Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 123 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11197-S11240]
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 Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just prior to the caucus recess I had the
opportunity to talk to Senator Frist about the pending schedule. We
both had indicated to each other that it was our expectation we would
talk to the caucus about where we are with regard to that schedule. I
had indicated it would be my expectation we could complete our work on
the Labor, Education appropriations bill prior to September 11; I
couldn't guarantee it, but that would be my expectation. What we really
wanted was an opportunity to do what Senator Harkin has been calling
for since he offered his amendment on the overtime regulation last
Friday. We have said if we can get a vote, which is, of course, the
right of any Senator to expect if he offers his amendment, if we have
that vote, if they cooperate, then certainly we can reciprocate. It is
our desire is to reciprocate and cooperate.
However, I come to the floor this afternoon simply to reiterate how
vitally important this issue is. Eight million people in this country
today will be affected by the vote to be taken here. With absolutely no
consultation, with no public hearings, with little public debate, last
spring the administration promulgated new rules weakening overtime
protection for workers. Again, as I said, there was no consultation
with us or the millions of workers affected before the most sweeping
change in overtime rules was issued.
The overtime regulations have changed over the years but, as Senator
Harkin has so ably and eloquently pointed out, this is the first time
the Department of Labor has used their efforts to update the salary
threshold as a back door to take away overtime protection for millions
of workers. This is a major constraint being created in the overtime
rules.
What is remarkable is that overtime pay now accounts for 25 percent
of the income of workers who work overtime--25 percent. These rules
affect firefighters. It affects policemen. It affects first responders
in various ways--emergency medical technicians, licensed practical
nurses, pilots, dental hygienists, health technicians, electrical
technicians, air traffic controllers. They are all affected, and that
is not a complete list.
Senator Harkin has noted it was just last Friday we passed S. Res.
210. I will not reread the whole thing, he did such a good job earlier
today, but we cite:

. . . the more overworked employees feel, the more likely
they are to report making mistakes, feel anger and resentment
toward employers and coworkers, and look for a new job . . .
Whereas 46 percent of salaried workers are parents with
children under the age of 18 who live with them at least
half-time . . .
Whereas nearly one out of every four Americans--over 45
million Americans--provided or arranged care for a family
member or friend in the past year . . .

With all those ``whereas's''--again, I will not repeat them all--we
concluded just last Friday, unanimously, that it is the position of the
Senate that we should reduce the conflict between work and family life;
that this should be a national priority; that the month of October--
next month--should be designated as ``National Work and Family Month'';
and that the President should issue a proclamation calling upon the
people of the United States to observe ``National Work and Family
Month'' with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
If I had been on the Senate floor, I would have offered an amendment.
I would have called for the passage, as well, of the Harkin amendment.
How could you possibly proclaim ``National Work and Family Month'' and
then tell millions of workers who earn overtime pay that they don't
have the right to the protection that the Fair Labor Standards Act has
provided them now for over 65 years?
The Republicans' actions makes a mockery of this resolution.
This is a critical vote. Whether it is today, tomorrow, or it is at
some point in the future, we will have a vote on this legislation. We
will vote on whether to protect American workers against

[[Page S11198]]

this incredibly sweeping and irresponsible attack on their right to be
compensated for overtime worked in this country today.
Nothing could be more important. As far as we are concerned, nothing
in this bill is any more important than this amendment.
I come to the floor again to express the hope that we can have the
vote today and that we can move to complete our work on the bill this
week and send the right message, along with the resolution we just
passed last Friday, that we do respect the right of all workers and
that we respect their right to be paid fairly for the work they do.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask this question: Is it not true that
since President Bush took office we have lost 3.3 million private-
sector jobs in America, more jobs lost than any President since Herbert
Hoover and the Great Depression, and that 75 percent of the jobs lost
have been manufacturing jobs and good paying jobs across America?
Despite the fact that manufacturing jobs account for less than 14
percent of our private-sector economy, 75 percent of the private-sector
job loss has been in manufacturing jobs. These jobs have been lost to
Third World countries--China and other nations.
Is it not also true that this proposal to cut overtime and basically
defy the sacred 40-hour workweek would result in the importation of
Third World wage standards into the United States? It is bad enough
that we have lost millions of jobs to the Third World and overseas. Is
this proposal by the Bush administration adding insult to injury by
bringing those Third World work standards to America's families we
honored with that resolution last Friday?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am afraid the Senator from Illinois is exactly right.
This is a license to import Third World wage standards into the United
States--to turn the clock back 65 years. That is exactly what we are
doing. We are telling the workers that you are not only not going to
get overtime, but this is just the beginning. If they get away with
this, where does it end?
The Senator is right about unemployment, whether the number is 2.7
million or 3.3 million. There were 93,000 last month alone.
The situation is going from bad to worse. We are not only losing
jobs, but those who have jobs are losing pay. As the Senator from
Illinois said so well, we are importing Third World standards on those
wages as a result of these proposed regulations.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. I would like to ask a question of my colleague. Here we
are in the week of September 11. We are going to memorialize the heroes
of September 11. The last memory we all have of our President going
down to Ground Zero and placing his arms around the shoulders of these
brave people--and we just found out they were in serious danger due to
what was happening in terms of the quality of the air. We have found
that it was not what it was said to be. Everything that I am reading
and the mail I am getting indicates that many of our firefighters,
emergency workers, and nurses are workers who rely upon overtime pay in
order to keep their families together. I have the most emotional
letters which I have put in the Record on this point.

Does my friend not see the irony in the fact that we are approaching
the September 11 date and honoring the heroes of that day and they are
the ones who are going to be hurt by this terrible ruling of the
administration unless we prevail and have a vote to overturn it?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from California has
articulated it better than I did. I would call it bitter irony as we
approach September 11 in recognition of so many first responders who
gave their lives--and in some cases because of the injuries inflicted
gave their livelihoods--as we pass additional commemoration on
September 11 resolutions of praise and gratitude to the first
responders, how ironic that there would be an effort to promulgate a
regulation that takes away their rights to compensation which they so
richly and justly deserve. How ironic.
The Senator from California is right. If we are going to pass these
commemorations again--and indeed we should--let us make them
meaningful. Let us say that we also recognize the contribution you make
every day--not just what you contributed on September 11, 2001, but
what you are contributing on September 11, 2003, and every single day
you come to work. Let us acknowledge that contribution. Let us
acknowledge it with a meaningful commitment in pay by overturning this
harsh regulation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I understand correctly that it is the position of the
Republican Party that rather than giving an opportunity for the Senate
to express itself, the President has announced that if this particular
provision is turned over--effectively if we vitiate what the
administration is attempting to do on overtime--they are prepared to
veto legislation which is vital for the education of the children, K-
12, legislation which provides important help and assistance for those
young students who are trying to continue along in terms of higher
education, and effectively emasculate or undermine, as well, the
funding that is necessary for the National Institutes of Health? This
administration evidently is saying it is more important to deny nurses,
firefighters, and policemen overtime than to provide the funding which
is essential to educate the children and to provide for essential
health needs.
Is that the understanding of our leader as to the position of the
majority on this legislation?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was struck by the extraordinary
statement made by the administration last week in a statement of
administration policy. Last week it said we know there is approximately
$21 billion in here for education and for those going to college. The
NIH funding is about $28 billion. This bill will affect every school
district in America. It will affect children under title I and disabled
children under IDEA. It will affect afterschool programs, preschool
programs, and school lunch. It will affect virtually every aspect of
education in America. And the President said he is going to veto this
legislation if we overturn the regulation on overtime. What kind of
message does that send to America and to those who heard this President
say over the course of his time in the White House that education is
important to him, and that education is a special priority to him?
Apparently, it is not as much of a priority as it is to ensure that
we don't pass an amendment protecting workers from losing their earned
overtime.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask one more question of the
Senator, the Senator is very familiar with the fact that our Republican
friends refuse to permit the Senate to have a vote on increasing the
minimum wage. If we don't increase the minimum wage, it will be the
lowest in terms of purchasing power in the history of minimum wage.
Republicans won't permit that. They oppose the Davis-Bacon provision
which permits construction workers to be able to have a decent income.
They have effectively also withdrawn--listen to this--the tuberculosis
standard in OSHA which is so essential in order to protect people who
have contamination in their lungs. We have seen the pensions of working
families collapse over the period of the last 3 years.

What in the world has this administration got against working
families? This seems to me to be symbolic of their attitude about
working families: Let them eat cake. Let them eat cake. As the Senator
has pointed out time and time again, it is the working families who
have been the backbone of our economy historically when things have
gone well and it is the working families who have taken the brunt when
we have had mismanagement of the economy.
Does the Senator share my view? Is that a fairly good indicator of
the kind of contemptuous attitude the administration has generally with
regard to working families?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts has put

[[Page S11199]]

his finger on the right word, ``contemptuous.'' There was a
contemptuous attitude on the part of this administration with regard to
the importance of the minimum wage.
With regard to the importance of pension security, how many millions
of workers have been adversely affected by the corporate governance
scandals over the last couple of years? There is not one peep out of
this administration when it comes to pension security.
How many millions of workers, especially those first responders, 8
million workers, will be affected by this ban on overtime pay? How many
millions of workers are affected each and every day by the health and
safety issues they continue to fight--ergonomics and a whole array of
other issues, issues we have forced the Senate to consider over the
years as we try to make the workplace a safer and healthier place for
all workers?
On each and every one of these issues and many more, this
administration has demonstrated a contemptuous attitude. I say it is
the most antiworker administration we have seen, at least in my time in
public life.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his strong
support of working families not only on this issue but on every issue
that comes up in the Senate. The Senator from South Dakota has always
been there for working men and women and their families, as he is
today. I thank the Senator from South Dakota, our Democratic leader,
for his stalwart, strong support to make sure we have fairness and
justice for our working families. I thank the Senator for his strong
support for making sure these workers who are asked to work overtime
get paid justly for that.
The Senator mentioned a number of the people to be affected, first
responders and others. It has been said, and I ask the Senator to
respond, that perhaps the first wave of people to be hit by the changes
in rules and regulations would be women because so many women have come
into the workforce in the last few years. Many of them are salaried and
now they would be exempt, they would not get paid for overtime.
One of the first waves to be hit is nurses. Right now, we are facing
a nursing shortage in our country. I know in South Dakota and Iowa and
the Midwest we have a terrible nursing shortage. Nurses under the age
of 30 represent only 10 percent of the nursing workforce. By 2010, 40
percent of the nationwide nursing workforce will be over the age of 50,
nearing retirement. Right now, nurses are already forced to work
mandatory overtime. Go to a hospital anywhere and you will find nurses
being told to work overtime. The only good thing is they are paid time
and a half now.

With these proposed changes, if they were to go into effect, I ask
the Senator from South Dakota, since nurses are on salary, if they
could be reclassified and they would then have to work mandatory
overtime but they would not be paid for it; is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator's appreciation of the impact
of this amendment on nurses is absolutely correct. I commend the
Senator, again, for his extraordinary efforts and his leadership over
the last couple of weeks. He has made me so proud. Every working person
in America owes Senator Harkin a debt of gratitude for his powerful
articulation of their cause, as we have addressed this and other issues
affecting employees, not just nurses.
In answer to his question, absolutely, nurses are affected because
nurses often work extraordinarily long hours earning overtime. In fact,
there is probably no category of workers today, at least in the health
care field, more overworked than our nurses, in large part because of
the shortage the Senator has addressed in his question. We have a
chronic shortage of nurses in America, especially in rural areas and
especially in South Dakota. Far too many nurses in South Dakota would
be adversely affected by this regulation.
We have to recognize what a blow it would be to them. If 25 percent
of their income is derived from overtime, we are taking away one-
quarter of their purchasing power in one fell swoop by this regulation.
That is why this is such a critical fight for us and why it is so
important to make this case on this bill.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further for one more question,
I thank him for his kind words on my behalf. I respond by saying I am
fortunate to have good leadership, the leadership of the Senator from
South Dakota and the Senator from Nevada, in carrying this fight
forward. I thank both for their great leadership.
As I pursue this issue about women being affected, face it, most
nurses are women. That is the way it is. They will be greatly affected.
Another figure we ought to look at--and I ask the Senator for his
thoughts on this--in 1975, women who had children under the age of 3
made up only 34 percent of our workforce; today that is 60.2 percent.
Over 60 percent of women with children under the age of 3 are now in
the workforce.
I ask the Senator, is it true that these women--maybe not all but
most of them--have to have daycare, some childcare, for their children?
So now, these women who are paying a lot for childcare, if they do not
have to be paid overtime under the proposed changes the Bush
administration wants to make, would be forced to work overtime. Does
that not mean they would have to pay even more for childcare than what
they are paying now, yet they would not get one nickel more in their
income to help pay for it? Is this not also what would happen to women
under the proposed changes in the overtime proposal?
Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from Iowa, that is exactly the
case. You do not need to be an accountant to realize the dramatic
financial consequences this will have on so many working women but
especially those who are faced with extraordinary childcare costs
today. I am disappointed on that front.
I understand we will take up the welfare reform reauthorization
tomorrow. I am told the childcare funding increase was cut from $5.5
billion to $1 billion in the markup before the Finance Committee. I am
astounded that anyone could, with a straight face, say we want you off
of welfare to work but we will cut your access to childcare under this
legislation. So not only is the problem for working women reflected in
this regulation but in the very legislation we could address as early
as tomorrow in the Finance Committee.
This legislation cries out for fairness for working women, for those
working two and three jobs just to make ends meet. There is no way we
can pass the resolution we passed last Friday calling for a recognition
of the American worker during the month of October and fail to
recognize the importance of repealing this regulation before October
even begins.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for one last question, last
week I was talking to one of my colleagues on the Senate floor about my
amendment, about this amendment, and about the impact on overtime pay.
My colleague said: One of the strange things about this is that I have
heard no big movement in my State. There is no uprising in my State
about changing the overtime laws. I have not heard from business. I
have not heard from workers. I got to thinking: You know, neither have
I. I have not had any businesses in my State coming to me saying:
Senator, we have to change these overtime laws. They are a terrible
burden on us. We have to get rid of them. We have to change them. I
have not heard them say that. Where does this come from?

