especially whether your low-income children, who 
have historically been left behind, are learning to that standard. If 
they are not, you are going to have to tell the parents they are not. 
You will have to disclose to the community at large that a certain 
percentage of the children are not reaching the standards the community 
set for those children.
  It is a radical idea for education to be held accountable, but it is 
an idea whose time has come. So far, the response of the educational 
community has been very positive. Most teachers understand this is a 
law directed not in a negative way toward their efforts but in a 
supportive way, trying to make sure school systems are more 
accountable--especially in those areas where you have schools that have 
not made the grade, where a majority of low-income kids are failing. In 
other words, they are not reaching the standards of ability a fifth 
grader should know in math or in English. In those schools, we are 
going to try to improve their efforts.

  There is a lot of remedial activity to accomplish that. The President 
not only set out this new initiative in the concept and the way we 
approach education--when somebody comes up with a good idea for smaller 
classrooms, more computers, and throws out ideas without any 
accountability as to whether it produces results, instead of taking 
that input approach, but an output approach, where you actually expect 
kids to learn and you find out if they are learning, and if they are 
not, you do something about it, especially with low-income kids, not 
only did he initiate that approach but he was willing to put the 
dollars into the programs that succeed in this area.
  I think it is important to understand, as we view the debate of this 
amendment specifically before us--the Byrd amendment--that the dollars 
the President has proposed, and which the Congress passed under the 
Republican Congress, at least, have been a radical increase in funding 
for education at the Federal level.
  The most significant reflection is that, as a function of the Federal 
Government, education has received more funding in the way of increases 
than any other function in the Federal Government. You would not 
believe that if you listened to the other side of the aisle. You would 
think it was actually being cut or not maintained. But, in fact, what 
the President has proposed, and what we have passed as a Republican 
Congress, has been a dramatic increase in funding in education.
  This chart reflects that. It shows that in 1996, when the Republicans 
took control of the Congress, but most of the burst occurred in the 
last 3 years since President Bush has come into office. The increase in 
education has been 145 percent, whereas the increase in health and 
human services is 100 percent. And in defense funding, if you ask a 
person on the street what part the Federal Government expanded fastest 
in the last 5 years, they would probably say defense because that is 
all you hear about--especially from the other side of the aisle. But 
that is not true. Defense funding increased only a third as fast as 
education funding.
  That really tells only part of the story. The story is what has 
happened in the context of this President's efforts versus that of the 
prior administration, this Republican Congress's efforts versus the 
prior Democratic Congress's efforts, because we are now hearing all 
these amendments being thrown at us from the other side about how we 
are underfunding this or that and not doing enough funding here or 
there.
  But you have to ask yourself, what did they do when they were in 
charge? Did they make the type of commitments they are now asking be 
made by the Congress or did they maybe do substantially less and come 
forward today because it is politically enticing to do so and claim 
these accounts are underfunded and, therefore, we have to add these 
additional moneys?
  Well, I think there are a couple of facts that need to be addressed 
right now. The first is President Bush's funding in comparison with 
President Clinton's funding. In the last year of the Clinton 
administration, $42 billion was spent on education in this country. 
This year, after 3 years in office, President Bush will have increased 
education funding by 60 percent over the last Clinton budget, to $67 
billion. That is a huge increase and a huge commitment.
  It goes beyond that. If you look at it by accounts, you will see what 
President Bush has done is stand behind his words, especially in 
comparison to what the prior administration did. For example, in the 
entire period when the Democrats controlled the Congress and had a 
Democratic President, their increases in title I spending were $286 
million. Since the Republicans have controlled Congress--and primarily 
since President Bush has come into office--it has gone to $1.2 billion. 
If you total these in special education and also Pell grants--and we 
have heard a lot of misrepresentation on the issue of Pell grants on 
this floor--the difference is that in the period of a Republican-
controlled Congress--especially since President Bush has become 
President--the average annual increase has been $4 billion. That 
compares to about half a

[[Page S11008]]

billion dollars during the period President Clinton was in office and 
when there was a Democratic Congress.
  A Republican Congress and a Republican President have basically made 
the commitments not only in the area of policy improvement but also in 
the area of dollars to back up that new policy.
  It is instructive, for example, to take a look at some of the 
percentage differences between what the Republicans have done and what 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle did when they were in 
control.
  In the area, for example, of title I, our increases are 320 percent 
higher than the increases of the Democratic membership. In the area of 
IDEA grants, our increases are 770 percent higher than the increases 
when the Democratic Party controlled Congress. In the area of Pell 
grants--actually during the Clinton administration, Pell grants were 
cut; they fell in funding--under this administration, the increases 
have been on an annual basis about 10 times higher than what the 
Democrats did during their period. It is dramatic.
  Overall, if you were to put it into gross terms, that $4.1 billion 
annual increase in educational funding, which has come about as a 
result of the commitment of this President to improving education and 
backing up those improvements with dollars, represents about an 858-
percent increase on an annual basis over what happened when our 
predecessors were controlling the Congress and we had a different 
administration.
  The practical effect of this has been that we have created so much 
more money flowing into the educational accounts at the Federal level, 
unlike what is represented across the other side of the aisle that more 
money is needed. In fact, what is happening is that we have put so much 
money into these accounts so fast under President Bush and the 
Republican Senate that we now have a situation where a large percentage 
of the dollars which we have already appropriated cannot be spent and 
have not been spent. In fact, of the $31 billion which has been 
appropriated under title I or the No Child Left Behind Act, $9 billion 
remains unspent. It is sitting at the Department of Education waiting 
for the States to get to a position where they are able to draw down 
those dollars. And this is not just from last year, this is from 2 to 3 
years back, the whole period of President Bush's Presidency.
  It is not an issue of lack of dollars. In fact, it is just the 
opposite. We are putting so many dollars into the educational accounts 
at the Federal level so fast that, to make sure they are spent 
correctly, it has made it difficult for the money to actually be spent. 
We, obviously, do not want to throw the money out there. It has to be 
spent pursuant to a plan. Every State has to file a plan. But as a 
result of the increased spending coming through the Bush initiatives, 
as supported by this Congress and especially by the chairman of this 
committee, Chairman Specter, who has been funding these accounts, we 
now find there is approximately $9 billion of funds which has not been 
drawn down.
  Today we have before us an amendment proposed by the ranking member 
of the Appropriations Committee--a man whom I greatly respect and who I 
think all Senators respect because of his extraordinary history in the 
Senate--which is proposing to add $6 billion of spending on to the 
educational accounts. But how is it paid for? I think we need to 
address that, too, because, of course, all these kids we are educating 
and trying to make ready to participate in the American dream are going 
to have to pay the bills we run up on them if we run them up as a 
deficit.

  So we put in place this year a budget. It was an idea that has been 
brought back, so to say, because when the colleagues across the aisle 
controlled the Senate last year, they did not put in place a budget. 
Why? Because a budget requires fiscal discipline and there were, I 
suspect, some who did not want fiscal discipline, did not want rules 
which drive fiscal discipline to be put in place so that spending could 
be controlled through budget points of order.
  We had no budget last year. It was sort of a shock really. Here is 
the Government of the United States functioning without a budget. It 
was chaos--in fact, such chaos that not only did we not have a budget, 
we did not have any appropriations passed under the leadership of the 
last Congress, my colleagues across the aisle.
  The first order of business when we took responsibility for this 
Chamber, under the leadership of Senator Frist, was to pass all the 
appropriations bills from the prior year--almost all of them, 11 of the 
13 had to be passed in this year rather than last year when they should 
have been passed. At any rate, we produced a budget this year, and we 
passed it.
  What is the purpose of the budget? The purpose of the budget is to 
put in place some reasonable fiscal controls so that in a time when we 
are obviously running very high deficits as a result of a number of 
factors--primarily the slow economy which has slowed revenues, the war 
in Iraq, and the war against terrorism--in that context where we are 
driving, unfortunately, large deficits, not historically extraordinary 
deficits but still very large deficits--we need to control the rate of 
growth in those deficits by having in place a budget which at least in 
some accounts gives fiscal discipline. So we put in place a budget.
  The budget allocates to each area a certain amount of money to be 
spent. Even in the context of the very severe deficit which we have--
and it is significant--the Budget Committee, under the leadership of 
Senator Nickles, agreed to significantly increase the funding for 
education to try to meet the goals set out by the President.
  In the area of special education, we increased funding by over $1 
billion; in the area of title I, we increased funding by over $1 
billion in the budget; and in the area of Pell grants, we increased 
funding by almost three-quarters of a billion dollars in the budget 
even though that meant that other accounts had to be reduced because to 
get the budget in place and have it be fiscally responsible, that 
required, if we were going to increase some accounts, we were most 
likely going to have to reduce others. We did a budget, and we passed 
it in the Senate, and it was passed by the House.
  We have in place a budget for this country, finally. We renewed the 
concept of fiscal discipline through a budget after having abandoned it 
for a year under the prior leadership of the Senate.
  That budget sets out these spending goals, these spending limits 
which are called caps, the amounts which should be spent in these 
accounts. The leadership of this committee, Senator Specter, met those 
caps and significantly increased by over $1 billion the spending on 
special education, over $1 billion the spending on title I, low-income 
kids, and almost $1 billion in spending on Pell grants.
  Now we see these amendments coming from the other side saying: Even 
though we have a budget, we should ignore it and we should fund all 
these programs, not at the level that has been set by the budget or the 
level that has been set by the Appropriations Committee, but at the 
level set by the authorizing committee outside of the budget.
  They are using a gimmick of classic proportions, advance funding, to 
claim that they are really doing it in a fiscally responsible way. Let 
me explain what advance funding is.
  When a Senator offers an amendment which increases spending by $6 
billion over what the budget allows, and then that person claims it is 
paid for because they borrow the $6 billion from next year's budget, 
that is not fiscal responsibility. That is a game. Anybody sees that as 
a gimmick. What happens next year? You are $6 billion in the hole. So 
next year you not only have to pay that $6 billion, you have to pay on 
top of that whatever you are going to pay for the increase in those 
accounts.
  As a practical matter, it is doubling up the deficit. It would 
probably be better from a practical standpoint if you did not advance 
fund and you just said: All right, we are going to add to the deficit 
$6 billion outside the budget, and we are not going to advance fund.
  Advance funding is the worst of both worlds because it takes money 
from next year, which creates havoc with next year, and at the same 
time it aggravates the budget deficit issue. So as a practical matter, 
the $6 billion that