I ask my fellow Senators, I ask the Senator from South Dakota, has
anyone here been really lobbied hard by anyone in their States to
change these overtime laws? Where is it coming from?
Mr. DASCHLE. I respond to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr.
President, that this resolution could have been written by a good
employer because the good employers that you and I talk to in Iowa and
South Dakota understand and agree with what this resolution recognizes.
Mr. HARKIN. The one we adopted last Friday.
Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, the one we adopted last Friday:

Whereas the quality of workers' jobs and the supportiveness
of their workplaces are key predictors of job productivity,
job satisfaction, commitment to employers, and retention.

Every good employer in South Dakota understands that. That is as
clear

[[Page S11200]]

and as unambiguous a principle of good management as you will ever
find. So is the next one:

Whereas there is a clear link between work-family policies
and lower absenteeism.

So the Chamber of Commerce could write that. If we want to make sure
we have low absenteeism, if we want to make sure we have high job
productivity, job satisfaction, commitment to employers, and retention,
what do you do? You tell those workers in more than just a resolution
that their contribution matters, and that if we are going to ask them
to work longer than a 40-hour workweek, we are going to compensate them
for that.
We became one of the most productive nations in the world over the
course of the last 70 years. Why? Because we had the most productive
workers. Why did we have the most productive workers? Because there
were enough businesses who understand those basic principles of good
business.
That is all we are suggesting. Let's stick to those principles. Our
country deserves no less.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator has been very generous with
his time. I bring two matters to the attention of the Senator and ask
whether he agrees; I have listened to the exchange between the Senator
from Iowa and the Senator from South Dakota.
This chart I have points out that middle-income mothers are working
55 percent more hours today than 20 years ago. This chart shows 1979 up
through 2000. We have seen this dramatic expansion of the number of
hours that women are working in the workforce to provide for their
families.
At the same time we are seeing this dramatic increase, we are finding
out that there is a reduction in terms of overtime. As the Senator
pointed out earlier, we are finding out that American workers--this
column on the chart indicates the number of hours Americans are working
in relation to other industrialized nations. So workers are working
harder, they are working longer hours, they are more productive, and
all they are asking is to be able to get decent pay.
But the question I ask the Senator is in relation to this particular
chart. This is enormously interesting. Workers without overtime
protections are more than twice as likely to work longer hours. If you
take those workers who do not have overtime protection, they work more
than twice as long as those who have the overtime protection.

If you take away this kind of protection, the word ought to go out to
workers that they are going to have to work longer and harder for less
pay because that is what is happening today. And that is what is
happening for 40 hours a week. And for 50 hours a week, you work three
times as long if you don't have any overtime protection than if you
have it.
It is very clear that the Business Roundtable and others are correct
as they understand that by eliminating the overtime pay it is affecting
the bottom line.
Earlier I heard the Senator talking about what is happening in terms
of the police and the firefighters. I bring this chart to the attention
of the Senator and see whether he agrees. This is from the National
Association of Police Organizations. The Bush proposal would deny
overtime:

Under such regulations, America's State and Local law
enforcement officers, already strained by countless overtime
hours ensuring community safety against terrorist threats,
could lose this basic benefit accorded to them for their
efforts.

This is from the International Union of Police Associations:

The alterations would also provide a strong disincentive
for agencies and municipalities to hire additional first
responders, as they seek ways to operate under the growing
constraints of historic financial burdens.

The implementation of these rules would mark a critical step
backwards for our public safety. . . .

I just wanted to reaffirm what the Senator said in his
excellent comments about the impact this would have on women,
the impact this would have on first responders, and the real
threat and danger this poses to the hardest working men and
women in industrial society. They are the American workers
and they have the most to lose.

I thank the Senator.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his contribution
and for his clarity with regard to the impact this will have on the
workers who he has again addressed, and women in particular.
The irony could not be more evident. As we praise the American
workers' productivity, we take away their very right to fair and just
compensation. We drive them into schedules that require even longer
hours, away from their children, away from their families. We adopt
resolutions lauding them--the American worker and the working family--
for the entire month of October. Yet we can't take 15 or 20 minutes on
a Tuesday afternoon in September to say that we mean what we say in
October--we are going to make sure you get the overtime you deserve
when you work over 40 hours. How bitter of an irony is that?
Then, perhaps the irony of ironies, as we turn our attention once
again to the great tragedy of 2001, in just 2 days, we will come to the
floor and we will speak with reverence for those who lost their lives.
We will thank those who continue to put their lives on the line. We
will express, in as heartfelt a way as I know everyone can, on
Thursday, how grateful we are to the first responders, to the policemen
and the firemen all across this country--in South Dakota, in
Massachusetts, and every place else--and then turn right around and
take away their overtime.
How, in Heaven's name, can we say to any of them, with any
credibility: We care for you. We support you. We are grateful to you.
But we just don't want you to pay you the overtime you have earned.
Let's not do that. The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, ought to rise
above that kind of hypocrisy and say: We are not only going to support
you next month, we are not only going to support you this Thursday, but
we are going to support you every day--by simply supporting the law
that has been on the books since 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act.
That is what this amendment is about, and that is why it is so
important to many of us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the
distinguished Democrat leader for his comments and others for their
comments. I was going to ask him a question myself, but I think our
leader has already been standing on the floor for about an hour, so I
will spare him that. I commend him for his eloquence on this issue and
for his passion about it.
This is an issue that is befuddling, to put it mildly, to many of us.
I have several amendments pending on the education bill. I would very
much like to raise them on Head Start and on special education. We
can't get there apparently because we can't get a vote on this simple
proposition.
Not only are we not going to be able to vote on overtime this
afternoon, but we can't even vote on whether or not we ought to do more
on special education. We can't do something more on Head Start, title
I, Pell grants. Here we are, coming in the midst of September, the
waning days of the Session, with huge issues before us, and it is now
the midpart of Tuesday--this started last week some time--and it would
take, I suspect--and the Senator from Iowa is here, our leader; he can
correct me--maybe another 15 minutes of debate and we could have a
rollcall vote on this and move on.
I will take a few minutes to express my views, which are very similar
to those expressed by the distinguished minority leader, as well as
Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, Senator Harkin, Senator Boxer, and
others, on this matter. But I think it is a great tragedy.
I thank the leader for taking the time to express to the American
public his great concern about this issue and the wonderment he
expresses about why we can't even have a vote on this proposal. I thank
him and I know he has a busy afternoon.
I want to share with my colleagues my own thoughts on this issue as
well. I think it is remarkable. This is yet one additional bad decision
after another when it comes to the economy.

We have seen what has happened regarding tax cut policy. I note an
article written by Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman in the Washington
Post appearing this past Saturday, page A6, titled ``Tax Cut Claims
Gain Criticism As Employers Shed More Jobs.'' I won't read the whole
article, but let me quote from it, if I may:

[[Page S11201]]

Before the latest tax cut plan passed, White House
economists had predicted it would add 1.4 million new jobs
through the year 2004, on top of 4.1 million jobs that a
growing economy would have generated anyway, a rate of
344,000 jobs created a month. By its own accounting, the Bush
administration has fallen 437,000 jobs short of its own
projections in August, a shortfall not lost on the
President's critics.

We have seen already tremendous job losses in this country. The
minority leader mentioned a job loss of 3.2 million jobs; 2.5 million
of those job losses have occurred in the manufacturing sector of our
economy; 93,000 jobs lost in America in the month of August, up sharply
from the 43,000 jobs lost in July. For the seventh consecutive month,
companies have slashed payrolls.
So the economy, when it comes to joblessness, is cratering. The tax
cuts that the administration jammed through the Congress only a few
short months ago are already demonstrating what a hardship they pose to
the recovery and to putting Americans back to work.
As I mentioned, 93,000 jobs were lost in the month of August; 44,000
of those jobs in the manufacturing sector. Just over 2.5 million
manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 32 months.
African Americans and Hispanics bear the brunt of the economic
downturn. The unemployment rate among African Americans is now hovering
around 11 percent, almost twice the national average.
The unemployment rate among Hispanics is almost 8 percent. Long-term
unemployment is on the rise. In August, almost 2 million people had
been unemployed for over 6 months, triple the number at the beginning
of the Bush administration.
A surge in discouraged workers masks the true impact of the economic
downturn. Currently, 1.7 million people are marginally attached to the
labor force. About 503,000 of these workers have stopped looking for
work altogether because they believe that no work is available for
them. That is an increase of 125,000 over the past year.
A new study suggests that job losses since 2001 are gone for good. A
study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded that the
vast majority of job losses since the beginning of the 2001 recession
were the result of permanent changes in the U.S. economy and are not
coming back. This means the labor market will not regain strength until
new positions are created in new economic sectors. Manufacturing is the
area that is suffering the largest brunt of this decision.
An additional 1.3 million people are in poverty nationwide. The
number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by more
than 1.3 million in the last year, even though the economy technically
edged out of a recession during the same period. The number of families
living in poverty went up by more than 300,000 in 2002, and the number
of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 in the same period.
We are heading in the wrong direction. On top of all that, we now
have a decision being made by the administration to eliminate overtime
pay. People in more than 250 white-collar occupations will lose their
right to overtime. I won't list them all, but they include the critical
areas of nursing, firefighting, police forces, emergency medical
services, health technicians, clerical workers, surveyors, chefs, TV
technicians, and reporters. Overtime pay will be eliminated.
I don't understand--in light of the news we are getting about the
unemployment picture in this country and the hardships being faced, the
rising level of poverty, the more difficult time families are having to
make ends meet--why the administration persists in pursuing a policy of
denying overtime pay. There was a very close vote in the House of
Representatives. At least they voted. I am told the vote was 210 to 213
against blocking the President's proposed rule, so it was narrowly
defeated by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

I want to know whether or not this body wants to confirm what the
House and the President said they want to do. And should not the
American public have the right to know what the answer of this body
would be?
In 250 occupations, they want to know whether or not they are going
to be able to get overtime pay. Overtime pay makes a huge difference
for them economically. It can amount to as much as 25 percent of a
worker's annual income. Denying 25 percent of someone's income at a
time of already economic uncertainty is wrongheaded. It is dangerous
for us to be pursuing that path.
I regret deeply that we will not have a chance to vote this afternoon
on the administration's overtime proposal. We are faced with one more
bad economic idea after another. We have the largest annual deficits in
the Nation's history, one of the largest percentages of the gross
domestic product, because they include, obviously, Social Security
moneys in their calculations. We have lost more than 3 million jobs in
the last 32 months.
Instead of working towards creating new jobs and helping working
families and individuals, the administration has proposed a regulation
to deny overtime protection to millions of people. These workers would
have their jobs reclassified as professional, administrative or
executive, even if their job duties do not change, thus losing the
benefit of overtime pay. As I mentioned, more than 250 white-collar
occupations could be impacted. Employees could be forced to work longer
hours without the benefit of overtime pay.
I was speaking with a group of nurses in Connecticut. They were
saying to me: We don't have the choice of not working additional hours
in hospitals. If an emergency occurs, or there are problems with
patients, you are always asked to stay on a few more hours and help
out.
And they do it. The idea that we would be asking these people to
continue to provide the valuable services they do to sick individuals
in our Nation's hospitals and not provide them compensation for doing
so is truly outrageous. The same goes for our firefighters and police
officers.
Senator Boxer had it right when she said earlier: You can well
imagine in the next 48 hours or so the kinds of images we are going to
have, a replay of the tremendous outpouring of gratitude being
expressed to the police officers and firefighters in New York and
Connecticut, New Jersey, and others who gathered to fight for the lives
at the World Trade Center almost 2 years ago. Yet what expression of
gratitude do we provide them 2 years later? We tell them: Sorry, but
your overtime pay no longer exists. What kind of a message is that to
these people?
Asking employees to work longer hours and not providing overtime pay
is significant because overtime pay can provide as much as 25 percent
of a person's annual income. This is not the type of balance between
work and family that the distinguished Democratic leader pointed out
when we adopted unanimously a resolution offered last week. I was
pleased to cosponsor S. Res. 210, a bipartisan resolution supporting
striking a balance between work and personal lives as being in the best
interest of worker productivity.
I find it terribly disheartening that at a time when this body is
asking the President to designate October as National Work and Family
Month, the administration is working to finalize a regulation to strip
overtime pay for millions of people.
The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act has been the backbone of worker
protection. Never in its 65-year history have such sweeping overtime
changes been proposed.
Hard-working individuals are deeply concerned about these changes and
many of us here stand shoulder to shoulder with them in expressing our
outrage. It is unfortunate that we are not going to be able to have a
vote today in this body on whether or not we can overturn that
decision.
I also find it ironic that the President suggested he would veto the
underlying appropriations bill on education and health services if this
amendment is accepted. In fact, an August poll of nearly 900 adults
found that 74 percent--cutting across all regional and political
lines--oppose the Bush administration's proposal to eliminate overtime
protection. Almost 75 percent of those polled said don't do it.
Further, in 2001, the Department of Labor commissioned its own study
that concluded that the current narrow overtime exemptions under the
Fair Labor Standards Act are still relevant today.

[[Page S11202]]

Why then did the Bush administration unveil these proposals last
March? One can only conclude that whatever the reasons, they do not
include supporting the ability of working people to earn a decent pay
for a day's work.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator made two points. First, on the issue of police
officers, fire individuals, and first responders, I believe the
administration and the Department have made it very clear that those
officers would not be impacted by this decision in any way and, in
fact, to quote the President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the
largest police union in the country representing 310,000 people, Chuck
Canterbury, said:

Thanks to the leadership of Secretary Chao, we have no
doubt that the overtime pay will continue to be available to
those officers currently receiving it. And if the new rules
are approved, even more of our national police officers and
firefighters and EMTs will be eligible for overtime. This
development was possible because this is an administration
that listens to the concerns of the Fraternal Order of Police
and because of their commitment to the Nation's first
responders.

The Senator from Connecticut represented a couple of times how police
officers are going to be denied overtime pay. This is the president of
the largest representative group of police officers in the country
saying just the opposite. The Department has said just the opposite.
The administration has said just the opposite. I am wondering what
factual basis the Senator concludes that the head of the police, the
National Fraternal Order of Police, is wrong; the Secretary of Labor is
wrong; and the administration is wrong on this point?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very simply, as my colleague pointed out, I
would be delighted if the administration was going to change its
policy. I wish they would do it across the board, just back this up all
together.
The fact is, if you do a simple recategorization of what these people
do as either being professional, administrative, or executive, then you
are covered under this rule. I don't know what the various heads of
these organizations are saying, but that is what the regulation that
has been proposed by the administration says. Within the 250 employment
categories, police and firefighters are included, if they are
recategorized. If you do not recategorize them, they are going to be
fine. But you leave that up to the whim of whether you want to move
them to those different levels of pay. That is how they get covered.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I tend to side with the head of the
National Fraternal Order of Police in his assessment of this situation
and the commitment made by Secretary Chao that the police officers,
fire individuals, and EMTs will not be impacted. It has been made very
clear the regulation has no impact on them, and I think it is just not
correct to make that statement, although I can understand the Senator
can read the regulations and has concluded that, but nobody else has.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend. The National
Association of Police Officers and the International Union of Police
Associations oppose the regulations. We have correspondence from them.
There is obviously some disagreement.
Mr. GREGG. Opposition is not the issue. The issue is whether police
officers, fire, and EMT will be affected. I believe the administration
made it clear they won't be affected, and I believe the assessment, as
reflected in this quote from Mr. Canterbury, is accurate.
My second question is on the issue of nurses because the Senator also
said all nurses would be affected. I am sure, as the Senator knows,
nurses are already exempt from the FSLA, and to the extent nurses are
affected by overtime, it is because of a contractual agreement in their
union contracts. As a practical matter, therefore, the vast majority of
nurses who are subject to union contracts will have no impact on their
overtime, and there is no adjustment here in any way to the nurses of
this country, as again has been made clear by the administration and
again reflects the fact that the present law is in place and that nurse
overtime is tied to contractual agreements, not to FSLA regulations.
To throw the nurses in--and I can go down, actually, the whole list.
I could go down to cooks, reporters, clerical workers, teachers,
physical therapists, lab technicians, social workers--all these
individuals who have been put on the Senator's list actually are not on
the list. They actually are not on the list.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me regain my time and respond. I
appreciate my colleague raising these questions. I ask unanimous
consent that letters from the International Union of Police
Associations and the National Association of Police Organizations,
expressing their opposition to the regulation, be printed in the
Record.

International Union of

Police Associations, AFL-CIO

Alexandria, VA July 25, 2003.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: In the very near future, either an amendment,
or a stand-alone bill, will be brought forward in the Senate
which will seek to restrict the Department of Labor (DOL)
from implementing any regulatory rules changes in the Fair
Labor Standards Act that would remove workers' overtime
rights. It would not interfere with the Secretary's ability
to expand overtime protections for low income workers. On
behalf of the International Union of Police Associations
(IUPA), representing more than 100,000 active duty, rank and
file law enforcement officers from across the country, I urge
you to support this effort.
On March 31, 2003, the DOL's proposed rule changes were
first published under the guise of expanding overtime rights
to lower paid employees. These rule changes, if implemented,
would dramatically alter the classification of workers who
could be exempted from the provisions of the FLSA and the 40-
hour work week. These changes would reduce the compensation
for our nation's police officers and EMS personnel, just as
we are routinely calling on them to do more and more in the
interest of national security. The alterations would also
provide a strong disincentive for agencies and municipalities
to hire additional first responders, as they seek ways to
operate under the growing constraints of historic financial
burdens. The implementation of these rules would mark a
critical step backwards for our public safety officers, just
when we need to be moving ahead.
IUPA has been closely following the events surrounding
these changes. We consider this legislation to be the most
important single issue we face. Its critical impact on rank-
and-file law enforcement officers throughout the country
makes it a true litmus test, when it is time for us to decide
who truly supports the men and women who form the thin blue
line. We intend to carefully note and announce to our
membership those who are willing to stand with our nation's
police and firefighters with their votes. Whatever form this
struggle takes, I hope we can count on your support. If you
or your staff desires any additional information from IUPA, I
hope you will feel free to call upon us.
Very Respectfully,
Dennis Slocumb,
International Executive Vice President.
____

National Association of

Police Organizations, Inc.,

Washington, DC, July 14, 2003.
Dear Senator: The full Senate will soon consider the Labor
HHS Appropriations Bill, S. 1356. On behalf of the National
Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing
230,000 rank-and-file police officers from across the United
States, I would like to request your support for an amendment
to S. 1356, which will be offered by Senator Tom Harkin (D-
IA) and will safeguard the ability of millions of Americans,
and America's law enforcement officers, to continue to earn
overtime pay for their professional efforts.
On March 31, 2003, the Department of Labor issued a
proposal which called for significant alterations concerning
the ability of law enforcement officers to receive hard
earned overtime pay. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, most workers, including law enforcement officers, are
entitled to overtime pay for excessive time worked. The
Department's proposal dramatically lowers the bar for
employers to classify employees as ``executive,
administrative or professional,'' thus exempting them from
paid overtime status.
If allowed to go into effect, these proposed regulations
will have a tremendous impact on workers who depend on
overtime pay, not as an added frill, but as a necessity to
ensure the promotion and well being of their families. Under
such regulations, America's State and Local law enforcement
officers, already strained by countless overtime hours
ensuring community safety against terrorist threats, could
lose this basic benefit accorded to them for their efforts.
These proposed regulations have seen no hearing nor achieved
any legislative approval.
The Harkin Amendment will protect these benefits and only
blocks the expanding of exemptions for those who are
currently eligible for overtime, while not blocking efforts
to expand overtime eligibility for more workers. I hope you
will support the amendment and ensure these hard earned
benefits. If you

[[Page S11203]]

have any questions, please feel free to contact me, or NAPO's
Legislative Assistant, Lucian H. Deaton, at (202) 842-4420.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson,
Executive Director.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will address both points my colleague has
raised. If my colleagues on the other side are so concerned about first
responders, why not just oppose the regulation altogether because this
is the major group about which we are talking. For example, let me
point out what I am suggesting.
Police sergeants and lower-level police supervisors are likely to
lose their overtime through the executive exemption. Let me explain
why.
The fact that a sergeant performs nonmanual work such as walking the
beat during 90 percent of his work hours does not matter if he also has
a primary duty of supervising two officers or performing nonexempt
administrative work.
Highly compensated police officers will not even have to have a
primary duty of performing exempt work. If they perform any ``office or
nonmanual work'' and perform any one exempt duty of an executive,
administrative, or professional duty--no matter how little of their
time is spent doing it--they lose the right to overtime.
How much imagination does it take to move people into those
categories to be exempt from overtime compensation?
Police departments have been prevented from exempting police officers
who teach in police academies because the instructors did not exercise
sufficient independent judgment and discretion in how they taught their
courses. The proposed rule eliminates the requirement for independent
judgment and discretion.
Under the current law, an exempt executive is an employee ``who
customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers; and who does
not devote more than 20 percent . . . of his hours of work in the
workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to
the performance of [exempt] work. . . .
Under the proposal by the President, those current law requirements
are eliminated.
Let me address the nurse issue. Nurses, skilled health technicians,
and technologists could lose their overtime protection under the
proposed regulations because of the changes to the educational
requirement.
Registered nurses who do not hold a bachelor's degree are currently
eligible for overtime protections, unless they hold administrative or
managerial positions.
Under the Bush proposal, these RNs would lose their overtime
protection if they have a few years of work experience.
Nonmanagerial licensed practical nurses--LPNs--have a right to
overtime protection under current law. Under the administration's
proposal, LPNs with a few years of work experience would also lose
their right to overtime compensation.
Let me read current law and then read the regulation proposed by
President Bush.
The current law:

Employees are exempt if they do ``work requiring knowledge
of an advance type in a field of science or learning
customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized
intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a
general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and
from training in the performance of routine mental, manual,
or physical processes.''

Under the President's proposal:

Employees qualify for exemption as a learned professional
if they have a primary duty of performing office or nonmanual
work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or
learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of
intellectual instruction, but which may also be acquired by
an equivalent combination of intellectual instruction and
work experience.

That is very broad, very general language. Obviously, one can drive a
Mack truck through it. That is why the nurses of this country, the RNs
and LPNs, are vehemently opposed to this proposed regulation, because
they know exactly what is going to happen, just as police officers do.
That is why so many of us feel so strongly about this and why we would
like to vote on it.
If a majority wants to uphold the President and vote for this stuff,
then so be it; the Administration can go forward and it will become the
law of the land. But I would like to know where 100 Senators stand.
America would, too. As I mentioned, nearly seventy-five percent of the
people polled in a recent survey said they are opposed to the
administration's proposed rule. Let's find out where this body is. I
think the proposed rule to eliminate overtime pay is wrong and I
support the Harkin amendment. I hope that we will have a vote soon and
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I always enjoy the eloquence of the Senator
from Connecticut. I am a great admirer of him as a legislator and as a
colleague in this body, but I must disagree with his analysis of what
this proposed regulation does.
Let's begin with the fact that this is a proposed regulation. That
means it is not final. It means the Department is still in the process
of adjusting it, of building it, of designing it. They have received
80,000 comments.
The approach of the other side of the aisle is to say we do not care
what the 80,000 comments were; we do not care what the process is for
regulatory review. We are going to step in, and we are going to
unilaterally decide that a law that has not been adjusted in over 30
years is a good law, shall be law, and shall never be changed. It makes
very little sense.
When this regulation was initiated, America was an entirely different
country. It had a different employment structure, different individual
types of responsibilities within the employment structure. We had
jobbers. We had people who were working on the line as the primary
responsibility of our manufacturing structure. Today we are a much more
mobile society. We are a much more dynamic and flexible workplace. We
are a workplace which reflects massive change in the way we compete and
are successful as an economy.
Yet a law passed 30 years ago does not keep up with those changes. It
has not adjusted to the change in the workplace that has occurred as a
result of the information age coming to fruition. It does not reflect
the fact that so many people who work in the workplace today earn a
heck of a lot more than what they were paid under this law when it was
originally passed.

On the face of it, the administration has done a job of trying to
address low-income individuals. They have said under the present law
that if someone earns $8,000 or less, they can get overtime by law.
Well, that is ridiculous. That is a ridiculously low number.
What this administration has said is if a person earns $21,000 or
less, they will have the right by law to get overtime. It does not
matter how their job is classified; they have the right to overtime.
That is a very reasonable approach. Basically, it empowers an
additional 1.3 million people in this country who will automatically be
qualified for overtime who are not qualified for it today because of
this absurdly low threshold which was placed in law over 30 years ago.
That is the type of reason we need to revisit this type of regulation.
It is also important to recognize that there is a huge debate over
who is and who is not covered in this law. A think tank--and we have a
lot of them in this city and they are all very aggressive--which is
essentially funded by the national Washington labor movement came up
with this number of 8 million. So I have kept asking my staff: Well,
how did they get to 8 million?
The Department, which used outside counsel, outside consultants, and
a bevy of outside experts in this law, and economists, came to the
conclusion that this will give 1.3 million people overtime and it may
affect somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 who might lose their
overtime under this law. They decided that that trade-off was worth it,
first because on the plus side more people would be getting overtime
than not, but secondly because the law has become so convoluted, so
complex, and has such a large gray area--as one moves into the higher
income brackets, people up around $65,000--that we basically created a
lawsuit mentality in the area of the workplace relative to overtime pay
questions.

[[Page S11204]]

In fact, this is the fastest growing area of lawsuits for trial
lawyers. This is sort of the new oil field they have struck. You know
how sometimes we strike oil fields in Kansas or in Saudi Arabia or in
the North Slope. Well, this is the new oil field that the trial lawyers
have struck, which is the inconsistency, the confusion, of the overtime
law. It has become the new gusher for one element of the bar.
The Labor Department said: Let's try to straighten these regulations,
get some order to them, make sense of them. Did they do a perfect job?
No, they did not. That is why 80,000 comments came in. I do not
subscribe to this regulation as it is presently structured. I think it
can be improved and I think the 80,000 comments are probably going to
significantly impact the way the Department of Labor addresses this
regulation, but I do not think we should short-circuit the process and
suddenly say no, it does not work.
If it is such a bad regulation when it finally comes out, we have the
ability in this Congress, as we are now proceeding to do under the
proposal of the Senator from North Dakota in the area of FCC ownership,
to bring to the floor an amendment on a privileged resolution within a
very short period of time that only requires 36 signatures. We have to
bring it to the floor, we have to debate it for 10 hours, we have to
vote on it, and then we can repeal this. We ought to at least give the
process the ability to move forward to see if we can straighten out
some of the fundamental flaws of this law which have over the years
evolved to a point where we basically have created a new gusher for
trial lawyers but very little constructive, efficient, market-oriented
events for the productive side of our community, which is the workers.