[[Page S11009]]

is proposed in this amendment will add $6 billion to the deficit, if 
not this year, next year.
  Who pays for that? Who pays for going outside the budget? Well, 
deficits are paid for by the folks who come here to work, who are 
students in high school, who are pages. When they get out of college--
and I presume most of them will want to go to college--they are going 
to get a job and that job is going to have a tax burden tied to it. 
That tax burden is going to be directly related by how much we increase 
the deficit today, because they are going to have to pay that bill down 
the road. It is going to come to them, not to us, not to my generation, 
most likely, but to my children's generation and to my children's 
children's generation.
  So every time we break the budget, we are adding costs to our 
children. These are the same children we are trying to help. These are 
the same people we are trying to help as they move through their 
educational experience. How are we going to help them when we first--
well, unless we follow the President's program, we will not give them a 
great education but, more importantly, when you pass on to them a debt 
that is outside the discipline which is put in place to live by.
  We put this budget in place so we would have fiscal discipline, so we 
would not be passing on more of a deficit to our kids than is 
reasonable. Yet these amendments keep coming at us, one after another, 
saying just add to the deficit, if not this year, next year; don't 
worry about it; it does not matter; it is for education.
  I think it is ironic because the kids who are supposedly going to 
benefit are the kids who are going to have to pay the costs, and as a 
practical matter it is not going to benefit them that much. Why is it 
not going to benefit them that much? Because we already have $9.3 
billion of unspent money in these accounts. We have increased them so 
fast that they cannot be drawn down effectively.
  Now let's go to another issue, this concept that the authorized level 
has to be funded. This is a very unusual concept for Congress, because 
for all intents and purposes Congress does not fund anything to 
authorized levels.
  Authorized levels are statements of intent, purpose, goodwill. What 
Congress funds is a budget and appropriated levels. But now we hear, 
almost as a matter of sanctity, from the other side of the aisle that 
we have to reach the authorized level or we have abandoned the children 
of America.
  That is a very interesting concept, but they did not subscribe to 
that concept when they were in control of the Senate. Last time the 
Democratic membership controlled this body, which happened to be a year 
ago, they brought forward an appropriations bill under Labor-HHS, which 
is the bill we are dealing with today, and they funded education. Did 
they fund to the authorized level? No, they did not. They did not even 
come close to funding to the authorized level.
  This is the difference. This is the authorized level, the black line. 
This is what the Democratic budget proposed. It is a pretty big gap, 
about $4 billion. This was what was actually funded in the Democratic 
bill, which never passed, by the way, nor did the budget because they 
decided they did not want a budget and they could not pass their bill.

  Suddenly there has been an epiphany on the other side of the aisle. 
Suddenly, the authorized levels are sacrosanct and we must fund the 
authorized level. Well, I suggest there is a touch of inconsistency, 
especially in light of the track record we confront when we look at the 
facts.
  So we are turning to the basic underlying point, and that is this: 
For the first time in at least a decade, and really longer, we have a 
President who even in a period of extreme national difficulty--war 
against terrorists who are set on destroying our Nation and killing 
Americans, and have already done so--and a difficult economic period, 
although we are coming out of it, hopefully, a President who even 
during those hard times, where his attention has obviously been drawn 
off, and appropriately so, to defending America and trying to get us 
back to work, has continued his focus on making sure children are 
properly educated in this country, and he is especially focused on low-
income kids. That is the uniqueness of what he has done.
  Most of us understand that a child from a better-off family is 
probably going to be taken care of in the educational system, but the 
low-income child, who comes mostly from broken homes and 
disproportionately lives in urban areas, has been left behind for 
generation after generation.
  Now we have a President who has said no longer and who is willing to 
make this his purpose, even during these very difficult times when his 
attention might and has been drawn off otherwise. He has supported that 
purpose with huge increases in funding. In fact, in the first 3 years 
of the Bush administration, he increased funding more for title I in 3 
years than the prior administration did in 8 years by a factor of 
almost 70 percent. The same is true in the special education accounts, 
and to a lesser extent but to a significant point in the Pell accounts. 
This is a President who has not only put forward creative and 
imaginative policy to try to finally get a handle on the fact that so 
many kids are not learning what they need to know in order to compete 
for the American dream, has not only put together that policy but has 
backed it up with real, hard dollars. In the budget this Congress 
passed, we backed up the President.
  Today, the issue is whether we are going to hold that budget, which 
has these very significant increases in education, or whether we are 
going to dramatically expand the deficit in what seems to me to be a 
bit of inconsistency in relationship to what was proposed when our 
colleagues across the aisle were in control.
  This committee, under the leadership of Senator Specter, this 
President, has done the work that needs to be done, lifted the weights 
that need to be lifted in the area of funding education, and we should 
be supporting this committee's mark in this area.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for 
those comments.
  Before replying to Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins, we have 
another amendment which is ready to be offered. I ask unanimous consent 
that the pending amendment be set aside so there may be an amendment 
offered by Senator Inhofe and Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1553 to Amendment No 1542

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Allen, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1553 to amendment No. 1542.

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

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Impact Aid Program)

       On page 76, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec.__. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for Impact Aid programs, there are 
     appropriated an additional $26,000,000 for Federal property 
     payments under section 8002 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, an additional $160,000,000 for basic 
     support payments under section 8003(b) of such Act, and an 
     additional $1,000,000 for payments for children with 
     disabilities under section 8003(d) of such Act: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this Act for the National 
     Institutes of Health, $595,000,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2004: Provided further, That 
     the amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this Act 
     shall be deemed to be $7,082,199,000: Provided further, That 
     the amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act 
     shall be deemed to be $6,596,301,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I offer this amendment, along with my 
colleague Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. We do so on behalf of our other 
cosponsors: Senators Lautenberg, Conrad, Kerry, Murray, Daschle, Ben 
Nelson, Johnson, Allen, Hagel, Corzine, Akaka and Clinton.

[[Page S11010]]

  I will yield to my colleague, Senator Inhofe, to make his statement, 
following which I will make a statement about the amendment we just 
offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, our amendment adds $187 million to the 
Impact Aid Program. If it is accepted, that will only put us at two-
thirds funding. It is important to understand what this is because it 
seems as if we have come back every year since 1997 and had some 
success increasing the percentage of a program that was put on the 
books in the 1950s.
  First, I agree with most everything the Senator from New Hampshire 
stated. When you come up with something like this, you have to look at 
it in the context of fairness and the overall budget. In this case, a 
program came along in the 1950s that replenishes money that was to go 
to our schools, that the Government has taken away from our schools. It 
is as simple as that. They federalize land--perhaps in conjunction with 
an Army post or Indian lands or in conjunction with a military base of 
some kind--and when that happens, that takes the land off of the tax 
base. So the money that would have gone from that tax base to the 
schools is no longer there. However, the kids still have to be 
educated.
  In the wisdom of Congress in the 1950s they said: It is not fair. We 
will have to at least treat these kids the same as other kids have been 
treated.
  There is an insatiable propensity for politicians to take from 
programs and nobody will notice. This program started in the 1950s. It 
was fully funded. It was fully funded up to 1969. In 1969, they started 
dropping down. In 1996, it was down to 50 percent. In other words, 
money that would have been there for the benefit of the children being 
educated, only 50 percent was getting to the kids.
  In my State of Oklahoma, in Lawton, since 1966 the impact aid for 
Fort Sill, which is located adjacent to Lawton, OK, has dropped 
substantially, down to one-half in 1996 compared to 1969. This 
amendment would slowly bring this up to the point where we would be at 
two-thirds funding.
  Let me describe what has happened since 1996. In 1996, we were at 50-
percent funding. Until 1969, we were 100 percent, and people left the 
program alone. But in 1969 that changed and it went to 50-percent 
funding. We have been successful since then, and I commend my friend, 
the Senator from North Dakota. We do not always agree on issues. We 
have disagreed on national missile defense. We have disagreed on 
AmeriCorps and many other issues. This issue is fairness, an issue on 
which conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats can agree.
  Due to our efforts primarily, it has gone up from 50-percent funding 
in 1996 to 51 percent the next year, 57 percent the next year, 58 
percent 2 years later and, if adopted, it will go up to two-thirds. The 
kids will still not be treated fairly, nor will the school districts. 
They still will suffer from the fact that the land went off the tax 
base. However, at least we are on the right trend line, and we should, 
in another 3 or 4 years, get to 100-percent funding.
  I will relentlessly pursue this in any way we have to in order to get 
to that point.
  Fort Towson public schools in southeastern Oklahoma will gain $51,000 
of impact aid if fully funded. This would bring it only to two-thirds 
funding. As a result, they are having serious problems in these school 
districts.
  Oklahoma is not that much different from other States. In the State 
of North Carolina, my information is that North Carolina actually has 
more impacted students than the State of Oklahoma. I don't know where 
North Dakota stands; I am sure we will hear in a moment. However, it is 
a fairness issue. Oklahoma is not treated more unfairly than any other 
State but equally unfairly. The students are not getting the education 
they need because of one thing, and that is they have had the 
federalized land taken off their tax base.