To get back to the question of how many people are impacted, as I
said, the Department of Labor came up with their numbers which were
independently evaluated, independently reached, and which were
certified essentially by people who understand and who are expert in
this area. Where did this 8 million number come from, that we have
heard bandied about as if it had been sacrosanct, delivered to us from
the mountain on high, by some tablet that said 8 million workers are
going to be impacted?
This number came, as I mentioned, from some think tank in Washington,
which think tank is funded by an interest group which has a very
significant role in this debate, which is the major labor union
leadership in Washington. It was put together not by a group of
economists, not by a group of experts in this law. It was put together
by two individuals whose expertise in this law is new, to be kind. I
think one has a social worker's degree and the other has some sort of
other degree, but they are not recognized national leaders in this
area.
They did not support their findings with anything that was
substantive. They just sort of picked a number, 8 million. They picked
that number, it appears, without, one, understanding the regulation as
it was proposed, two, maybe stretching it as it has been proposed, or,
three, just simply fabricating the number in the sense that the number
has no relationship to anything the regulation actually says.
Let's begin with the biggest fabrication in their proposal of 8
million, which is that they have included part-time employees. Now, how
they can include part-time employees, which is probably about 6 to 7
million of the people they added to the 8 million--I do not know the
number because they did not attach a number to it, but part-time
employees is a big number in our society--is beyond me when we are
dealing with a law that requires someone to work 40 hours a week before
they can get the overtime. By definition, a part-time employee is not
kicked into overtime except in that rare case where they decide to
become a full-time employee, and then they should not be counted as a
part-time employee under this proposal.
So right off the bat, that 8 million is extraordinarily suspect as to
the vast majority of the numbers in that 8 million.
Then we go down to the other folks they added to their list, and we
begin with the firefighters. Independent of what my learned friend on
the other side of the aisle says, the fact is it has been made very
clear by this administration, by the Secretary, and by the people who
are involved in the drafting of this regulation that firefighters--
firemen and first responders, such as EMTs--will not be impacted by
this language. That is why, I presume, the national chairman of the
organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, has essentially signed off
and said that is the case.

I submit, since we are submitting materials, a release from the FOP,
which is entitled ``F.O.P. Confident of Satisfactory Resolution on DOL
Overtime Regulations,'' and ask unanimous consent it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

F.O.P. Confident of Satisfactory Resolution on DOL Overtime Regulations

Today, National Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck
Canterbury announced his full confidence in the success of
the F.O.P.'s efforts to protect the right to overtime pay for
more than a million public safety officers across the nation.
Following a productive dialogue with U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) officials regarding the proposed changes to the rules
governing overtime compensation, Canterbury asserted that the
issue would be resolved to the benefit of our nation's public
safety officers.
``Thanks to the leadership of Secretary Chao, we have no
doubt that overtime pay will continue to be available to
those officers currently receiving it and, if the new rules
are approved, even more of our nation's police officers, fire
fighters and EMTs will be eligible for overtime,'' Canterbury
said. ``This development was possible because this is an
Administration that listens to the concerns of the F.O.P.,
and because of their commitment to our nation's first
responders.''
On 31 March, the Department of Labor published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register to revise and
update the exemptions from overtime under the FLSA for
executive, administrative, and professional employees. The
F.O.P. was the first union to weigh in on behalf of America's
law enforcement community regarding the proposed change and
recommended the exclusion of all public safety personnel from
the Part 541 or ``white collar'' exemptions from overtime--
including those employees who are classified as exempt under
the existing regulations. The organization argued that the
exclusion of these employees was necessary because of the
increased burdens placed on public safety officers following
the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
``Since the beginning, it's been clear from our dialogue
with Secretary Chao and Department officials that it was
never their intention to cut overtime for public safety
employees,'' Canterbury said. ``So we decided early on that
the interests of our members could best be served by working
cooperatively with the Department. While others saw an
opportunity to demonize this Administration, we chose
cooperation over conflict, partnership over partisanship.''
Canterbury also noted that it was this spirit of
cooperation that led DOL to agree that public safety officers
should not be classified as exempt under the proposed
regulations. ``To the F.O.P., this was never a partisan
political issue,'' Canterbury said. ``Instead, it was a
chance to make things better for police officers and their
families.''
``Thanks to the dialogue between the F.O.P. and the
Department, we are confident that when the final regulations
are issued, that overtime pay will be available to even more
public safety officers in the country than under current
regulations,'' Canterbury said. ``What we have accomplished
by working together will be arguably the most significant
victory for public safety officers in decades.''
In a recent speech at the organization's 56th Biennial
National Conference in Providence, Rhode Island, Labor
Secretary Elaine L. Chao praised the F.O.P.'s work on the
issue. ``The bottom line is that Chuck Canterbury and the
F.O.P. are known for bringing facts and constructive
solutions to the table,'' Chao said. ``That's why you are
respected, that's why you get results, and that's why police
officers trust the F.O.P. to look out for their interests.''
On 1 September, Canterbury also traveled with President
George W. Bush to a Labor Day event at the Ohio Operating
Engineer's Richfield Training Center in Richfield, Ohio,
where the President spoke on jobs and the economy. Traveling
with key Administrative officials afforded President
Canterbury the opportunity to continue the dialogue on this
important issue.
Canterbury concluded by clarifying what the new rules, if
adopted, will mean to rank and file officers across the
country: ``Basically, if you get overtime pay now, you're
going to keep it. If you're currently exempt from overtime
pay, you may be getting it very soon.''
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law
enforcement labor organization in the United States, with
more than 310,000 members.

Mr. GREGG. That is a big chunk, but how many police officers and
firefighters and EMT workers they included in that number, I don't
know. I would not be surprised if, of the million

[[Page S11205]]

or million and a half or maybe 2 million who were not part time who
were included, it is probably close to about half that. I don't know
because this report did not have the integrity to put the numbers on
their people.
They also included nurses. As we just had this little exchange,
nurses are already exempt from FLSA. The reason for that is they are
deemed to be essentially professional as a result of their training
experience. The present law is fairly clear in this area. I believe I
have it somewhere here. Basically it makes it very clear that nurses
are not covered by FLSA. The reason nurses get overtime is because the
vast majority of nurses reach a contractual agreement in their union
negotiations which gives them overtime. Those are not going to be
changed, obviously. As a practical matter, nurses should not be
included. So there you have another, who knows, 200,000-plus people who
were added to this 8 million number, which is bogus.
Then you have cooks. There is a difference here on cooks. There are
chefs, professional chefs--yes, they would probably lose overtime, or
be suspect, or have that as part of the compensation, depending on
whether they have a union contract. The 4-year culinary school graduate
who is a professional chef who manages a kitchen, that person is
probably going to have to negotiate their overtime independent of these
rules. But there are not any other cooks who are going to be covered.
The fellow working down at the local diner or the persons working in a
restaurant are not going to be covered by this law because they are
clearly not exempt individuals. The vast majority--who knows, probably
90 or 95 percent--are not going to be exempted and will continue to get
overtime.
So you have a number, however, that was included, which I believe is
all the cooks. At least that is the implication of the language.
Probably another 200,000 people are in that category of work.
Reporters--this is another one listed by my colleagues across the
aisle. All reporters are going to lose their overtime. That is a fight
reporters have been having for a long time. That is a fairly public
fight, whether reporters are professionals or not professionals. I
guess every reporter has to get up in the morning and look in the
mirror and decide whether they are professional. But those who decide
they are not professional who want overtime are going to have to
negotiate their union contracts for that, probably, because as a
practical matter that reporter issue is being settled in the court
system.
How it breaks down is very much an issue. But it certainly is not
going to be affected by these regulations. It is already decided in
large part by court decisions and will continue to be so. So to throw
reporters in here is again a very bogus figure.
Clerical workers clearly are not going to be covered. The vast
majority are not going to be covered, vast majority are not going to be
covered by this regulation nor will it have any impact on their
overtime.
Teachers are entirely exempt by law already from FLSA. To put
teachers on the list is again misleading. It either reflects a lack of
knowledge of how the law works or an intent to try to inflate the
number. Teachers clearly get overtime, but it is a function of their
contract negotiations, not a function of FLSA.

The same goes for physical therapists, lab technicians, and social
workers. In all these categories the vast majority of people who fall
in the last three categories are not going to be impacted in any way by
this proposal--by exemption, but will continue to get coverage for
overtime activities or will pick it up through their union contracts,
many of them being unionized, especially social workers, for example.
As a practical matter, what we have here is a grossly inflated number
which has no economic or statistical support behind it, which has
virtually no law support behind it, especially in the biggest
categories--part time, police, fire, first responders, nurses, and
teachers. And as a result, this number of 8 million which we keep
hearing thrown out on the floor is a bogus number. It is a completely
bogus number.
The real number is probably closer to what the Department had
assessed by outside counsel, by outside review, and which shows a plus.
In other words, it shows more people are going to get overtime out of
this regulation change than have the potential of losing overtime under
this regulation change.
Does that mean it is perfect? Of course not. There are ways to
improve it, as I mentioned when I started, with 80,000 people
commenting on it. But this issue is clearly not ripe for this Senate to
be acting on it. Let's wait and give the Department a chance to review
the options, review what it hears from the various people including, I
think, some very cogent and thoughtful comment that came in from some
of the major labor unions that are concerned about this. Although if
you are in a labor union, by definition you are probably not going to
be impacted by this law. But as a practical matter--you may be. As a
practical matter, there was cogent, thoughtful comment put forward.
There were 80,000 comments. Not all of them, I assume, were cogent and
thoughtful, but a great deal made some thematic sense. Let's allow the
Department to sift through this and update a law or regulation that has
been on the books for 30 years and really does need updating. We are a
different society. We have a different work structure now. We have a
much more flexible and educated workforce, a highly technical
workforce, a value-added workforce. We need to have an overtime law
which reflects and answers the needs of that workforce, not the needs
of a workforce in 1950 or 1960.
I simply say it is premature to be going forward with this proposal
at this time. Let's wait until the final regulation is passed. It is
extremely inappropriate for us to be going forward on the basis of a
number which is being used as the bludgeon for pushing through this
amendment, this 8 million figure, which is totally inflated and, in my
opinion, clearly bogus and inaccurate, especially if you compare it
with the hard figures which were brought forward by the administration
on this proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, and I
don't want to keep him waiting while I make my statement, I think he
made some interesting points. As he knows, I generally have great
respect for him. But some of these things sort of don't pass the smell
test. I ask the rhetorical question: Does anybody in here believe this
administration is changing work rules in order to be able to pay more
people overtime?
Let me say that again. Does anybody believe the Secretary of Labor,
and this President of the United States, backed by the Chamber of
Commerce and many other decent, honorable business people as their core
supporters, is trying to change the law to give more people access to
overtime?
Mr. GREGG. If that is a question which the Senator has presented,
which I think was rhetorical in its nature?
Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to have you answer it.
Mr. GREGG. By definition, this administration has shown it intends to
give more people overtime. It has said people now earning up to $21,000
will be guaranteed overtime. Under the present law, if you are earning
up to $8,000 you are guaranteed overtime, but between $8,000 and
$21,000 you can be doing a number of jobs in the country which deny you
overtime, where your employer can say, I am sorry, we are not going to
pay you overtime because you happen to be an exempt employee. Under
this proposal from this administration, over 1.3 million people will be
getting overtime they would not get under the present law because the
threshold goes up to $21,000.
I appreciate the Senator's question.
Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to hear that. I am glad to see the
President has had an epiphany. I find it absolutely fascinating. I come
from a corporate State. I come from a State where business is a great
citizen and they are very active. I have never had one small
businessman, I have never had one large businessman, I have never had
one come and say: You know what the problem is here, Biden? You
Democrats are denying people overtime. We want to expand that contract
made in the thirties between labor and management to make sure our
workers who are not getting it get overtime.

[[Page S11206]]

As they say in the neighborhood I come from, give me a break. Give me
a break.
I am going to go to my formal statement in a moment. My friend from
New Hampshire made a couple of very important points that are accurate,
but draw exactly the wrong conclusion. He said that, in effect--my
words--the social contract we entered into 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago
with American workers said if you engage in manual labor, you will be
rewarded for your efforts. We the American people, we the American
Government value manual labor. We value what you have done to build
this country. We are going to make sure that you get treated fairly.
One of the things they said that related to being treated fairly was
that nobody should have to work more than 40 hours. That was a judgment
made. In Germany, or in France--I don't know which one it is--they say
you only have to work 35 hours, and there is a debate about whether it
should be 40 or 50 hours.