  I join my friend from North Dakota in trying to pass this amendment. 
In doing this, a lot of kids throughout America will be treated more 
fairly. Down the road, in 5, 6, or 7 years we will find this program 
will be 100-percent funded.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota for the time he has given me 
and assure him I join him fully in getting this amendment passed for 
the kids of Oklahoma, North Dakota, and throughout the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am pleased to work with my friend from Oklahoma, 
Senator Inhofe. As he indicated, this is an issue that brings support 
from a bipartisan group of Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent 
on April 14, 2003, to Senator Specter and Senator Harkin, signed by a 
wide variety of Members of the Senate from virtually every political 
persuasion and every corner of the philosophical structure around here. 
It shows the widespread support for the Impact Aid Program and for the 
funding for this program that was originally promised.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 2003.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
         and Education, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Harkin, 
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
         Services and Education, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin: As you 
     know, the Senate Impact Aid Coalition was formed in 1996 to 
     promote and improve the Impact Aid Program. Our coalition has 
     grown from just four Members of Congress in 1995, to its 
     current membership of 45.
       Our goal for Fiscal Year 2004 is to increase funding for 
     the Impact Aid Program to $1.375.4 billion, a 15 percent 
     increase over last year's conference report funding level. 
     This increase will help local school districts, which have 
     lost tax revenue as a result of the federal presence in their 
     district, to serve their communities and provide a quality 
     education. This increase is also an important step toward 
     fully funding this program, which currently receives less 
     than half of its authorized funding.
       In a time of budget constraints, we understand that you 
     have difficult decisions ahead, but it is our firm belief 
     that as our service men and women set out to defend our 
     country, we must not forget or ignore the children they leave 
     behind. While the focus on national security and homeland 
     defense is necessary to ensure that the well being of the 
     citizens of our great country, we also believe that Congress 
     must fulfill its federal obligation.
       As you know, Impact Aid helps to ensure that military 
     children, children residing on Indian lands and in federally-
     owned, low-rent housing facilities, and dependents of the 
     federal government receive a quality education. We believe 
     that Congress' commitment to Impact Aid is more important 
     than ever. In addition to the funding increase of 15 percent, 
     we ask that you maintain the eligibility of all students to 
     the Impact Aid Program as defined in the No Child Left Behind 
     Act.
       We stand committed to the Impact Aid Program and are ready 
     to work with you and your subcommittee on this very important 
     issue. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our 
     request.
           Sincerely,
         Tim Johnson, Chuck Hagel, Jack Reed, John Warner, Max 
           Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Byron L, Dorgan, James Inhofe, 
           John Kerry, Daniel Akaka, Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo, Jim 
           Bunning, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, Hillary Clinton, 
           Frank Lautenberg, Tom Daschle, Charles Schumer, Barbara 
           Boxer, Russell Feingold, Patty Murray, Jon Corzine, 
           Barbara Mikulski, Dick Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Maria 
           Cantwell, George Allen, Carl Levin, and Jeff Sessions.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague has well described this 
issue. This is not some extraordinary grant program, some program that 
will deliver something for nothing to some school district in the 
country. This is keeping a promise. What is the promise? The promise 
was made in 1950 that when the Federal Government comes in and takes 
land or has property that is tax exempt, the Federal Government will 
make a payment to local school districts in lieu of local property 
taxes. That is what the impact aid is about. We have other similar 
programs--PILT, or payments in lieu of taxes--but essentially Impact 
Aid is a promise to our local schools who still have to educate 
children despite their smaller tax base. Impact Aid says where we have 
property, and that property is tax-exempt because it belongs to the 
Federal Government--in most cases, for example, a military base--we 
will provide impact aid to offset those costs. That is what this is, 
impact aid.

[[Page S11011]]

  In 1950, both President Truman and the Congress said let's do this. 
It is not fair for the Federal Government's actions to adversely impact 
a local school district's financial situation. So they created the 
Impact Aid Program to directly reimburse school districts for the loss 
of revenue caused by the Federal Government.
  There are 1,400 school districts nationwide eligible for impact aid 
payments serving 15 million children. Let me describe just one of them. 
I toured a school one day in North Dakota some few years ago. It was a 
school on the edge of an Indian reservation, a public school district 
but a school district whose property base was largely tax exempt. So it 
had very little property on its tax rolls, and therefore it could not 
bond because it had such a small property base. It could not raise a 
great amount of tax revenue, as well.
  This is a school district that was in great difficulty. It had 
roughly 150 children, two toilets, one water fountain. In the classroom 
you saw children sitting 30 in a classroom with desks an inch apart. 
Many were Native-American children. And one little girl named Rosie Two 
Bears looked up at me and asked: Mr. Senator, are you going to build us 
a new school?
  Regrettably, I could not build a new school for them, but it was an 
impact aid school. And the question of impact aid funding bears 
directly on how many children are in a classroom, how many lavatories 
exist, what the condition of the building is in which they are going to 
school. In this particular building, they were holding classes in the 
lower level of the building, but some days they could not hold the 
classes because sewer gas was backing up on that level. Part of the 
building was already condemned.
  The question for us is, When a young child walks through that 
classroom door, are they disadvantaged by having to go to a school that 
is not in good repair? Having to go to a school where classrooms are 
crowded? The answer is yes, of course.

  I wish I could have told this little third grader, Rosie Two Bears, 
Yes, I am going to build you a new school, but I couldn't do that. I 
don't build schools. But I do come here with my colleague from Oklahoma 
to fight for adequate funding for the impact aid program, to say this 
Government has a responsibility to keep its promise--yes, to Rosie Two 
Bears, but to other young children across this country.
  I indicated we have 15 million children in these schools that are 
eligible for impact aid. My colleague just told the Senate that if we 
pass the amendment we have offered we will still only be providing two-
thirds of the money we had originally promised years ago as a Federal 
Government to make up for the lost revenue in these local school 
districts.
  Some say it is a matter of choice. Yes, it is a matter of choice. 
There are unlimited needs and limited resources. I understand all that. 
We propose an amendment that adds $187 million.
  Let me mention one other fact. The President proposed a cut to Impact 
Aid that was very significant, as all of us know. The cut was restored 
back to level funding by my colleagues, Senator Specter and Senator 
Harkin. But just restoring to level funding means these schools still 
fall behind because more children are affected in these impact aid 
schools.
  So what Senator Inhofe and I propose is to increase Impact Aid to at 
least two-thirds of the funding that was promised by adding the $187 
million.
  Our amendment is offset in 2004 by moving the fiscal year 2004 
advance-funding back to fiscal year 2003, which is exactly the same 
method used by the leadership to increase funding for the underlying 
bill by $2.2 billion. Some say nothing really is happening out in the 
impact aid schools that would cause us to have to do this. Let me 
describe what is happening. Medical Lake Washington State School 
District has scaled back its afterschool and summer programs and is not 
replacing the four elementary schoolteachers who retired. Why? It 
doesn't have the money. It is an impact aid school.
  The Saint Ignatius Montana School District eliminated four teachers, 
resulting in larger class sizes, and was not able to give raises to its 
teachers.
  The Suttons Bay Michigan School District has reduced the number of 
teaching positions and initiated a pay-to-play policy for participating 
in athletics and extracurricular activities, and reduced spending on 
textbooks.
  Oceanside, CA, a big school district, has had to eliminate 
transportation for 5,000 students in grades 7 through 12, and 139 
teachers have been let go.
  Grand Forks North Dakota School District reduced staff, delayed 
textbook purchases, and delayed capital expenditures for technology and 
facility needs.
  These are real examples of what is happening in real schools that has 
an effect on real kids entering classroom doors expecting to be able to 
learn. We have an obligation, it seems to me, to keep our promise.
  I said this yesterday, and let me make the point again because it is 
not an unfair point, it seems to me. We are told that the money does 
not exist to do everything we want to do. I fully understand and accept 
that. So if the money does not exist to do everything, then the 
question is how do we prioritize that which we believe must be done? 
The question for us is where do children rank? Where do you put kids? 
At the top? In the middle? At the bottom? Where do our kids fall in our 
priorities?

  I mentioned this yesterday and someone said maybe it was unfair that 
just a matter of months ago Mr. Wolfowitz went to Turkey and said: If 
you let our troops go through Turkey, we will give you $26 billion, $6 
billion in grants and $20 billion in loans. I supported that. The next 
day I called to find out where did the $26 billion come from, $6 
billion of which was direct spending. They said that will come out of 
our priorities.
  So if we had the money for Turkey and didn't spend it, maybe we could 
use the money that we didn't spend on Turkey to spend on American kids 
going to classrooms that ought to be better classrooms, going to 
teachers who have to pay for their own textbooks, going to schools that 
are in disrepair, that need fixing, going to Rosie Two Bears' school to 
make that a school we are proud of instead of having it be a school 
where you walk through a classroom door and discover that young 
children do not have quite the same opportunity because they are 
crowded into a room and do not have the same capabilities as other 
children in other schools.
  My point is that this is all a matter of priorities and choices. We 
make the choices. Not our uncles, not our kids, not our grandpas and 
grandmas. We make the choices.
  I said when I started, and I want to say it again because my 
colleague from Pennsylvania is on his feet, that I think the Senators 
from Pennsylvania and Iowa did exactly the right thing in restoring the 
money that was cut in the President's budget for impact aid. It brought 
us back to where we should be, at level funding, if the goal is only 
level funding. But the Senator from Oklahoma and I said, and we believe 
very strongly, that getting us to just two-thirds of what we had 
promised we were going to offer to these school districts that are in 
such desperate financial trouble because they have lost their property 
tax base--just getting back to two-thirds is not an unreasonable goal. 
Doing it by adding the money we propose in this amendment is an 
investment in kids and an investment in this country that will be well 
worth it.
  Again, I say as I close, if you establish priorities in this Senate, 
it seems to me the first priority is America's future, and America's 
future is its kids. It is the kids. And education is about preparing 
those kids for opportunity.
  I hope very much my colleagues will accept this amendment. It is a 
modest amendment. It is bipartisan. It has broad support. My hope and 
expectation would be that with those who signed the letter in April to 
the subcommittee, with those who have cosponsored our amendment today, 
that we will be able to have a vote and be successful in adding this 
money for the impact aid districts and the impact aid schools around 
this country.
  I know this will be a long and tortured trail on the floor of the 
Senate for this particular bill. This bill is a very important 
appropriations subcommittee bill. I serve on the Appropriations 
Committee and I am deeply honored to do it for a very important reason. 
It is one of the few committees these days in Congress that is truly,

[[Page S11012]]

truly bipartisan. We work in a way that respects each other and work 
together in conferences on appropriations. These are really 
conferences, not conferences in name in which one side never gets 
invited, but real conferences. So this is a great committee.
  The opportunity on the floor of the Senate to talk about priorities 
and adjustments in the appropriations process is an opportunity that I 
do not want to miss. My colleague from Oklahoma would say the same. 
This is one we do not want to miss.
  We thank very much the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa for 
building back that funding which the President cut. We then ask for 
their support for the proposition that we reach at least a two-thirds 
funding level of that which was promise to the impact aid schools in 
this country. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset I say I am very 
sympathetic to the considerations raised by the Senator from North 
Dakota. But the issue is where do we find the money?
  As I look over a long list of items where we could make offsets and 
could have cuts, there is not an item or a line that is desirable. 
Should we cut money from the National Institutes of Health? Or from 
community health centers? Or from many other lines? The judgment of the 
subcommittee, backed up by the full committee, is that we made the 
proper allocation.
  I appreciate the comment made by the Senator from North Dakota that 
we did reinstate the funds. The administration had made a request which 
would have reduced the funding from last year by $187 million. The 
subcommittee and the full committee have put that money back. I think 
it is worth noting, since 1996 when the funding was $693 million, to 
fiscal year 2003 when the funding is $1.188 billion, that is a 71.5-
percent increase. Regrettably, that is about as far as we can go.
  At the appropriate time, for the information of the amendment's 
sponsors, I am constrained to raise a point of order. The leadership 
has advised the preference is not to vote until about 5:45. That does 
not lock in a vote but that is the leadership's position because a 
number of Senators are off the floor at this time.
  I, again, urge my colleagues to bring amendments to the floor. We 
have a list of about 40 amendments. In a relatively short amount of 
time that quorum call sign is going to go on. As I have said on a 
couple of occasions, on August 1 and before the recess, the majority 
leader and I had a colloquy and talked about going to third reading. My 
experience at the Senate has been there have been long delays. Senators 
do have amendments but wait to bring them. I know that requires 
planning, but the Senate has been on notice for more than a month that 
this bill would be taken up on September 2. If we are to complete 
action on this bill, we are going to have to have the cooperation of 
the Senate.
  If this bill is not signed by September 30, this bill will lose $3 
billion. That is what it will cost if this bill is not signed by the 
President by September 30. If there is to be any realistic chance of 
having the appropriations bills finished by and large by September 30, 
there is going to have to be cooperation by Senators who have 
amendments but who haven't brought them to the floor. We were assured 
one Senator would be here at 4 o'clock. Now word has come that the 
Senator is not going to be ready. That puts the managers, who have the 
responsibility for moving this bill ahead, at a severe disadvantage.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. In a minute.
  I understand I don't have the unilateral authority to move to the 
third reading, but I am going to try to do that if we don't have 
amendments come to the floor and if we have to wait through quorum 
calls for protected other business which is not related to this bill.
  I would be glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have an observation in the form of a 
question. Would it be a good incentive for those who take seriously and 
come to the floor with amendments to offer them quickly and do so in 
rather short order, as Senator Inhofe and I have done, especially when 
it is an amendment of great merit? Would it set an example for it to be 
accepted by the chairman of the subcommittee? That probably is a 
rhetorical question. Let me ask further, if I might: What point of 
order does the Senator intend to make against amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. The point of order would be under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that the 
amendment exceeds the discretionary spending limit in this section and 
is therefore not in order.
  The Senator raises a very tempting offer. I might almost be tempted 
to say that any amendment that gets to the floor before 3:59 we would 
be willing to accept, meritorious or not. That is very much in the eye 
of the beholder. Of course, I can't quite do that. But I thank the 
Senator from North Dakota for his diligence in coming to the floor and 
speaking on an earlier amendment and offering this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, what reward does the Senator from 
Pennsylvania suggest for that good behavior?
  Mr. SPECTER. What was that?
  Mr. DORGAN. I was just asking what reward he would suggest for that 
good behavior. I suggest perhaps a good lesson for others might be to 
see this meritorious amendment accepted by the chairman. There would a 
rush here in droves to offer them very quickly. But the Senator could 
think about that for a moment.
  I wish to ask this question about the point of order. The amendment 
Senator Inhofe and I have offered is an amendment that dutifully 
increases part of this bill that we think is critically important, one 
that still falls far short on the promise that has been made over the 
years in the funding mechanism we use. It is the funding mechanism, I 
believe, that in part is used in the underlying bill itself. I guess I 
am a bit confused about a point of order lying only against our 
amendment or against some broader construct of what is happening here 
in the Senate.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
answer to that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The same defect would apply to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me make an observation. I do not 
criticize the defect in the underlying bill. My hope is that the 
Senator will not criticize the identical defect in the amendment. What 
I have done, along with my colleague, Senator Inhofe, is offer an 
amendment that embraces exactly the same approach that is used by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa in funding the 
underlying bill. I take no exception to that at all. I am fully in 
support of that. Based on that, I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania 
will not raise a point of order against the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I do not seek to enter into a 
disagreement with the distinguished Senator on the point he just 
raised. But as manager of the bill, I feel constrained to raise the 
point of order at an appropriate time. I thought I would give the 
Senator from North Dakota notice of that.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let the Senator from Pennsylvania and me 
and others discuss that off the floor. The only reason I raise the 
question is that offering an amendment which uses an identical funding 
source or the mechanism that is identical to the funding source offered 
by the subcommittee is one that I thought would not engender a point of 
order. At any rate, we do not intend to vote on that at this moment. My 
understanding from the Senator from Pennsylvania is that this will 
probably be dealt with later this afternoon. If that is the case, 
perhaps we can discuss this between now and then.
  My hope is that the Senator from Pennsylvania will not raise a point 
of order and give us an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the 
merits of the amendment inasmuch as the same funding mechanism used in 
the underlying bill and the same defect would occur in both.
  Mr. DAYTON. Madam President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield 
for a question? If he is looking for

[[Page S11013]]

amendments, would the Senator be willing to entertain one from this 
Senator when this discussion is concluded?
  Mr. SPECTER. Does the Senator from Minnesota have an amendment he 
wishes to offer?
  Mr. DAYTON. I have an amendment. Recognizing the generous offer of 
the chairman of the subcommittee with the 3:59 deadline racing to a 
conclusion, the magnitude of the offer by the Senator from North Dakota 
is so modest by comparison that it should enhance his chances.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, may I inquire of the Senator from 
Minnesota whether the amendment relates to this bill?
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator is correct. It relates to funding for the 
IDEA.
  Mr. SPECTER. The amendment does relate to this bill?
  Mr. DAYTON. Yes. The Senator is correct. It relates to the funding 
for IDEA.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if the Senator has an amendment 
relating to this bill, it certainly will be welcomed. I ask the Senator 
from Minnesota if he would be willing to defer offering the amendment 
to give the Senator from West Virginia an opportunity to speak for 10 
minutes in advance of offering that amendment.
  Mr. DAYTON. I will gladly step aside for the Senator from West 
Virginia at any time. I hope the 3:59 offer might be extended to 
include 30 seconds after the Senator concludes his remarks.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I yield to the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank both of these illustrious Senators, the 
Senator from Pennsylvania who is managing the bill before the Senate, 
and I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his courtesy 
and kindness.
  I will be brief. I do intend to speak out of order. I ask unanimous 
consent that I may speak out of order for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 1576 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Minnesota.


                Amendment No. 1554 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1554.

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

   (Purpose: To increase funding for part B of the Individuals with 
                      Disabilities Education Act)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to carry out parts B, C, 
     and D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     shall be $22,109,931,000, of which $20,941,000,000 shall be 
     available to carry out part B of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (other than section 619 of such 
     Act).

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment would meet a 27-year-old 
promise made by the Federal Government to the States and to the school 
districts when IDEA was established. The promise was that the Federal 
Government would provide for 40 percent of the costs, the additional 
costs of providing special education services to every eligible 
schoolchild. It is one of the most important commitments the Federal 
Government has made for public education, especially at the elementary 
and secondary levels, and the money could not be better spent on behalf 
of leaving no child behind.
  Sadly, at least in the State of Minnesota--and I know, from the 
observations of other Senators, in many other States--the funding 
presently is seriously inadequate to provide all of those services.
  In Minnesota, some $250 million a year shortfall exists in funding 
for special education which results in education dollars having to be 
shifted from regular programs and services to special education to meet 
the statutory requirement of school districts to provide services to 
every qualified schoolchild. The result is that in Minnesota all the 
students are harmed by the underfunding of special education, those who 
are the recipients of those services, as well as those who see dollars 
shifted from other programs for their benefit.
  IDEA funding for part B for States in the current legislation before 
us is set at $9.858 billion. To bring that funding up to the 40-percent 
level, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would require an 
additional IDEA part B funding of $11.082 billion. It is noteworthy 
that the increase exceeds the appropriated amount. Another way of 
looking at that is that the current level of appropriated dollars is 
less than half--less than half--of what is necessary to meet that 40-
percent level that was committed to by the Congress 27 years ago.
  I heard the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire earlier on the 
Senate floor reference the increases in funding for special education 
that President Bush has proposed, and I commend the President for doing 
so. I have not served during the period of time which the Senator from 
New Hampshire referenced, so I do not have the basis for comparing the 
period of time during the 1990s that he referenced under the former 
administration with the circumstances that this President is faced 
with, but it is enough for me that President Bush has proposed in each 
of his budgets an increase in funding for special education, and he 
should be credited for doing so.
  But the fact remains that even with those increases up until this 
year, the Federal share of funding for special education nationwide is 
approximately 17 percent of those total costs. In other words, still, 
despite those increases over the last 3 years, it is less than half of 
what the Federal Government promised over a quarter century ago.
  I recognize that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, with 
his responsibilities to the budget and to an allotment for the 
subcommittee's appropriations, has to or is likely to object to this 
amendment, despite it being inserted just before the 3:59 deadline. I 
recognize this is an amount that goes way beyond the current mandate of 
the subcommittee. But as my colleague from North Dakota said so 
eloquently just a few minutes ago, what we are really talking about as 
we consider these different amendments in a broader sense is, What are 
our priorities as a Senate?
  What are our priorities as a Nation? Do we really mean what we say, 
that no child shall be left behind? Are we willing to put forward the 
necessary resources to accomplish that? Or is that just a rhetorical 
statement without proper attribution from the Children's Defense Fund 
and, whereas that esteemed organization has championed the resources 
and the commitments that would be necessary to actualize that 
statement, we in this Congress and, with due respect, the 
administration have still fallen short of that responsibility.
  We had, when I came into office, an incredible opportunity because we 
were looking at projected surpluses for the next decade of some $5.4 
trillion. That is a marked difference from the circumstances which 
President Clinton faced throughout most of his administration when he 
was bringing the Nation out of the previous era of deficit spending, 
when he finally, through collaboration with the Congress--the Senate 
and the House--during the last 4 years of his administration succeeded 
in balancing the combined Federal budget. In fiscal year 2000, he 
achieved for the first time in 4 years--and probably for the last time 
in 40 or more years--a surplus in the non-Social Security part of the 
Federal budget; in other words, education, health care, and the like--
everything except for Social Security, which at this point, this year, 
is running about a $155 billion projected surplus; the rest of the 
Federal budget was balanced. We had the resources projected that would 
have kept that operating budget in a surplus mode for each of the next 
10 years, according to both the CBO and the OMB when President Bush's 
administration