We made a deal as a nation. We said: Look, if you work more than 40
hours--those of you who do manual labor--you ought to be compensated
time and a half for doing it--just like you work on Sunday. They say
that is a day of rest. Most contractors say if you have to work Sunday,
we will pay double time. That was the deal we made.
As my friend points out, there are not many manual labor jobs left in
America. We have exported them overseas--or the bulk of them overseas.
We made it easier for business to take all those manual labor jobs and
send them overseas. This is a different world. We have now become a
service economy. We have a lot less people doing manual labor. What was
the underlying rationale as to why we were going to pay people
overtime? We were going to pay overtime not to those who did manual
labor. That is what it happened to turn out to be. We said we are going
to give people overtime if in fact they are in the workplace and they
don't have control over their destiny. They do not get to determine the
work rules. They don't get to decide how much longer they will keep the
lathes going. They don't decide whether or not they work on Saturday or
Sunday. It is about control.
The underlying rationale was we said workers who by and large were
manual laborers and do not have a say in their work conditions, do not
have a say in how they function, do not have a say in whether they
start at 8 or 10 in the morning or 4 in the morning, do not have a say
in when the shifts run, and do not have a say in whether or not they
get a window outside their work space, we are going to pay those guys
something when we ask them to work more than 40 hours.
But for those folks who have a say, and those folks who have some
control--theoretically white-collar workers, people who get a room with
a view, people who have some say on whether or not the boss starts the
shift or opens the door at 8 in the morning or 4 in the morning or 10
in the morning, and those folks who are more like management--they have
a say and we are not going to compensate them. Their compensation is in
effect because they have a say.
As a former Governor of California used to say, there is psyche
remuneration for being white collar.
Just like around here, I get to pick my office. I get to decide
whether I have a room with a view. I get to decide to have a more
commodious work space. The person who works for me who happens to be
answering the mail doesn't get that decision. If I put the mail room in
a place where there is no window, as long as it meets OSHA's
requirements, they work. Guess what. Hang on everybody. For those of
you who ain't management, you ain't going to get overtime anymore when
the boss says: By the way, show up. I have an election. You get
overtime now. You all get overtime. Get ready.
At any rate, the point is this: It is about control.
My friend said the world has changed. It is a different economy than
it was in the 1950s and 1960s. That is right. But if it is based upon
the premise of control, which is the underlying rationale for the Fair
Labor Standards Act, I would argue my friend from New Hampshire is
right. The world has changed. But guess what. White-collar workers
don't have control now. As we move to a service economy and white-
collar workers, we don't have people digging ditches. We don't have
people lifting lumber. We don't have people moving heavy equipment.
They are still there, but we have white-collar workers who wear blue
collars and who are in high-tech industries and industries that are the
service economy--who work in restaurants and work at all these other
places--who, in fact, still have no control.

Let me ask you a rhetorical question. Am I missing something here?
Every single survey I have read during the last decade asking about
satisfaction that American workers derive from their jobs--am I wrong
or have all those surveys come back and said there is less
satisfaction?
We are not allowed to talk to the galleries. So I am not going to.
But I wonder whether people watching this or sitting in the galleries
as I ask a rhetorical question will ask themselves this: Am I satisfied
in the workplace? Do I feel my job is rewarding? Do I have any element
of control over my job?
The funny thing I have found is whether they are a DuPont engineer or
a chemist or an analyst at a brokerage house, they are all afraid they
are going to show up one day and find that the company has been sold
and they don't have a job. They don't have any control. Guess what.
They don't have much.
I agree with my friend. The world has changed. But the values haven't
changed. The value we are operating on is that people who do not get
much say in how and when and where and under what conditions they work
when you ask them to work more than 40 hours should get paid overtime.
The fact that there are fewer people wearing sweatshirts and sweating
as they perform their jobs is not the issue. How many of those folks in
the new service economy have any more control over their jobs than
those folks who did manual labor 40 years ago?
That is the first point I want to make.
The second point I want to make to my friend from New Hampshire, who
is a very bright guy--I am not being solicitous; he really is.
The second point I make, I agree. He says there is more flexibility
in the workforce. I will make a bet. I will make the staffers and my
Republican colleagues a bet. I bet if they go out tonight, as they stop
in the grocery store or stop to pick up the bottle of milk, or if they
are single, stop at the local watering hole to commiserate with their
colleagues, ask the following question to whomever they encounter: What
does flexibility in the workplace mean to you? Although I have never
done this, I make a bet the answer everyone gets is the following: It
means my boss can fire me when he wants. It means I have to work part
time. It means I am flexible, but they do not have to pay health care.
It means I do not have to get benefits I used to get when it was not so
flexible.
Flexibility does not translate into control. It does not translate
into you being able to determine, in effect, compensation for being
asked to stay longer, the environment in which you work or the
circumstances in which you work. Flexibility translates to most
American workers as flexibility for the boss to tell me I am part time.
My friend did point out part time. I am not going to get into a
debate whether it is 8 million or 1.3 million. That is focusing on the
trees and not the forests. What is the big picture, folks? The big
picture is my Republican colleagues have a very different set of values
than I have. They are good people. They are decent people. I am not
impugning their motive, but they have a different value set. I think
the basic principle is if, in fact, you work in a circumstance where
you do not have much control over your environment, and I ask you to
work longer than 40 hours, you should have to be paid overtime. That is
a basic fundamental value. To me it is simple.
What has this President done? He is a decent, honorable man. What has
he done? He has a very different view of American labor and the rights
of American labor. Look at his tax structure. All our existence in this
last century and the beginning of this century, what was our tax
structure designed to do? It was designed to treat the guy and woman
who make their living using their hands the same way as the guy who
makes his living using his head.

[[Page S11207]]

We did not make a distinction in this country based upon whether you
pay taxes--until now. What has this administration said now? It depends
whether you have--and it is a fancy term--earned income or unearned
income. All those listening to me know the difference. Earned income
means when you receive a salary, basically. Unearned income is when you
have a return on an investment.
What have we done in trying not to tax dividends? We have said, if
you sit in your living room, in your home library, in your corner
office on the 67th floor, wherever you sit, and you manage your
investments, you do your work with your brain alone trying to figure
out how to best place the money you have to get a return, if you make
money, if you make that week $1,000, then we are not going to tax you.
But if you run a piece of heavy equipment, digging out the World Trade
Center, and you make $1,000 because of your hourly wage and your
overtime, we are going to tax you. Ain't that sweet?
This is the administration--my friend from New Hampshire wants me to
believe--that is changing these rules in order that more people will
get overtime. That does not pass the laugh test. Look, even the
stenographer knows I am telling the truth. It does not pass the laugh
test. Let's get real here, OK.

There is a sound philosophic argument for the position of the
Republicans based on a different value set than I have, but it is
sound. They argue the reason why you shouldn't tax the guy who doesn't
break a sweat is because he will provide the liquidity, the pooling of
money out there from which people can borrow money, make investments,
cap investments, to put guys like my dad to work when he was alive. God
love them being so concerned about my dad. But that is a legitimate
argument. And what they say is, we value that effort, because it is a
more societal consequence, than we value the guy sitting behind a crane
or a heavy piece of equipment because we will tax him, but we will not
tax the guy who creates something of greater value. He does not break a
sweat. He does not put his body at risk. He puts his money at risk.
Now we are creeping into a two-tiered notion of what is the most
valuable thing to be compensated in this country. It is a legitimate
argument with which I fundamentally disagree. Make no mistake about
where those guys are coming from. Don't try to tell me they are trying
to help my brother, the laborer. Don't try to convince me they are
trying to help the average middle-class guy. Don't try to tell me they
are trying to create wealth among those who are raising their kids in
split-level homes and trying to pay for tuition. Don't try to tell me
that. They are trying to do that indirectly because if you let the big
guy have more money, he will take a greater risk and he will invest it
and maybe employ that man or woman in the $100,000 split-level home
with three bedrooms and four kids. But for God's sake don't tell me
that is their major concern.
This is about values. It is obvious this administration does not have
the same value set, at least speaking for myself, that I have, or that
we have had, or value the social contract in effect that we fought over
all during the teens, 1920s, and 1930s, and began to put into place in
the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
The nature of the economy has changed, but the nature of those who
have control and do not have control has not changed. That has not
changed. Those numbers and proportions have not changed. This is not
fair. But it is consistent. It goes back to the trickle-down, bubble-up
disagreements, a very simplistic way to show the differences between
our parties. We think average folks can actually make decisions for
themselves. We think they can actually and should be rewarded for what
they do. That will generate economic growth. They think, no, let the
wealthiest among us make those judgments and that will trickle down and
benefit my noncollege-educated father and mother. It is a legitimate
argument. But it is different value set. It is a different way of
looking at the world.
For Lord's sake, do not try to convince me this administration is
seeking to change the overtime work rules so more people get overtime.
In the last 3 years, more than 3 million private sector jobs have
disappeared. And for each of those 3 million jobs lost, there is a
story of a child without health care, a family in crisis without
dignity or hope, their dreams lost or at least deferred. A job loss is
not just another statistic, it is a real human tragedy.
Paraphrasing President Truman, and I didn't know what he was doing at
the time, my grandfather Finnegan from Scranton used to say, Joey, when
the guy up in Throop loses his job, it is an economic slowdown; when my
brother-in-law loses his job, it is a recession; when I lose my job, it
is a depression.
There is a lot of depression for a lot of folks out there. For 3
years now, this administration has told us that tax cuts are the only
thing we need to do to get this economy rolling. They said tax cuts
were all we needed to create new jobs. You know the talk about creating
new jobs. But here we stand today, trillions of dollars in tax cuts
later, and we have not added a single--hear me now--a single, not one
net new job to the economy in the United States of America--not
one. And I will bet the President anything he wishes to bet that at the
end of his term--defeated or reelected--on election day 2004, this will
be the first administration since Herbert Hoover not to create one
single solitary net new job. As they used to say on ``Saturday Night
Live,'' ``Ain't that special?''--not one new job.

Not only have we failed to create new jobs, we are losing the ones we
have. Tax cuts were the only policy we had, but it is painfully clear
they haven't worked, at least in relation to jobs. And now it is clear
that tax cuts and deficits are credited for crippling our ability to
meet our responsibilities here at home in homeland defense and to
shoulder the burdens we face around the world, at exactly the time the
President has rightfully called on us to come up with another $87
billion for Iraq.
I think it is time to ask the question: If we are not going to create
any new jobs--and the President's Council of Economic Advisers argued,
by the way, that last year's tax cuts would produce 5.5 million jobs
between now and the end of 2004. With the loss of 93,000 jobs last
month, that puts them 437,000 jobs behind their promise already. I
challenge them to create one new job during this administration.
The latest official numbers look slightly improved on paper, but that
is because nearly 2 million men and women who have been out of work for
over half a year know that good jobs are just not there so they have
completely given up looking for work.
I know my friend from West Virginia has been through a lot. He could,
not figuratively but literally, write a book on this. He has witnessed
what has happened to his coal miners. He has witnessed what has
happened to the folks in his State. He has been through a depression.
He was part of those who worked us out of that. He knows what not
having a job means to somebody.
So most of us here--all of us, Democrat and Republican, know that the
key to our dignity as human beings is being able to provide for
ourselves, and it is also the key to a healthy economy.
A jobless recovery, which we have right now, means nothing to the
millions still out of work. And this so-called jobless recovery is in
danger of causing the recovery as a whole to sputter out because its
foundation is not very solid.
There is little hope for sustained, healthy economic growth without
solid, good-paying jobs. Consumer confidence and consumer spending--the
keys to our economy--ultimately depend on Americans' confidence that
they are going to have a secure job, a job that pays a fair wage for a
fair day's labor.
For over half a century, American workers have known what that meant:
a 40-hour workweek and time and a half for overtime. You could count on
that extra pay in exchange for the extra burden of working more than 40
hours a week.
So I would just ask, what has changed in America that says when you
work more than 40 hours a week, you should not get compensated more for
it? What is it that has changed that says the premise of overtime pay
is no longer sound? What is it? What is it that has changed, that is
different from the agreement we made--business and management and
labor--that if you

[[Page S11208]]