[[Page S11014]]

took office in January of 2001. I thought then, as I offered this 
amendment at that time, that we had a tremendous opportunity we should 
not let go by to bring this funding immediately up to the 40 percent 
promised level.
  That year, in a bipartisan and very genuinely committed way, there 
was an amendment that was adopted by the Senate that would have brought 
full funding for special education up to the promised 40 percent level 
over 6 years--5 years too long in my estimation, but it passed the 
Senate. It went to conference with the House. It resulted in a 
protracted conference committee of almost 6 months.
  My esteemed former colleague, the departed Senator from Minnesota, 
Paul Wellstone, was championing this measure, among others, in that 
conference committee and insisting that the Senate position of building 
to 40 percent funding for special education over 6 years be honored and 
kept in the conference report. The House resisted and was adamant, and, 
unfortunately, at the very end of the conference, the Senate conferees 
agreed to the House position, causing my colleague, Senator Wellstone, 
to vote against that conference report, as did I.
  Since then, we have all recognized that the fiscal circumstances of 
the Federal Government have changed dramatically. I find it a little 
bit disingenuous for the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire to be 
taking credit for the spending increases for education, which he 
ascribes to this administration and this Congress; yet, every time 
somebody from this side of the aisle proposes also to increase spending 
for education, suddenly our side of the spending equation is bad 
spending and his side of the spending equation seems to be good 
spending. As far as I am concerned, it can be Republican spending, 
Democratic spending, or independent spending for education, and it is 
good spending. I don't care which administration, which session of 
Congress, or which Members of Congress can claim credit for that. I 
just want the credit to be there to be claimed because I know the 
beneficiaries are the students of Minnesota and, I suspect, all over 
the rest of the country.

  I am also perplexed when I hear the Senator from New Hampshire, who 
chairs the HELP Committee of the Senate--his expertise and knowledge of 
these matters is widely respected by colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. But when he says, in effect, as he did earlier today, we have 
put so much additional Federal money into public education at the K 
through 12 level that the school districts aren't able to spend that 
money fast enough--a couple of months ago, I heard the Senator state on 
the Senate floor there was a surplus of Head Start positions available 
nationwide, so there were more slots available than there were people 
who wanted to get their children into a Head Start program.
  I truly hope if those surplus funds are available, be it from New 
Hampshire or any other State, they will be put into a reservoir that 
could be drawn from by other States. I know in the case of Minnesota--I 
heard the Senator from North Dakota state the same and I heard a number 
of other colleagues, including Senator Pryor of Arkansas--I ask 
unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. He also shared the circumstances with me of the State of 
Arkansas. When I run by the educators in Minnesota the assertion made 
on the Senate floor that there is a surplus of Federal funding for 
these programs, I get absolutely incredulous looks. I find far more 
concurrence with the Senator from North Dakota, who observed teachers 
in his State who are reaching into their own pockets for hundreds, even 
thousands, of dollars, who go without expenses for basic program 
materials, educational materials, trips to educational enrichment 
opportunities, and the like that cannot be funded out of regular 
budgets.
  In Minnesota, there is an estimated $250 million shortfall of special 
education money because of this underfunding of the Federal commitment, 
which I can assure my colleagues every one of those dollars would be 
spent swiftly and necessarily and would benefit students throughout my 
State if they were made available. So where these surplus dollars are 
that States and school districts elsewhere don't need, where the 
additional slots for programs such as Head Start are residing that are 
not being filled, I guess I would certainly like to see where that 
exists.
  I urge the Secretary of Education, if it is in fact the case, that 
those funds and those slots be reallocated as swiftly as possible to 
States like Minnesota, who need them and could benefit from them.
  Yes, Mr. President, my amendment exceeds the budget as it exists 
today. I note that when the budget for this fiscal year began, we were 
looking at a deficit, we were told, of about $260 billion, if memory 
serves me. Now we are told that we will exceed $500 billion. We are 
asked rhetorically where will the money come from for these 
expenditures. I answer rhetorically, from the same place the other $240 
billion that has been added to the deficit this year will come from. 
And the Senator from New Hampshire is right--that will come from 
payments made by taxpayers in the future. But if we are going to spend 
$100 billion, as some experts estimate we will, over the next year in 
Iraq, if we are going to spend 10 percent or 15 percent of that amount 
in Afghanistan, if we are going to spend $15 billion to address the 
AIDS crisis in Africa over the next few years, as the President 
proposed--and those are all either necessary or very worthwhile 
humanitarian and strategic expenditures, but if we are talking about 
additional spending on the magnitude of $15 billion, $100 billion over 
the course of a year, how is it that we always run out of resources 
when it comes to children, when it comes to especially schoolchildren 
with special needs, when it comes to those who will be left behind in 
Minnesota and I suspect will be left behind in 49 other States if these 
additional resources are not provided?

  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer 
this amendment. I hope it will be considered in the broader context of 
the priorities of this body for the children of today and tomorrow. I 
respectfully suggest it is money that will be extremely well spent. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for 
a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the manager of 
the bill is working to set up a series of votes beginning at 5:45 p.m. 
today; is that right?
  Mr. SPECTER. Correct.
  Mr. REID. Just to alert Members, we are going to have one, possibly 
three votes at 5:45 p.m.; is that right?
  Mr. SPECTER. Correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had commented earlier today that there 
was an expectation of voting at 5:45 p.m., that there were a series of 
meetings at the White House and other places which would keep Senators 
away from the floor until that time. I just responded to the question 
from the Senator from Nevada that it is the likelihood, but it is not 
locked in, that we will vote at 5:45 p.m. How many votes we will have 
we are not certain at this point.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for offering this 
amendment. The issue on special education is one of great importance. 
The Federal Government does have a responsibility to come to the 40 
percent level. We have been far from it, but we have made very 
substantial progress. I think it is accurate to say even enormous 
progress.
  Over the course of the past several years, we have made major 
increases. When I became chairman of this subcommittee in 1995, in 
conjunction with Senator Harkin, we made special education a priority, 
and for the fiscal year 1997, we increased special education by 
approximately $800 million. The next year, $700 million. The following 
year, $500 million. The year after that, $580 million, $450 million, 
$1.2 billion, $1.3 billion, and this year there is a projected increase 
of approximately $650 million.

  If you take a comparison from the year 1994, the special education 
appropriation was slightly over $2 billion,

[[Page S11015]]

$2.05 billion. This year we are projecting it at $9.85 billion, which 
is almost four times as much, almost 400 percent, slightly less. So we 
have moved up very materially.
  I do not have the statistics prior to the year 1996 on the Federal 
share per student spending, but in 1996, it was 7.3 percent. We have 
now advanced that to 18.7 percent. We are almost halfway to 40 percent.
  If we were to fully fund IDEA, it would take another $11 billion to 
$12 billion on top of the amount of money which we have allocated. 
While I have deep respect for the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Minnesota, I think it might even be possible he does not have an 
expectation that we are going to have $11 billion or $12 billion more 
for this item, much as we would like to and much as the Federal 
commitment is there. But I think the progress has been enormous.
  I make a special compliment to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, 
Mr. Gregg, who has been at the forefront of this item, going back to 
his earlier days in the House and his earlier days as Governor of New 
Hampshire seeing the importance of this item.
  It is an item of great importance for me. We are making a lot of 
progress. It would be nice to do more, but I think everyone understands 
we are far from being able to add an additional $10 billion, $11 
billion, $12 billion here.
  Again, for purposes of information, I will be constrained to raise a 
budget point of order when we take up this matter for a vote at the 
appropriate time.
  Mr. President, let me again issue a call for amendments. Third 
reading may be as remote as full funding for IDEA, but it is an idea 
whose time may come, if not this afternoon, perhaps this evening or 
perhaps tomorrow morning.


                           Amendment No. 1552

  Mr. President, I have not made any manager's comments on the 
amendment offered by Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins on the 
nursing issue. That is an item of great concern. There is a tremendous 
nursing shortage in the United States. The Mikulski-Collins amendment 
seeks to raise the funding from $112.7 million to $175.7 million for a 
$63 million increase.
  I note that there have been increases of a very substantial nature. 
In 2001, there was an increase of 23 percent. In 2002, there was an 
increase of 10.6 percent. In 2003, there was an increase of 21.6 
percent. And the items are funded on a level this year. It is relevant 
to note that on the funding for the National Institute of Nursing 
Research that there has been an increase this year from $130.5 million, 
approximately, to $135.5 million, for a $5 million increase.
  I think it is also appropriate to note that we assisted the nurses in 
their effort to have standing to anesthesiology where we finally worked 
out an arrangement where it would be up to the Governor of each State 
to authorize payments, Medicaid-Medicare, to nurses who are so 
certified so that they did not have to necessarily be an M.D. 
anesthesiologist. The nursing issue is one of tremendous concern.
  As I look over the Mikulski-Collins amendment for an additional $63 
million and I look over the items which we are funding in an effort to 
see if we couldn't make some accommodation, it is a matter of staying 
within our 302(b) allocation or cutting somewhere. I do not think 
anyone would like to cut low-income home energy assistance or community 
health services or Head Start or the NIH.
  As we wrestle with the import of the Mikulski-Collins amendment, we 
are seeking a way to, if it is possible, have some offset which would 
enable us to find a way to increase funding for nursing. But an offset 
is going to require a cut somewhere, and that is the managers' 
responsibility to try to balance out all of the competing interests.
  Mr. President, if there still is no Senator on the floor and no one 
has heeded my latest call to come to the floor, in the absence of any 
Senator seeking recognition, 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dayton are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. DAYTON. Also, Mr. President, I have been here this afternoon and 
have expressed my concern for the measures in the Federal Aviation 
Administration conference report.
  I am not going to consume time since we are proceeding to a time of 
voting on some of these important education amendments, including one 
of my own for funding for special education. But I do want to say again 
that this matter, before it comes before the Senate, must be resolved, 
or I will have to be back here in more of an obstructionist mode than I 
was called upon to do today. And that would be something I would prefer 
to avoid and see this matter resolved in some other way. I will be 
working with my colleagues to see that occurs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the Dorgan amendment No. 1553 occur today at 5:45; further 
that following that vote, the Senate vote in relation to the Dayton 
amendment No. 1554; provided that no amendments be in order to either 
amendment prior to the votes; finally, there will be 2 minutes equally 
divided for debate prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is the manager of the bill 
going to raise points of order on these two amendments?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes, I had previously stated that I would raise points 
of order.
  Mr. REID. I am wondering if we might be able to accomplish that now 
to save a little time so we might not have to go through that later.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would be agreeable to doing that. With 
respect to the Dorgan amendment, 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 therefore not in order.
  Mr. REID. I would move to waive that and ask unanimous consent that 
we be able to handle both of these points of order at the same time. I 
ask unanimous consent that it be in order to waive the two points of 
order en bloc. And then I would ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is agreeable with me. I had intended 
to say that as to the Dayton amendment, I raise a point of order under 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment 
provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocations under the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on 
the budget and is not in order. And if the Senator from Nevada is 
saying he wants to raise two motions to waive en bloc, that is fine.
  Mr. REID. That is the wish of the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it shall be in order to 
raise both points of order at this time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Obviously it is going to require 
two votes on the waiver of the points of order to the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. May I ask the Chair, the intent is to have the vote on 
the Dorgan-Inhofe amendment followed by 2 minutes equally divided 
between myself and whoever, followed by a vote on waiving the Budget 
Act on my amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. The statement by the Senator from Minnesota is accurate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to waive is 
considered made on both points of order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't see any other Senator on the 
floor to offer an amendment.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order that the yeas and nays be allowed 
on both waivers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S11016]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                         A Transportation Bill