don't control your work environment, you should be compensated
monetarily when you are asked to work in that environment beyond 40
hours? What has changed?
What is happening? Have we taken on a new set of basic values or is
there something in the marketplace that has changed that demands this?
I will conclude with this. The irony of all of this is that at the
very time when people are feeling less secure physically, the very time
when people are feeling less secure about their jobs, at the very time
when we have lost millions of jobs, and no reasonable prospect of
seeing them regained in the near term, why is it they have to pile on
now--pile on now--and begin to change that basic contract?
You would think they would at least have the good grace and the
courtesy to wait until things have improved a little bit. It just seems
to me to be really bad form, just bad form, because you know a lot of
those guys and women who are making overtime are helping pay their
mother's prescription bill, are making sure that their brother, who
lost his job, is able to keep his kids in school.
A lot of that money for overtime is family overtime. And now we want
to change that. I think it is getting a little bit greedy. I think it
is just a little bit greedy. I think it is bad form. And I sincerely
hope I turn out to be wrong. I sincerely hope the economic
conservatives in this administration really are attempting to provide a
change in the rules to make sure that more people get overtime. I will
come to the floor and say: I'm sorry, I misjudged you. I thank you for
your concern for working-class people. I thank you for your concern
that not enough of them were getting paid overtime, and I appreciate
the fact you are now willing to pay more people more overtime. I don't
think I will have to make that speech. I hope I am wrong.
Mr. President, last month 93,000 Americans lost their jobs. Over the
last 3 years, more than 3 million private sector jobs have disappeared.
And for each one of those 3 million lost jobs, there is a story of a
child without health care, a family in crisis without dignity or hope,
their dreams lost or deferred.
A job loss is not just another statistic, it is a real human tragedy.
For 3 years now this administration told us that tax cuts are the
only thing we need to get the economy rolling again. They said tax cuts
are all we need to create new jobs. But here we stand today, trillions
of dollars in tax cuts later, and we have not added a single new job to
this economy.
Not only have we failed to create new jobs, we are losing the ones we
used to have. Tax cuts were the only policy they had, but it is
painfully clear that they have not worked. And now it is clear that the
tax cuts and the deficits they created are crippling our ability to
meet our responsibilities here at home and to shoulder the burdens we
face around the world--at exactly the time the President has rightfully
called on us for $87 billion for Iraq.
It is time to ask the question: Can this administration create just
one new private-sector job, one more job than existed when they took
office?
The President's Council of Economic Advisors claimed that the last
tax cut would produce 5.5 million new jobs between now and the end of
2004. With the loss of 93,000 jobs last month, that puts them 437,000
jobs behind their promises already.
I challenge them to create just one new job during this
administration, one new job before the next election.
The latest official unemployment number looks slightly improved on
paper, but that is because the nearly 2 million men and women who have
been out of work for over half a year know that god jobs are just not
there and they have completely given up looking for work.
Jobs are the key to our dignity as human beings. And they are the key
to a healthy economy.
A jobless recovery like we have right now means nothing to the
millions still out of work. And this so-called jobless recovery is in
danger of sputtering out because it lacks a strong foundation.
There is little hope for sustained, healthy economic growth without
solid good-paying jobs.
Consumer confidence and consumer spending--the keys to our economy--
ultimately depend on Americans' confidence that they have a secure job,
a job that pays a fair wage for fair days' work.
For over half a century American workers have known what that meant,
a 40-hour work week, and time and a half if you worked overtime. You
could count on that extra pay in exchange for the extra burden of
working more than 40 hours a week.
Many workers often have no choice about working overtime, it is up to
their boss. But they have to work those extra hours, their employer is
required to pay them time and a half.
This has been a cornerstone of the social contract between labor and
management, between workers and employers.
For other workers, higher overtime pay is often absolutely essential
to making ends meet. For those struggling along on the minimum wage or
a little more, overtime pay can make all the difference when you are
trying to make ends meet.
We know that many workers simply schedule themselves as much overtime
as they can physically bear so that they can stay above water
financially. But despite the key role of the 40-hour work week, despite
the wide-spread reliance on time and half pay for work past those 40
hours, this administration has proposed crippling changes in the
regulations governing overtime pay.
That is why I am here as a cosponsor to the Harkin-Kennedy amendment
to prohibit funding for those new overtime regulations.
Senator Harkin deserves our thanks, and the thanks of millions of
workers, for his leadership on this issue.
On its face, the issue could not be clearer. The administration wants
to take away the rights of millions of workers to overtime pay. They
want to make it easier for employers to reclassify as many as 8 million
hourly workers--who now get overtime pay--to make them ineligible for
overtime pay.
Right now, for most workers, if you are not ``white collar'' working
in management, your boss has to pay you time and a half for all the
work you do over 40 hours a week. The idea is that more highly educated
workers, who participate in management, who have significant authority
over the workplace, are more properly classified as salaried, not
hourly, workers. They get a fixed amount of pay, no matter how many
hours they may put in a week.
Hourly workers, on the other hand, who do not manage the conditions
under which they work, who have less to say about the work week is
organized, must be compensated if they work more than the basic 40
hours.
That has been the definition of a fair day's work for a fair day's
pay for more than half a century, and its basic fairness still makes
sense today.
America has changed, but not our values. But the administration's new
regulations would make it easier--would actually create an incentive
for employers to classify workers who have little advanced education
and little or no authority--to classify those workers as white collar
workers.
Those regulations would lower the amount of education currently
required to classify someone as white collar or professional. And they
would also loosen the definition of management activities to make it
easier to claim that a lot of the basic paperwork many hourly workers
currently do actually makes them administrators or executives.
Overnight, with the stroke of a computer key, millions of workers
could lose the right to overtime pay. These rules are designed not only
to make it easier to reclassify workers, but to make it pay for
employers who do so.
Employers will save money, since they will no longer be required to
pay workers time and a half for work that they are now guaranteed.
There would be no change in the number of hours they could be required
to do, no change in their education, no change in their
responsibilities, just one change in the regulations in Washington--and
they are out overtime pay and out of luck.
Today, when the biggest problem facing our economy is the loss of
job, when a well-paying job is so hard to come by, these regulations
are the worst thing we could do.
This administration has the worst record of job loss since Herbert
Hoover--3.2 million jobs lost. Faced with the obvious fact that his
economic

[[Page S11209]]

policies have failed to create a single new job, faced with the fact
that years into a so-called recovery, we are still losing jobs, the
President recently announced a warmed over package of his failed
policies and labeled it a job creation plan. I suppose it is a good
thing that he finally realizes that he is presiding over the worst job
creation of any modern President.
Unfortunately, there is nothing new in his announcement, and
absolutely nothing that would create one new well-paying job. If he
truly wants to do something for the working men and women of America, I
respectfully suggest that the President simply rescind these proposed
regulations. That alone would protect the overtime pay on which so many
men and women and their families depend today.
Now is not the time for this administration to use its regulatory
power to cut the pay of millions of American workers. But if we will
not stop this pay cut for millions of Americans, we can do that today
here in the Senate. We can vote to prohibit any funds from going to
enforce this unfair and wrong-headed change in our basic social
contract, in the deal we have struck between millions of workers and
their employers.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and yield to the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, are we operating under any time constraints?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are not.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 1543

Mr. President, when President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind
Act, he promised to give schools the funding they needed to help every
young person in this country succeed in the classroom.
That promise has not been kept. And there is no better example of
that broken promise than the education funding levels in this
appropriations bill. The most glaring example is the title I program.
Title I helps the students who need help the most--the millions who are
being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left
Behind Act, will hold schools accountable for improving student
performance.
We did not have this program in my day and schools did not have to be
held accountable, either, for improving student performance. It was a
given that students went to school to learn and that they were expected
to study hard. That is why we had our schools. We were there to get an
education.
That is why, when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it
authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through
fiscal year 2012. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2004 is $18.5
billion. That is enough to fully serve 6.2 million needy children,
according to the Congressional Research Service.
How much does this bill provide? This bill provides just $12.4
billion. That is enough to fully serve only 4.1 million children.
The amendment I am offering would increase title I funding by $6.1
billion, for a total of $18.5 billion, the fiscal year 2004 authorized
level, and it would extend the full educational benefits of title I to
2.1 million children who otherwise would be left behind. This would
allow us to keep the promise we made in the No Child Left Behind Act.
I have to my left a chart. This chart shows what this amendment will
mean for schools in all 50 States. I know that their listing here
creates a chart on which it is difficult to read from any distance
virtually. But here they are, 50 States. Let's take a few examples.
Take for example New Hampshire. Under my amendment, New Hampshire
schools will receive $19.5 million more than they would receive under
the Senate bill. That is a 66-percent increase over the fiscal year
2004 level.
Let's take a look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania schools will receive
$223.4 million more under my amendment. That represents a 51-percent
increase over the fiscal year 2003 level.
In Maine, schools will receive an additional $24 million for a 50-
percent increase. In my State of West Virginia, schools will receive
$47 million, $46.8 million more under my amendment than they would
receive under the Senate bill, also for a 50-percent increase over the
fiscal year 2003 level.
There are other schools. All of the States on this chart--and there
are 50 of them--under my amendment every State receives an increase
over the Senate bill.
Massachusetts will receive $129.3 million more under my amendment
than it would receive under the bill. Alaska would receive $18.4
million more. New York would receive $682.2 million more. California
would receive $899.5 million more than it would receive under the
Senate bill. That is the way it goes all the way down the line. The
District of Columbia would receive $27.8 million more. The State of
Ohio would receive $203.8 million more. So every State would gain under
the Byrd amendment.
This amendment is fully offset for fiscal year 2004. It achieves this
by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal
year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and reappropriating those
moneys in fiscal year 2003. That is the exact same mechanism that
Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter are using to add $2.2 billion to
the base bill--the same mechanism. My amendment simply builds upon
their mechanism and adds $6.1 billion more for title I.
Unfortunately, there has been some confusion over this point. I was
disappointed last week to hear a Senator from the other side of the
aisle refer to my amendment as a gimmick. Yes, referred to my amendment
as a gimmick. Think of that. That Senator on the other side of the
aisle said my amendment was a gimmick. The exact words were ``a gimmick
of classic proportions.''
Well, I would like to call the Senate's attention to page 76 of the
base bill. Lines 1 and 2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending.
Now read exactly what is in the bill, lines 1 and 2, ``by striking
$4,651,199,000 and inserting $6,895,199,000.'' So you see, lines 1 and
2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending.
Now just drop two lines; just go down the page two lines and read
lines 3 and 4; 3 and 4 offset that increase by rescinding $2.2 billion
in fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. So my amendment uses the same funding
mechanism as has been used in this bill.
Mr. Specter, chairman of the subcommittee, can verify that. Mr.
Stevens, chairman of the full committee, one of the finest chairmen
there have been since that committee was created in 1867, will verify
that. He will verify that I am reading this accurately and that that is
what is being done.
So my amendment uses the same funding those two illustrious gentlemen
used in writing the bill. And if my amendment is a gimmick--hear me--if
my amendment is a gimmick, what does that say about the base bill? Is
it also a gimmick? I ask, is the base bill also a gimmick?
Opponents of my amendment have also argued that the Congress is under
no obligation to fund title I at the authorized level because
authorizations are just guidelines.
Well, title I is not your average authorization program. Most
education authorizations don't put mandates on States. The title I
program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more Federal mandates on
our Nation's schools than any law in 35 years.
This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all
students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12
years. That is all students--all students, not just those in the
wealthy suburbs but poor students, students from Appalachia to Alaska,
children with disabilities, students of all races and ethnicities.
Schools must leave no child behind, and if schools that receive title
I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences.
Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student
performance for 2 consecutive years have to give the students the
opportunity of transferring to another public school. That means the
school has to take money it would have spent for instruction and use
that money instead for transportation. The penalties get more severe as
time goes on. Ultimately, if a title I school fails to make adequate
progress for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over by the State or the
entire staff can be fired and replaced.

[[Page S11210]]

These are serious penalties, Mr. President, and I support them. I
believe it is high time we held schools accountable for their
performance, but I also believe if we are going to threaten schools
with penalties--and these are severe penalties--we have a
responsibility to provide those schools with the resources they need to
improve.
Senator Kennedy and President Bush agreed on what those resources
would be when they negotiated the No Child Left Behind Act. Senator
Kennedy and President Bush agreed that title I should be funded at
$18.5 billion in fiscal year 2004 and Congress voted overwhelmingly to
endorse that figure when it passed the law.
When President Bush signed that law a few weeks later, he said:

We are going to spend more money, more resources, but they
will be directed at methods that work.

But this appropriations bill which mirrors the President's budget
request falls more than $6 billion short.
Let me take just a moment to explain what schools could do with that
$6 billion. The amendment I am offering would provide enough funding to
hire more than 100,000 highly qualified teachers for the students who
are most at risk of being left behind. That means over 2 million
disadvantaged students would be taught in smaller classes, and they
would receive the full range of instructional services called for under
the No Child Left Behind Act.
It is no wonder students and teachers across the country are
clamoring for this funding. In West Virginia, the Department of
Education announced this summer that 326 of the State's 728 schools
failed to make adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind
Act. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State.
In many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to
make adequate progress. So I ask my fellow Senators: Where is the money
going to come from to help these schools improve? State governments are
facing a fiscal crisis. So State governments are not in a position to
respond to the needs. Where will the schools turn? State governments
are in no position to make up a funding shortfall from the Federal
Government. Yet this appropriations bill underfunds title I by more
than $6 billion.
This bill is a betrayal of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is unfair
to all the people in this country who are working so hard to implement
it. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable.
They want every child to succeed. They are holding up their end of the
bargain.

Where is the President? What happened to his commitment to education?
I will tell you what happened. Once the President signed the No Child
Left Behind Act and the cameras stopped rolling and the sound bites
faded away, the President walked away from the job of funding
education.
Sadly, we have seen this picture before. This January in his State of
the Union Address, President Bush announced a 5-year, $15 billion
global AIDS initiative. Later he signed a law promising to fund that
initiative at $3 billion a year. Then this summer, he went to Africa
and promised to do all in his power to make sure Congress fully
financed that law. But when it came time to put the money behind that
promise, where was the President? The President fell short. And he is
doing the same thing with education.
The Congress is being asked to provide billions of dollars for the
reconstruction of Iraq--the Appropriations Committee, I hope, will
conduct hearings on that request--for what we are told is Saddam
Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs, including
schools. So the President wants money for Iraq. He wants to make up for
Saddam Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs,
including schools.
Mr. President, if the United States Government is to address
infrastructure needs in Iraq, why can we not find the money to support
our own domestic education system in the form of funding the No Child
Left Behind Act? Where are our priorities? I voted for the No Child
Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law, but schools need
more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind.
I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word
to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. So let us,
Mr. President, keep our word.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from West Virginia be kind enough to
yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from West Virginia was here at the time we
had the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act and remembers it very
clearly. I remember one of the finest education talks I have heard in
the Senate was where the good Senator from West Virginia reviewed for
the Members of the Senate his personal experience--it was shared by a
few others--in terms of the value of education as a young person when
he was growing up in the State of West Virginia. As he remembers the
debate on the No Child Left Behind Act and the debate we had the year
before when we were looking at the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, there was a general recognition in this
body that just providing resources without reform was not meeting our
responsibility to the children of this country. But if we were going to
have reform, we were going to have to have resources.
As I remember the discussions we had with the President of the United
States on this point, this was a simple concept, but a rather basic
concept, one which gathered broad bipartisan support and was the
keystone of the whole No Child Left Behind Act. I am wondering if the
Senator remembers at least that general debate and discussion in which
this body said, OK, we have not been able to use the resources we have
used in looking at title I and elementary and secondary as effectively
as we would like to, but we are strongly committed toward reforming our
educational system because education is so important to the future of
our country, and that was a debate that took place, that resulted in No
Child Left Behind, and it is to that issue that the Senator from West
Virginia is addressing the Senate, as I hear him this afternoon; that
we have put in place the reforms but what is not there are the
resources to give life to the reforms. This is what is at the heart of
the Senator's amendment, as I understand it and as I interpret it. Am I
correct?