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to September 11, I proposed 
legislation called the American Marshal Plan. This legislation received 
the support of the National Council of Mayors and other governmental 
entities, recognizing that it was extremely important that our country 
do something about the deteriorating infrastructure. Hearings were 
held. We had mayors from around the country testify as to the state of 
the infrastructure in their cities. We were moving along very well 
until September 11 and then we were certainly distracted from this and 
many other things. We have been trying now for many months.
  I am ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation. There is 
no bill more important to States--I say that without any question--
every 6 years than the 6-year Transportation bill. It deals with 
highways, but it also importantly today deals with mass transit. I 
think it is a blot on this Congress that we do not have a 
Transportation bill. We have not even had a markup in committee. I am 
terribly disappointed that this is the case. We will not be able to do 
a highway bill this year.
  It only makes sense that when we haven't had a markup in committee on 
a bill that is going to handle the highway and transit needs of this 
country for 6 years, it takes a little bit of discussion in the 
subcommittee, in the committee, and certainly on the floor. I would 
hope that the Republican leadership is at least anticipating that we 
will do a reasonable extension so that States around the country can at 
least go forward. It is better than doing no bill.
  The State of Nevada is a rapidly growing State. We have tremendous 
highways needs, and now with the tremendous growth that has taken place 
in the Las Vegas and Reno areas, we have mass transit needs.
  We are in the process of opening a monorail system. We are 
anticipating a light rail system. We have needs not only for our 
highways but also our mass transit. This is the way it is all over the 
country. It is beyond my ability to comprehend how we talk about all 
that we are going to do but have not mentioned the highway bill.
  I am reminded of your father, the chairman of the full committee, who 
did a highway bill. I served on that committee. I have served on that 
committee since I have been in the Senate. The late great John Chafee 
pushed a highway bill. He was a person who was able to compromise. He 
understood that legislation is the art of compromise. But in this forum 
we are now in, it is either their way or no way. We have no bill.
  I worked, when I first came here, with Senator Stafford of Vermont. 
He is a wonderful gentleman to whom I wrote a letter recently. I can't 
remember, I think it was on his 90th birthday. He was old and still 
very healthy. We have done a highway bill with Senator Moynihan, 
Senator Baucus. It appears we will not do a highway bill now. I think 
that is just bad government. I don't know how anyone can take pride in 
not having a highway bill. We have funding problems.
  Remember, these are not taxes that we are suddenly going to assess 
the American people to pay for highway and transit. Every time someone 
goes to buy a gallon of gas for their car, they pay a tax; it goes into 
a trust fund. We use these trust fund moneys for these bills that come 
up every 6 years. People ask, Who is paying for mass transit? A 
decision was made many years ago that because every person we put on 
mass transit takes pressure off the highways, we would allocate about 
20 percent of our highway funds to mass transit.
  It helps our highway programs generally. All we want to do is spend 
the trust fund money, but this administration will not let us do that. 
They are afraid if we spend the money in the trust fund--it should not 
be a slush fund; it is a trust fund--they are afraid if we spend the 
money collected for the purpose of building highways, we will make the 
deficit look bigger. I don't know how we could make it look bigger. The 
deficit now is about $500 billion, and if we add the Social Security 
surpluses, which are masking the deficit, it is near $600 billion for 1 
year, the largest deficit in the history of this country by far.
  Also, people are trying to rewrite the endangered species act, clean 
air act, and historical preservation laws in a highway bill. That is 
not the place to do that, Mr. President.
  I hope some attention will be focused on what this Senate is not 
doing, not passing a highway bill. If we do not do a bill at the right 
time, we will have problems letting construction because some States 
have very cold weather and they have to plan their construction needs 
to meet the weather of that particular State. If we fail to pass a 
long-term bill, it takes away all the ability of State highway 
engineers, managers, and State highway directors to plan ahead. The way 
we are able to get the most money out of the trust fund dollars is to 
do a 6-year bill. Doing a bill a year at a time costs a lot more money.
  There are issues that are on the must-do list. I don't know the exact 
number of times we have voted on whether to invoke cloture on Estrada, 
who wants to be a circuit court judge, but I think it is seven, eight, 
maybe 10 times. It is a total, absolute waste of the Senate's time. A 
vote has not changed from the time the first vote occurred to the last 
one, but yet it is time the Senate is taking. Why aren't we spending 
that time on the highway bill?
  A lot of time is spent by the majority talking about the Senate 
Democrats are so hard to deal with; they are not allowing the President 
to have his judges. We have approved--I don't know the exact number; I 
think it is around 140--140, and we have not approved three. We waste 
so much time here on issues that do not advance the needs of this 
country.
  The appropriations bill is an important bill. I think we have had 
some important discussion and debate. Tomorrow we have 11 amendments 
lined up to be offered on this bill. It is important we move this bill 
as quickly as we can. But in the process, talking about the things that 
we must do, I would hope people would understand the importance of a 
highway bill: For every billion dollars we spend on highways or 
infrastructure development generally, 47,000 jobs are created, high-
paying jobs. That does not include the jobs that spin off from those 
jobs. For every one of those 47,000 people working, they are able to 
buy a new car, recarpet their home, buy a home, buy a TV set, and then 
in turn other people work.
  I guess this administration is not worried about employment, which is 
obvious. The previous administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, 
created about 23,000,000 or 24,000,000 jobs. Going back to the time of 
Herbert Hoover, under this administration, it is the first time a 
President has had a net job loss, which is over 2 million jobs now. It 
seems to me it would be a good idea for this administration to join to 
do something to push a highway bill to put out billions of dollars for 
construction which creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Discharge of S.J. Res. 17

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I have submitted the requisite 
number of signatures in order to discharge S.J. Res. 17 in accordance 
with the requirements of the Congressional Review Act.
  The discharge is as follows:

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with chapter 8 
     of title 5, U.S. Code, hereby direct that the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be 
     discharged of S.J. Res. 17, a resolution on providing for 
     congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the 
     Federal Communications Commission relating to media 
     ownership, and, further, that the resolution be immediately 
     placed upon the Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
       Byron L. Dorgan, Ted Kennedy, Kent Conrad, Ernest F. 
     Hollings, Mark Pryor, Jon Corzine, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
     Russell D.

[[Page S11017]]

     Feingold, Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, 
     Richard J. Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Blanche L. Lincoln, 
     Dianne Feinstein, Susan Collins, H. R. Clinton, Bill Nelson, 
     Charles E. Schumer, Tom Carper, Olympia Snowe, Wayne Allard, 
     Olympia Snowe, Saxby Chambliss, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Tom 
     Daschle, Max Baucus, Paul Sarbanes, Jack Reed, Trent Lott, 
     Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John 
     Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller IV.

  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1553

  The question occurs on the motion to waive. The point of order is 
made under section 504 of H. Con. Res. 95.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Was it in order to have 1 minute of debate prior to the 
rollcall vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the manager of the bill, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, has made a point of order against my amendment, which I 
think is curious. I made the point that the same point of order, I 
expect, would lie against the entire bill. The Senator from 
Pennsylvania asked the Chair that question, and the Chair said yes, 
both my amendment and the underlying bill have the identical defect.
  I think it is interesting that then a point of order is made against 
this amendment. The amendment I am offering is a bipartisan amendment 
with Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma. It provides $187 million in 
restoration of funding to the impact aid program.
  This is about kids. It is about helping kids and helping schools 
educate kids. This is money that is owed to these school districts. 
Even with this amendment, we will fund only two-thirds of what we 
promised we would do back in 1950.
  Again, I make the curious point that a point of order has been made 
against this amendment, so we will have a vote on waiving the point of 
order. It is exactly the same point of order that I understand exists 
against the underlying bill, because Senator Inhofe and I used exactly 
the same mechanism to pay for this amendment as did the folks who 
constructed this subcommittee bill.
  I ask that my colleagues join me in waiving the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I believe the opposition has spoken 
previously. I yield back all time and ask for the recorded vote to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 323 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). On this vote, the yeas are 53, 
the nays are 43. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the 
next vote will be the final vote tonight. I encourage Members who have 
amendments to offer those tonight so we can begin voting in the 
morning. But the next vote will be the last vote for tonight. Please 
talk to the managers and come forward to offer your amendments as soon 
as you can.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question? 
What time does he expect the vote in the morning?
  Mr. FRIST. There has been no time set for a vote in the morning.