Mr. BYRD. Yes. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who has
been a leader in this field, and who is a leader in this field,
remembers very clearly and accurately the purposes and the debate on
the No Child Left Behind Act.
I have never wanted to just throw money at anything. I never felt
that just throwing money at education was going to educate our
students, but I have been in favor of the reforms that are in this act.
I believe we ought to do everything we possibly can to utilize those
reforms, to put them into effect, enforce them, and at the same time
have the money available to these schools so the reforms can be made,
will be made, and will be enforced. They are pretty tough reforms.
As I indicated in my remarks, we have an obligation to provide the
monies to those schools. When I was going to school, I started out in a
little two-room schoolhouse in Algonquin, WV, in the southern part of
West Virginia. I entered school long about 1923. Of course, we did not
have Federal aid to education then. We had good teachers, although they
were not paid a lot. During the Depression, many of them had to take a
reduction on their paychecks to get those checks cashed, but we had
teachers who cared. I had foster parents who cared. Our schools were
not much, but we studied hard and we tried to make a better life for
ourselves and our parents. So I know something about the disadvantaged
children and disadvantaged schools. I came through that Depression. I
am proud to say I was alive in that Great Depression. I am proud to say
I lived through it because it taught me a lot of lessons. It taught me
the worth of an education.
Benjamin Disraeli, who was Prime Minister of Great Britain, said in
the House of Commons in 1874--the reason I remember the date easily is
it was the year before my foster father, Titus Dalton Byrd, was born.
So it was 1874. Benjamin Disraeli said: Upon the education of the
people of this country the fate of this country depends.
I think the Senator will join me in saying we ascribe to that; that
upon the education of the people of our

[[Page S11211]]

country the fate of this country depends. So this is a vote to improve
the education of disadvantaged children. It is a vote to keep our word
that we gave when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.
I congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts. I said he has been a
leader. I said he is a leader and he was a leader on this bill. He
spoke with President Bush and he worked this approach out with
President Bush. I congratulate him for it, but we have to do what we
can to live up to it, and that is what we are doing here.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate what the good Senator has said in his
comments. These figures might get complex for people who are watching
this debate. Basically, the No Child Left Behind Act said, No. 1, we
are going to let the States develop their own curriculums.
No. 2, we are going to have well-trained teachers who are going to
learn that curriculum and be able to teach the students.
No. 3, we are going to have smaller class sizes so a well-trained
teacher in the classroom is going to be able to interact with the
students in those classrooms.
No. 4, we are going to find out how much those children learn over
the course of the year by giving them not just robot tests and
situations where teachers teach to the test but really inquire about
what these children are learning in the classroom.
No. 5, we are going to have supplementary services to help those
children if they fall behind so they will be able to keep up. That is
effectively what we were looking at in the No Child Left Behind
proposal.
We demanded accountability, as the Senator remembers. We demanded
accountability from parents because we gave parents the report cards
not only about how the children were doing but how their school was
doing. We gave accountability to the teachers that they were going to
have to upgrade their skills in the courses they were going to have to
teach. We gave accountability to the school systems that unless the
school systems were going to perform, if they were going to effectively
abandon their children or not perform for their children, that they
would effectively be taken over by the State. And we were going to
insist on a good quality education.
Does the Senator, in his comments today, agree with me that we are
getting accountability with the students who are working in America and
the teachers who are trying hard and those in local communities who are
trying to get the small classes, but we do not have the accountability
by the President of the United States and the administration providing
the resources to let them do it and that the amendment of the Senator
from West Virginia would meet our accountability and our commitment
when we voted on behalf of that bill?
Would the Senator agree that is effectively what we are trying to do?
That is the way I read the Senator's amendment.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator reads it as I intended it to be read and as
other Senators who are cosponsoring this amendment intended likewise.
There is no question about the fact that we were trying to give our
children smaller classrooms. The Senator might know--of course he would
not know how many students were in my graduating class. I was
valedictorian of that class in 1934. If there had been one more student
in that class, I might not have been valedictorian. There were 28
graduates. What a large class. But it was not by virtue of the kind of
legislation that we have been supporting. That was the number of
students in those southern Virginia coalfields.
We had good teachers. They were not paid a good deal, but we knew the
worth of a good teacher. They were dedicated. What we are trying to do
today is give our children smaller class sizes so they will get from
the teachers the kind of attention they need. We are trying to give
them good teachers. We are holding the teachers to high standards,
also.
Yes, I am somewhat amazed and offended by the fact that our President
is wanting $87 billion now for Iraq. That is $87 billion for Iraq. That
is not counting the $69 billion the Congress has already appropriated,
no questions asked, by the way, for Iraq, making a total of $166
billion for Iraq. So we are going to be asked to consider a
supplemental for Iraq.

I am going to consider that. But why not consider more moneys for our
own students, for our own teachers, for our own schools? That is what
we are trying to do here. We are trying to live up to the word the
President and Senator Kennedy and I and others in Congress gave to the
American people, to the students of our country, and to the parents,
and to the teachers.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to just bring to the attention of the Senator
from West Virginia the results of the scores that are taken in my own
State of Massachusetts, which really began this effort, which is very
similar to what I have just outlined here, 5 years ago.
Let me just read the front page on September 4, 2003 of the Boston
Globe:

Scores show broad gains on MCAS test.

That is the statewide standard test, which is basically equivalent to
what we call the NAEP test. Let me read this.

Curriculum reform, better teachers, smaller class size, afterschool
programs--this is just what has happened in one State, I say to Senator
Byrd. These were the same things we were committed to for every State
in the country, to see this kind of progress.
We have not solved all the problems. We still have many others. I
will not take the time of the Senate to review all of the different
categories, the ethnicity, the student status, all the different
categories. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Scores Show Broad Gains on MCAS

(By Anand Vaishnav)

More Massachusetts high school students passed the MCAS
graduation test on their first attempt this year, as scores
climbed in nearly every grade, every subject, and every
racial group, statewide results released yesterday show.
About 75 percent of the class of 2005, or about 52,000
students, passed both the English and math portions of the
10th-grade test on their first try this spring. That is
significantly better than the 69 percent of students in the
class of 2004 and the 68 percent of students in the class of
2003 who passed the first time they took it.
Jubilant state officials hailed the scores at a State House
news conference yesterday as ``extremely impressive'' proof
that Massachusetts' 10-year effort to improve public schools
is bearing fruit. But they acknowledged that a racial
achievement gap persists, with more than half of Latino
students and almost half of African-American students failing
one or both of the 10th-grade tests.
``There have not been wholesale brain transplants. There
has not been an increase in the IQ of the citizenry of
Massachusetts,'' Governor Mitt Romney said. ``Instead, our
education system is doing a better job with our kids.''
About 527,000 students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10
took one or more sections of the MCAS in April and May, in
English, math, or science.
The results were particularly encouraging for 10th-graders,
members of the class of 2005, who were in first grade when
the 1993 Education Reform Act, which introduced the tests,
became law. About 80 percent passed the math test on their
first attempt, and 89 percent passed English.
Scores also improved for students with disabilities and
those with limited English skills--two groups that have
struggled with the exam since it became a graduation
requirement with the class of 2003. About 46 percent of
disabled students passed the 10th-grade test after just one
round, up from 32 percent of limited-English students passed,
double the 17 percent who passed a year ago. The jump came
despite new federal and state laws allowing few students with
a native language other than English to skip the test.
To some observers, the signs were clear that 10 years of
efforts on education, from billions of dollars in new funding
to the first statewide curriculum standards, were paying off.
Massachusetts has recorded parallel gains on national tests
such as the SAT and the National Assessment of Educational
Progress.
``All signs are that education reform is taking root, and
this is part of the harvest,''

[[Page S11212]]

said Andrew Effrat, dean of the School of Education at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Still, Effrat said, the battle is not over, calling the
failure rates for minority students significant.
For example, 84 percent of white 10th-graders passed MCAS
on their first try, compared with 44 percent of Latinos and
52 percent of blacks.
Last year, a group of student in the class of 2003 sued the
state, saying the Board of Education had exceeded its
authority in enacting a graduation requirement and that
schools had not prepared them for it.
Students in 10th grade can take the test five times before
graduation, but they must pass MCAS and all of their classes
to earn a diploma. Individual school and district scores will
be released in about two weeks along with retest scores from
the class of 2003 and 2004 that will show how many students
still must pass before earning their diploma.
MCAS opponents yesterday questioned how the gains could
last as schools facing significant budget cuts this year have
laid off teachers, boosted class sizes, and slashed supplies.
In addition, the Legislature sliced the $53 million in state
money for MCAS tutoring to $10 million this year, and a
Romney spokeswoman said she could not say whether the
governor will include more money for MCAS help in his
forthcoming supplemental budget.
Some MCAS critics attributed the gains to a relentless
focus on test preparation in schools and the practice of
holding back ninth-graders who are not prepared for the exam,
and who may later drop out.
``Clearly, test preparation makes test scores go up, and
other things contribute, like attrition, which has been a
consistent theme and not so much paid attention to'' by the
Department of Education, said Lisa Guisbond, a statewide
coordinator for the Massachusetts Coalition for Authentic
Reform in Education, which opposes the MCAS graduation
requirement. ``These are things that continue to be
troubling.''
However, Massachusetts commissioner of education, David P.
Driscoll, and the state Board of Education chairman, James A.
Peyser, pointed to higher scores for black and Latino teens
as evidence of a ``dramatic breakthrough'' in the achievement
gap. In 2001, 77 percent of white 10th graders passed MCAS on
their first try, compared with 29-percent of Latinos and 37
percent of blacks.
Left unanswered yesterday were questions about a steep drop
in the number of black test-takers. State education officials
said they will need to study why only 3,530 black 10th-
graders took the test this spring, down from 4,587 last year.
The number of white test-takers also dropped, from 49,866 to
44,131. One possible explanation is that fewer students
specified their race this year, state officials said.
It could also stem from an increase in the number of
students dropping out, leaving Massachusetts, or repeating
ninth grade.
First administered in 1998, the MCAS test has sparked
rallies, protests, and a campaign for a statewide ballot
question to get rid of the graduation requirement.
Guisbond also questioned whether changes in scoring could
have inflated results. This year, 10th-graders needed 19 out
of 60 points on the math test to pass, down from 20 out of 60
last year, state officials said. On the English test, they
needed 38 out of 72 points to pass, down from 41 out of 72.
Jeff Nellhaus, associate commissioner for students
assessment, said the Department of Education lowered the
number of points needed to pass because a statistical
analysis of the exam showed that it had harder questions than
the year before.
School districts received their students' scores last month
and are just now analyzing the results. Tyshawanna
Richardson, a junior at the Codman Academy Charter School in
Dorchester, passed English but not math. Twenty-five
sophomores at the school took the exam--all passed English,
and about two-thirds passed the math section.
``I plan on going over whatever I didn't get, to understand
it so this time I can pass,'' said Richardson, 16, of
Mattapan. ``It wasn't that hard.''

Mr. KENNEDY. But I want to ask the Senator this last question. In the
Budget Act, the budget for fiscal year 2002, the conference report--
this is what bothers me. We have seen the increase in the education
budget going from 1997 to 2001 up to 13 percent, to 2002, to 16
percent. That is when Democrats and Republicans worked with the
President to try to begin the downpayment on this effort. This is when
we had the bipartisan agreement.
Then the next year, as the Senator has pointed out, after the
television lights had faded and the crowd had disappeared, we have in
the budget, with the Republicans in charge:

For the years beyond 2002, this report assumes the 2000
discretionary function level grows by inflation.

It grows by inflation. Therefore, under the Republicans, it was going
to be zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. That is what was in the Republican
budget. After we passed the bill and we saw the bill increase, this is
what they were saying.
Many of us were saying that might have been, but we will hope for the
next year from the President of the United States, who specifically
negotiated those increases--we thought: That's a mistake--we will find
something different. But instead what we have effectively found, as
this chart here indicates, under the Bush budget, it leaves millions of
children behind. We are going to be leaving 6.2 million children
behind; 5.89 in 2005; 5.8 million in 2006; 2007, more than 5 million; 5
million; 5 million. Effectively, under the Byrd proposal, if we
continued that progress we achieve what the No Child Left Behind
committed us to, and that was we were going to have, at the end of 12
years, proficiency in the public schools for the disadvantaged children
of this country. That is what the Byrd amendment puts us on a pathway
to. That is why it is so important, so essential.
If the Senator would permit me one more moment? We attended the Armed
Services Committee meeting earlier today. Does the Senator not agree
with me the investment in education is essential if we are going to
have the best fighting men and women in the world; that investing in
education is essential if we are going to have the strongest economy in
the world; and that investing in education is absolutely necessary if
we are going to be able to preserve democratic institutions in the
greatest country of the world? That this is the core value?
Parents understand that. You and I understand it. Senator Harkin and
Senator Murray understand that. That is what the amendment of the
Senator from West Virginia commits us to here, at a time when we are
being requested $87 billion, to say we can have a downpayment of $6
billion for the children of this country.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no question about it. I want to
thank the distinguished Senator for his work in this field. I want to
thank him for his work on the Armed Services Committee. And I want to
thank him for his leadership in making laws that will better prepare
our young people for the future, for what lies ahead of them. Of
course, we need better educated people in our Armed Forces. Of course,
we have to have better educated people if we are going to keep this
country as the superpower of the world.
I want to thank him for what he has done in this respect. I know he
must feel very proud of the record that has been established by his
schools up there, to which he referred a little while ago. Those
performances were in English and math. They are not easy subjects, as I
recall--not the easiest. But there is no subject matter that is more
important than that of English, grammar, mathematics. He must feel
justly proud of the performance those schools have made, that has been
made possible, to a considerable extent, by his work on this
legislation. So I thank him for his contribution here to our debate
today also.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. BYRD.

I took a piece of plastic clay
And idly fashioned it one day,
And as my fingers pressed it still,
It moved and yielded to my will.

I came again when days were past--
The bit of clay was hard at last;
The form I gave it, it still bore,
But I could change that form no more.

I took a piece of living clay
And gently formed it day by day,
And moulded with my power and art
A young child's soft and yielding heart.

I came again when years were gone--
It was a man I looked upon;
He still that early impress wore,
And I could change him nevermore.