                           Amendment No. 1554

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided prior 
to the vote on the Dayton amendment.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, my amendment increases funding for IDEA 
part B by $11.8467 billion for fiscal year 2004, which is the amount 
the Congressional Budget Office has determined is necessary to bring 
Federal funding up to the 40-percent level that was promised 27 years 
ago. The funding being allocated for fiscal year 2004 would provide 
18.8 percent, or less than half of that 40 percent promised over a 
quarter century ago.
  President Bush deserves credit for increasing the funding for IDEA in 
each of his three budgets. The Senate deserves credit, along with 
President Bush, for increasing that funding. But the fact remains that 
we are still less than half of what was promised 27 years ago. I know 
for my State of Minnesota that is money that is desperately needed not 
only for better special education but for better quality education for 
all schoolchildren because money has to be diverted from regular 
programs over to special education. This is money we can find.
  I propose that the budget point of order be waived, and I thank the 
Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate be in order so that 
I can make an argument in opposition to this motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we would always like to have more money 
for virtually every line on this appropriations bill. There has been an 
enormous increase in funding for special education--last year, $1.3 
trillion; the year before, $1.2 trillion; this year, an increase of 
$650 million. On a 10-year period, we have practically a 400-percent 
increase.
  There has been enormous progress made from 1996 when the Federal 
share for students was 7.3 percent. Now we are almost at 19 percent, 
almost at half of the 40-percent goal. While we would like to have 
additional funding, it would cost about $11 billion more to adopt the 
amendment and waive the Budget Act.
  I do so reluctantly but emphatically.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive the point of order made under section 
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) 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 
deisring to vote?

[[Page S11018]]

  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Graham (FL)
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
54. 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.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1543

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that one of the 
underlying amendments is the amendment offered by Senator Robert Byrd 
of West Virginia.
  During the August recess, I visited many of my State's cities and 
home school districts, stopping in to meet with principals, teachers, 
parents, and students to talk about the state of education in Illinois. 
We have many fine schools, there is no question about it. But we are 
also being challenged by the fact that we face a sizable State deficit. 
This year our Governor, Rod Blagojevich, had to find $5 billion in 
savings out of our State budget, a substantial amount, making cuts in 
many areas. He tried his best not to cut into State funding for 
education. Despite his best efforts and the efforts of the general 
assembly, most of the school districts I visited are facing serious 
hardships.
  Let me give one illustration. In Elgin, IL, they recently constructed 
four new school buildings that were to be opened this year. But because 
the Elgin School District has fallen so far behind in State and local 
assistance, they will be unable to open those buildings. So there sit 
four brand new schools which don't have the staffing and certainly 
don't offer better amenities than the older schools offered; they just 
cannot be opened. It is an indication of the problems faced by many 
school districts in my State and across the Nation.
  When President Bush was elected, he came to Congress and said he 
wanted to be the education President. He suggested that we try a 
bipartisan national approach to establishing better standards of 
accountability for education across America. The President proposed No 
Child Left Behind. It was a unique concept, one which called for 
regular testing of students to determine whether they were making 
progress and, absent that progress, changes would have to take place in 
the school district. You would have to find better teachers or a better 
school environment, principals who were more efficient in delivering 
educational quality, and certainly demands would be made for better 
teachers. All of these objectives were very positive.
  I sat on the Senate floor and behind me at this seat was Senator Paul 
Wellstone of Minnesota. Paul had a passion for education, a teacher by 
his own profession. He was a great critic of No Child Left Behind. 
Despite the fact that there was strong bipartisan support for the 
President's program, Paul Wellstone would stand there with his 
microphone day after day and speak to the Senate and the people 
watching across America and say: Listen, tests are important, but 
education is about more than just testing. He would say, incidentally, 
if you pass the President's bill, you are going to have to come up with 
the money to make certain these kids have a chance. If the scores don't 
meet the norms or standards you expect, what are you going to do? Are 
you going to help them or merely diagnose the problem and walk away 
from it? He was skeptical that when the time came, we in the Congress 
would appropriate the money to make No Child Left Behind work.
  That was Paul Wellstone's speech day after day, week after week, 
month after month. Ultimately, he voted against the bill. I voted for 
it, but I remembered what he said. Then I went back to Illinois and 
visited school district, large and small, rural and urban, districts in 
growing areas of our State and districts in economically depressed 
areas of our State. I found that many of them were echoing what Paul 
Wellstone said in opposing No Child Left Behind. They were talking 
about the burden on a teacher who comes to a classroom at the beginning 
of the school year realizing that teacher will ultimately be tested in 
a high-stakes test at the end of the year. What that test meant to the 
students, to the school, and to the teacher was that in order to get 
good grades on the test, teachers were kind of changing the way they 
taught. They were no longer teaching in a creative and innovative 
fashion, but they were focusing on answers to the test questions. 
School administrators, incidentally, said: Senator, we are a little 
concerned that the promises made by the Bush administration to send 
money to school districts to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind 
are not going to be fulfilled. The promised money that was to come down 
to the school districts under title I, which is money to help reach the 
students who are not doing well on tests and help them to reach grade 
level and to succeed, the title I funds promised by the Bush 
administration under No Child Left Behind, is not going to be there. 
That is the money that is supposed to be there for afterschool 
programs, so that some of these same students running into difficulties 
would have a helping hand after school; and summer school programs for 
the same purpose are not going to be funded under the Bush budget.

  The same school administrators in Illinois said, incidentally, this 
idea of making certain that teachers meet certain levels of 
qualifications and certification is a good idea, but it takes money to 
reach those goals, to send some of these teachers back for additional 
college classes in science, math, or whatever their specialty might be. 
There is no money for the school district to deal with that.
  So I heard the story over and over. It came to my mind that Paul 
Wellstone was right; No Child Left Behind was a great promise, but it 
is an unfulfilled promise because when the budget was delivered to us, 
unfortunately, the money wasn't delivered with it. Title I, which would 
help the No Child Left Behind Program, is underfunded by more than $6 
billion in the Senate bill we are considering on the floor. Six million 
kids across America are at risk of not meeting the standards if we 
don't come to the rescue with the amendment by the Senator from West 
Virginia, Senator Byrd. In my State, it would add $255 million in title 
I funding to help more than 740,000 low-income kids meet the standards 
we imposed--Federal standards we mandated under No Child Left Behind 
that were mandated, but the program was not funded.
  Over the last decade, the enrollment of low-income students in 
Illinois public schools has increased from 32 percent to more than 37 
percent.
  Districts across the State are really trying to comply with No Child 
Left Behind standards, but they need the full amount of the funds 
promised to be sent to these school districts, as well as the full 
mandate of the Federal law.
  Illinois has done a number of school funding studies, and every one 
of them shows definitively that it will take much more money to help 
kids become proficient in reading and math. It stands to reason. If you 
have a child struggling to learn to read, that child needs more 
personal attention. But if you have a large classroom with 30 kids or 
more, the likelihood of personal attention is diminished. So if you do 
not send the funds to the school district for smaller class sizes, that 
child who is

[[Page S11019]]

going to face the reading test has less of a chance of succeeding.
  The State superintendent in Illinois testified this winter before the 
Illinois House Appropriations Committee that it will take even more 
funding to help low-income and non-English speaking students to keep 
pace with their peers academically.
  Our State superintendent, Dr. Robert Schiller, also stated:

       Based on current trends, Illinois will fall short of 
     meeting the Federal goal, set forth in No Child Left Behind, 
     of all children meeting or exceeding reading and math 
     standards by 2014.

  Thirty-seven percent of Illinois students fail to meet State reading 
and math standards.
  As is the trend nationally, Illinois has significant gaps between 
white and minority student achievement and between low-income students 
and their more affluent peers.
  Last month, the Illinois State Board of Education released its early 
warning list of school districts required to provide school choice, 
supplemental tutoring, or take corrective action this school year. More 
than 500 schools in my State are on the list, and the number might go 
up by the end of the month when the final calculations are made.
  Compared to other States, Illinois has been pretty lucky as far as 
education funding at the State level. For this next fiscal year, which 
started in July, the State was able to increase per pupil and 
categorical funding to keep school districts on the road to 
improvement. But beneath the surface, the Illinois State Board of 
Education and our local school districts are struggling to implement 
the requirements of the federally mandated No Child Left Behind.
  District budgets are straining under these unfunded requirements 
addressed by the Byrd amendment. How many Senators in this Chamber 
stood up with great pride and said we are voting for No Child Left 
Behind because we believe in accountability, education is the highest 
priority in our country, and we need to be there for our kids and their 
families? All of us who voted for the bill gave that speech.
  Look what happened when the Bush budget came down. The money was not 
there--a $6 billion shortfall in money needed in schools across 
America.
  We sent out all these wonderful speeches out to be printed in 
newspapers, and we posed for pictures with students and teachers. But 
months later, when it comes to funding the bill we passed, the Bush 
administration refuses to put the money down and this Congress followed 
suit and put together the bill before us today which also fails to keep 
that promise. This title I money was supposed to be the pool of 
resources from which districts would implement school improvement 
provisions necessary to meet adequate yearly progress. Districts now 
have to use State and local funds to try to reach those goals.

  Despite an overall increase for K-12 education, more than $30 million 
in cuts and reallocations were made at the State level in my State this 
year. This includes a significant reduction in the number of State 
board employees, the elimination of State gifted education programs, 
the elimination of the State family literacy initiative, and the 
statewide math education initiative.
  While Illinois has been successful in keeping budget cuts out of the 
classroom, that may not be the case if our State remains in its current 
financial straits.
  The impact of the Federal Government's failure to fund title I as we 
promised is more deeply felt at the school district level where the 
financial picture is bleaker.
  Across Illinois, school districts are laying off teachers, cutting 
programs, and reducing the hours of operation. Sixty-one percent of our 
school districts are operating with deficits, and here we have a 
Federal mandate from the Bush administration under No Child Left Behind 
that imposes new responsibilities on these school districts operating 
in a deficit and fails to fund the program.
  Many of these school districts have had deficits for several years in 
a row. This number is expected to rise about 80 percent next year. This 
spring, 62 percent of local bond proposals failed, and 55 percent of 
local tax referenda failed. Those are hard to pass in good times. In a 
recession, they are particularly difficult to pass. And we had a 
recession which began before this President came to office by a few 
months and which has continued unabated ever since.
  Our State unemployment rate is about 6.6 percent in Illinois. We have 
lost 120,000 manufacturing jobs while President Bush has been in 
office, and those numbers are duplicated across America. There is 
little wonder taxpayers resist the idea of increasing their property 
taxes at a time when we are facing this recession.
  In many areas of our State, local revenue increases have been less 
than 5 percent because they are limited by tax caps. When local 
resources cannot be increased, it makes title I money even more 
important to these cash-strapped school districts.
  For example, in my hometown of Springfield, Public School District 
186 has 36 elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Just 
over 15,000 kids attend school in that district. Springfield has had 
financial challenges over the last several years and has cut more than 
$30 million from the district budget in the wake of the failed tax 
referendum. This year, six Springfield elementary schools failed to 
make adequate yearly progress, and they must offer public school 
choice. Springfield needs every title I dollar the district can get to 
improve student achievement and get the schools moving forward making 
progress.
  What would Springfield do with the money? I asked the superintendent, 
Dr. Dianne Rutledge. She said, with more Federal funding, if Washington 
kept its promise to send money for No Child Left Behind, this is what 
they would do with it. She would hire additional teachers to reduce 
class sizes, and that on its face is a good idea. I have yet to meet a 
teacher who has prayed for a larger class. They want smaller classes so 
they can focus more attention on students who need help and even more 
attention on students who are gifted who, with additional time, can do 
extraordinary things.

  She would also operate reading recovery, and hire a school 
improvement coach for each school to provide intensive and personalized 
year-round professional development to teachers and staff.
  If the Senate fails to adopt the Byrd amendment, there will be less 
money for Springfield. They will not be able to hire the teachers, and 
fewer kids will have tutors.
  Let's look at a larger school district in my State, the Chicago 
public school system. They educate more than 438,000 kids in K-12 in 
602 schools.
  Eighty-five percent of the children in Chicago public schools are 
defined as living in poverty. Roughly 90 percent are minority.
  The Chicago public school system is, in many ways, the poster 
district for setting high academic standards and adopting an aggressive 
program for school improvement. Ten years ago, 48 percent of Chicago's 
schoolchildren were performing in the bottom quarter of national 
achievement in reading and math. Today that number has been cut in 
half, first by Paul Vallis, who came in under the direction of Mayor 
Daley and brought real reform to the Chicago public school system, and 
then followed by Arne Duncan, our current CEO of Chicago public 
schools, an extraordinary educator who is doing a great job. He 
reported last week for the first time that number has been cut in half, 
and Chicago public schools are performing above the Nation as a whole. 
That is an amazing achievement in a district that diverse with so many 
challenges.
  Despite the Chicago public school system's dramatic recovery over the 
last decade, 365 of its 602 schools have been labeled as failing to 
make yearly adequate progress. That is more than half.
  The Chicago public schools' budget increased this year over last. The 
district has managed to avoid drastic cuts. Most of the increased funds 
are committed to certain projects, and several of the initiatives are 
specifically to comply with Federal requirements.
  To comply with the highly qualified teachers mandate in No Child Left 
Behind, Chicago public schools has just completed work on a brandnew $2 
million database to track the qualifications of each of their 25,000 
teachers. The Chicago public school system is

[[Page S11020]]

likely to have to create a similar system to track the qualifications 
of thousands of paraprofessionals.
  Complying with the Federal mandates of President Bush's No Child Left 
Behind has led to some terrible challenges for this major city school 
district. The Chicago public school system wants to invest title I 
dollars in afterschool, summer school, and extended week programs. It 
is required to use a large portion of its limited Federal resources to 
move kids from schools that are failing to other schools.
  What would the Chicago school system do with the money in the Byrd 
amendment? We asked the finance director, John Maiorca. He would expand 
afterschool and summer school opportunities for students at risk in 
failing the test. He would invest in supplemental education services 
and additional tutoring for these struggling students, and hire 
additional teachers to reduce class size.
  Two days ago, I was at the opening of the schools in Chicago. I went 
to a school on the west side known as Dodge Academy. Dodge Academy 
closed 2 years ago because it was a failing school, but there was a 
promise made that it would improve and reopen. It has, and it is an 
exceptionally good school.
  One can tell, walking in the door, that this is a school that is 
destined to succeed. Not only do they have a wonderful, bright, and 
remodeled building because of a lot of hard work by the local school 
district but they also have some of the brightest teachers. They are a 
school that is trying a new concept, under the leadership of Mike 
Koldyke, that is going to bring to each of these classrooms two 
resident teachers. So for a year they are going to have teachers in 
residence who are training to become teachers, working with veteran 
teachers, and then they will move these newly qualified teachers with 
experience to the failing schools in the Chicago public school systems 
and try to turn them around. It is a great model. It works in 
hospitals. It can certainly work in schools. But it costs money.
  The money from title I, which would be part of No Child Left Behind 
had the Bush administration and this bill adequately funded it, could 
have been used for that purpose, but it is not there. With the Byrd 
amendment, it would be there, and so the Chicago public school system 
would have that opportunity.
  So right now we are dealing with the broken promises of No Child Left 
Behind, unfunded mandates at a time when school districts in Illinois 
and across America are struggling to survive. How can we, in good 
conscience, impose these ideas and mandates on the school districts, as 
good as they may be, and then refuse to pay for them?
  Senator Byrd really is calling to task all of us who voted on No 
Child Left Behind, those of us who stood so proudly by this bill and 
said this is the answer to America's education needs. The question now 
is: Will we produce the money it takes to make this succeed? Quite 
honestly, if the Byrd amendment fails, the answer is no.
  Many of the same people who took great pride in saying they co-
authored this program, cosponsored it, and voted for it, will turn 
around and vote against the funding for the mandates they are creating 
in school districts across America. These are unfunded mandates in the 
middle of a recession, at a time of State deficits, when schools are 
struggling to survive, unfunded mandates from the Bush administration 
in No Child Left Behind.
  The only thing the Bush administration guarantees it will pay for is 
the test. So the test will be administered but any effort to improve 
the scores of students will be hampered, hindered with additional 
obstacles because of the refusal of this Congress to appropriate the 
adequate funds. We need to make certain that the $6 billion shortfall 
in title I in No Child Left Behind is a shortfall that is filled, and 
filled soon.
  I rise in support of the Byrd amendment, commend Senator Byrd for his 
leadership, and urge all of my colleagues to put their money where 
their press release was. It is not just a matter of taking credit for a 
program. Stand up now and appropriate the funds to make it work in 
Philadelphia, in Iowa, in Chicago, all across America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations 
bill for Fiscal Year 2004 provides $137.6 billion in discretionary 
budget authority and $134.9 billion in discretionary outlays for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies. These amounts are both precisely at the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. This is an increase of 2.3 percent in 
discretionary budget authority and 6.8 percent in discretionary outlays 
above the 2003 enacted levels.
  Including mandatory spending, the bill provides a total of $370.7 
billion in new budget authority and $294.6 billion in new outlays in 
Fiscal Year 2004. With outlays from prior years and other completed 
actions, the Senate bill totals $456.4 billion in budget authority and 
$453.6 billion in outlays.
  The committee-reported bill also shifts $2.2 billion in 2004 advance 
appropriations back to fiscal year 2003, pursuant to an agreement with 
the administration. These advance appropriations were originally 
provided in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to avoid circumventing 
the 2003 spending limits, an action which the President previously 
objected to when he signed that legislation.
  The purpose of this shift is to allow for $2.2 billion in additional 
nondefense discretionary spending in 2004 without exceeding the budget 
resolution's discretionary spending limit. However, since the budget 
resolution set forth discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 
2003, 2004, and 2005, this shift causes the committee-reported bill to 
exceed the 2003 spending cap by $2.2 billion. Thus, a point of order 
lies against the bill which may be waived with 60 votes.
  Finally, it is also important to note that the bill which effectuates 
the advance appropriations shift must be signed into law before the 
beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1, 2003, in order for it to 
count for budget scoring purposes.
  Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  S. 1356, LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS, 2004 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2004, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.....................   137,601    318,766    456,367
  Outlays..............................   134,932    318,694    453,626
Senate committee allocation:
  Budget authority.....................   137,601    318,766    456,367
  Outlays..............................   134,932    318,694    453,626
2003 level:
  Budget authority.....................   134,476    289,398    423,874
  Outlays..............................   126,286    289,341    415,627
President's request
  Budget authority.....................   137,587    318,766    456,353
  Outlays..............................   133,708    318,694    452,402
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................   138,036    318,766    456,802
  Outlays..............................   134,765    318,694    453,459
 
    SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.....................  .........  .........  .........
  Outlays..............................  .........  .........  .........
2003 level:
  Budget authority.....................     3,125     29,368     32,493
  Outlays..............................     8,646     29,353     37,999
President's request
  Budget authority.....................        14   .........        14
  Outlays..............................     1,224   .........     1,224
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.....................      (453)  .........      (453)
  Outlays..............................       167   .........      167
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.


  S. 1356, LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS, 2004 SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
               [Fiscal year 2003, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                                          purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.....................   134,476    289,398    423,874
  Outlays..............................   126,286    289,341    415,627
Senate committee allocation:
  Budget authority.....................   132,232    289,398    421,630
  Outlays..............................   126,286    289,341    415,627
 
    SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO
 
Senate allocation:
  Budget authority.....................     2,244   .........     2,244
  Outlays..............................  .........  .........  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H. Con. Res. 95, the 2004 Budget Resolution, set out budgetary
  aggregates not only for 2004, but for 2003 as well. As a result, the
  joint statement of the conference committee on H. Con. Res. 95 (page
  130 of H. Rpt. 108-71) included the allocations that are required by
  law (section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act) for 2003 to the
  Committee on Appropriations.
 That allocation exactly reflects CBO's latest estimate of all regular
  appropriations enacted for 2003, as well as the Emergency Wartime
  Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-11). The above
  allocation to the Labor, HHS subcommittee reflects CBO's FY 2003
  current status for that subcommittee.
 The Committee on Appropriations has yet to file 302(b) allocations for
  2003 and, therefore, pursuant to the Congressional Budget Act, there
  is a 60-vote, 302(c) point of order against the bill.
 In addition, pursuant to Section 504(b) of H. Con. Res. 95, a point of
  order lies against the bill for exceeding the 2003 discretionary
  spending limits in Section 504(a) of H. Con. Res. 95.
 
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
  for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.


[[Page S11021]]



                          ____________________