That is what we are talking about. That little piece of clay. That
little piece of clay.
Just a closing thought about our teachers:

A builder builded a temple,
He wrought it with grace and skill;
Pillars and groins and arches
All fashioned to work his will.

Men said, as they saw its beauty,
``It shall never know decay;
Great is thy skill, O Builder!
Thy fame shall endure for aye.''

A teacher builded a temple
With loving and infinite care,
Planning each arch with patience,
Laying each stone with prayer.

None praised her unceasing efforts,
None knew of her wondrous plan,
For the temple the teacher builded
Was unseen by the eyes of man.

Gone is the Builder's temple,

[[Page S11153]]

Crumpled into the dust;
Low lies each stately pillar,
Food for consuming rust.

But the temple the teacher builded
Will last while the ages roll,
For that beautiful unseen temple
Was a child's immortal soul.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be
added as cosponsors to the amendment I have offered: Senators Harkin,
Dodd, Dorgan, Kohl, Bingaman, Lieberman, Dayton, Pryor, Corzine,
Mikulski, Schumer, Kennedy, Johnson, Edwards, Murray, Rockefeller,
Lautenberg, Lincoln--the first name of the Senator who graces the chair
and presides over this August body at this moment, with a degree of
dignity and skill that is so rare as a day in June-- Leahy, Graham,
Kerry, Levin, Clinton, Jeffords, Reed, Sarbanes, Cantwell, Landrieu,
Stabenow, and Durbin.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to
speak about the amendment offered by Senator Harkin, and I will do so
in just a minute. But first I want to congratulate Senator Byrd for his
tremendous work on education and thank him for his extremely strong
voice in this area.
I know many students are starting school this week. Many young people
are just starting out in kindergarten across the country this year.
They will be grateful for Senator Byrd and his strong support of
education. But so will the many students who have traveled to school
while he has been here in the Senate advocating for them. I thank him
for his work on their behalf over the many years. For all the young
people out there who benefited from his wisdom and support but also,
very importantly, for the teachers who will benefit as well, I thank my
colleague from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray.

AMENDMENT NO. 1580

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to speak in
strong support not only of Senator Byrd's amendment but also of the
amendment offered by Senator Harkin. The amendment Senator Harkin has
offered is extremely critical in today's world. It is offered in order
to protect hard-working Americans such as our police, firefighters, and
our nurses who rely today on overtime pay.
It is unbelievable to me that today as families struggle in this
extremely difficult economy, the Bush administration wants to cut
overtime pay for millions of Americans who depend on it just to make
ends meet at home.
My colleagues have been in the Chamber discussing the Bush
administration's proposed changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act which
sets the rules regarding overtime pay in this country. According to the
Economic Policy Institute, those changes are going to mean a pay cut
for up to 10 million working families. These proposed changes will mean
a pay cut for up to 10 million working Americans. These families are
working really hard today. They are playing by the rules. They are
trying to make ends meet. And this administration is squeezing them
once again. To me that is unacceptable. That is why the Harkin
amendment is so important today.
The question I have is this: Haven't American workers been punished
enough by this President's economic policies? Not only have we seen
millions of Americans lose their pensions but we have seen massive tax
cuts for the few while everyone else struggles just to get by.
In my home State of Washington alone, we have lost more than 73,000
good-paying jobs since this administration came into office. My State
unemployment rate is now the third highest in the Nation at 7.5
percent. In fact, just recently one of our business columnists
suggested that the actual unemployment rate for Western States could be
as high as 11.8 percent, if you count all of our unemployed workers.

Here we are with so many people out of work and so many people
struggling to keep their jobs. Now this administration wants to force a
pay cut on those people who are working overtime for their employers
and are just trying to make ends meet. I don't think we should forget
that these workers are now often the only breadwinners in their family.
This change will hurt up to 10 million hard-working Americans. I come
to the floor today to talk about some of the real people who are going
to be squeezed by this amendment.
Right now, our firefighters, our policemen, and our EMTs are working
very hard on the front lines on homeland security. They have gone above
and beyond the call of duty, often with inadequate training and often
with inadequate equipment. But they are doing it to protect us in this
dangerous age. Today, many of them are working overtime in order to do
that.
Now the Bush administration is telling our firefighters, our
policemen, and our EMTs that they don't deserve overtime pay for the
extra work they do. I find that very insulting. We know it will hurt
their ability to provide for their families who every day watch these
men and women go off to work and hope they return safely at the end of
the day. Even worse, it really violates the great trust we place in
this country on our first responders.
The International Union of Police Associations has estimated that
200,000 midlevel police officers will lose $150 million in overtime pay
if these new regulations are implemented. I believe our firefighters,
our policemen, and our EMTs deserve overtime pay for their overtime
work. The Bush administration is trying to squeeze them, and that is
wrong.
Let me give you another example of whom this change will hurt. In
communities across the country we have a shortage of nurses. I hear it
from everyone who comes into our office. It is really causing hardship
everywhere. These nurses are working really hard. They are providing
care under extremely difficult conditions. Now the Bush administration
is going to prevent more than 230,000 licensed practical nurses from
getting overtime pay. They work hard for it. Frankly, in my view, they
deserve every penny they get.
When I first heard about this disturbing proposal, I joined with my
colleagues to tell the Bush administration they are on the wrong track.
As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and
Training, I was proud to join with Senator Kennedy and 40 other
Senators in sending a letter to Secretary of Labor Chao. We asked her
not to implement the proposed regulation that would deny overtime pay
to hard-working Americans.
In our letter, we asked the Secretary to consider millions of workers
who depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay for things such
as food, childcare, housing, health care, and sending their kids to
college--what every family wants today. We know overtime pay also makes
up to 20 to 25 percent of an eligible worker's wages. But it seems this
administration would rather provide tax cuts for the rich--that is
where their priorities are--while cutting the pay of working Americans
who most often live paycheck to paycheck.
During this debate, we heard some dubious arguments from the other
side. We heard that we need to update the Fair Labor Standards Act
because it was passed back in 1938. But what they haven't told us is
that Congress has updated that act in fact eight times.
In 1985, Congress reviewed the law and extended it to State and local
governments, leaving in place the current overtime exemptions.
Furthermore, the Bush administration is taking some unprecedented
steps. Never before has the legislative branch authorized changes in
the overtime rule. Never before has Congress directed the Department of
Labor to take overtime pay away from millions of American workers.
You have to wonder, why the urgent need now to gut these time-tested
worker protections? Could it be that the Bush administration and its
business allies want to reduce the amount they pay in wages? Maybe it
is because employers know in this very tough economy employees will
just go along and accept the loss of overtime because they are so
afraid they will be laid off. I will leave it to others to answer those
questions.

The Senate should not support this coercive antiworker proposal. It
will drain the wallets of millions of Americans who are working hard
today to put food on the table. This proposal from the White House, in
my opinion,

[[Page S11214]]

is just another slap to working Americans. We need to stop it in the
Senate.
I commend the Senator from Iowa for offering this critical amendment.
Senator Harkin has always been a great friend to working Americans, and
today those Americans need this Harkin amendment to protect them from
this administration's designs.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for our firefighters, stand up for
our police, stand up for our EMTs, stand up for our nurses who work
every day for Americans. Stop this proposed pay cut for American
workers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, Senator
Murray, for speaking on the overtime amendment offered by Senator
Harkin, and Senator Robert Byrd for speaking on his amendment involving
funding the President's mandate, the No Child Left Behind legislation.
I address both of those issues for a moment.
First, I say to the Senator from Washington, what she has outlined in
her State can be repeated in virtually every State across America. For
the last several years, we have seen a loss of jobs in America
virtually unprecedented in recent history. In fact, you have to go back
so far as President Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to find a
time when America has lost as many jobs as we have lost since President
Bush took office. Remember, in the preceding 8 years we created 22
million new jobs in America, but since President George W. Bush has
taken office we have lost almost 3 million jobs. This is a modern
record, a sad record felt in every State, my own included.
I have also been told that some 90 percent of the jobs we have lost
have been manufacturing jobs, jobs which have been lost to Third World
countries, countries such as China, that have taken away the
manufacturing jobs that used to be the bread and butter for the
communities of America. They are leaving in droves. Since President
Bush took office we have lost 120,000 manufacturing jobs in Illinois.
In the last 5 years, we have lost one out of every five manufacturing
jobs, and there is no end in sight.
I held a press bipartisan conference today with some of my colleagues
who decried the current situation in China where they are sucking away
all of our jobs because of currency manipulation. The point is that
will be addressed in another bill.

In this bill, we have to be concerned not with the exodus of American
jobs to Third World countries but the immigration of Third World labor
standards into the United States. The Bush administration, through the
Department of Labor, is establishing a standard which says that some 8
to 10 million workers in America will no longer qualify for overtime
pay. Those included in that group, as we have heard from my colleagues
on the floor, are firefighters, nurses, many who have important jobs in
communities related to health and safety. The Bush administration has
said they will not be entitled to overtime in the future.
Those with a sense of history can remember from our history courses
and our readings how many lives were lost in America in the
establishment of the labor movement to fight for one particular thing:
the 40-hour workweek. This was, frankly, one of the most contentious
issues. We finally said, as a matter of law in America, businesses
could only work their employees 40 hours a week or they would have to
pay time and a half for the extra time. That was a bitter battle that
went on for decades with a lot of bloodshed and lives lost because of
social upheaval as workers across America spoke out for their rights.
But eventually it was established. The 40-hour workweek in America
became a sacred precept, not just in collective bargaining contracts
but as well in legislation, to apply to everyone. The understanding was
that beyond 40 hours you would have to pay extra.
What is the basis for it? Certainly so the workers' rights would be
respected. It would lessen exploitation. It would say to the employer,
if you are going to work someone beyond 40 hours, that certainly is a
physical impediment, one that could be a hardship, as well as a family
hardship, and you should pay more for it.
Now comes the Bush administration saying it is family friendly and
eliminating the right to overtime pay for 8 to 10 million Americans. It
could not come at a worse time. It could not be a worse idea.
Senator Harkin of Iowa offers an amendment which my friends on the
other side of the aisle are afraid we will call for a vote on, an
amendment that says we will not allow the Department of Labor to go
forward with this bad idea.
I totally support the Harkin amendment. We need to protect the rights
of workers in America today, rights that have been fought for decades,
over a century of effort by men and women to bring dignity to the
workplaces under assault because of this proposal from the Bush
administration.
Let me say a word about the Byrd amendment before the Senate. Senator
Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia has offered an amendment which
basically says to the President: Keep your word. Keep your word.
When this President came to office as the education president, he
said: I am going to bring Democrats and Republicans together. He turned
to my friend and colleague behind me, Senator Kennedy, and said: Join
me in passing the No Child Left Behind legislation. Let's do it right.
Let's do it in a bipartisan fashion.
Senator Kennedy joined him, as did Congressman George Miller of
California, in a bipartisan effort, supported by many, including
myself. No Child Left Behind demanded accountability in schools but
said if the children are having a tough time passing the test, we want
to provide extra resources to school districts across America so the
test scores will improve.

Resources for title I is a program where school districts directly
help students and their families, students who are falling behind. The
amount that was to be authorized for this was spelled out in law,
written down and approved by the President, signed into law, and No
Child Left Behind went into effect.
Across America, public schools are bound by the requirements and
mandates of No Child Left Behind. But, unfortunately, when it came to
President Bush's budget, he failed to appropriate the funds necessary
to pay for this mandate. So the mandate goes unfunded at the local
level.
I don't know about the States of my colleagues but I can speak about
Illinois. We are in a terrible fiscal crisis. We had to cut $5 billion
in State funds this year--a very difficult thing to do--and our schools
have suffered in the process. For us now to say that this Federal
mandate of No Child Left Behind is not going to be funded as President
Bush promised means that the President is not keeping his word to the
schoolchildren and families of America.
Senator Byrd's amendment says to the President: Keep your word. Find
the $6 billion you promised to send to these school districts.
I happen to think Senator Byrd is right. I am happy to be a cosponsor
of his amendment. We cannot at this point in time establish new
mandates and new responsibilities on school districts across America
struggling to survive and not provide the resources.
In my home State of Illinois, almost half of the school districts are
now in desperate financial straits. In the city of Elgin, IL, a growth
area in my State, they appropriated funds 2 years ago to build four new
schools that were to be open this fall when school opened. Sadly, the
Elgin School District does not have the resources to open the schools.
They cannot afford the teachers. They cannot afford the overhead costs.
The four brandnew school buildings sit vacant, an indication of how
difficult it is to fund education at the local level in the midst of a
recession, in the midst of a situation when State budgets are
struggling to find balance.
That is a compelling argument for us to keep our word, to make
certain that school districts across America have the money to help the
kids improve their test scores, improve their education, become better
readers, understand math and science, and improve as students. Unless
and until we do that, we have no business mandating on these school
districts that they have to start transporting students across school
district lines and all of the other penalties associated with No Child
Left Behind.

[[Page S11215]]

Let's pass the Byrd amendment. Let's keep our word to the
schoolchildren across America, even if the Bush budget does not.
The last point I make is an amendment which I plan to offer at the
first opportunity. Again, it relates to a promise made by President
Bush. I was at the State of the Union Message, as most Members of the
Senate attended, just a few months back. I listened carefully as the
President made a pledge on behalf of the people of the United States.
It was historic in terms of its commitment. The President said: We in
the United States would lead the world in battling the global AIDS
epidemic. President Bush said to standing, thunderous ovation from both
sides of the aisle that he was pledging $15 billion a year over the
next 5 years to fight the scourge of HIV and AIDS around the world. It
was the right thing to do. The President was showing the leadership,
which we expect of him, and leadership which makes all of us proud as
Americans. Frankly, most of us believed at that point the deal was cut,
that from that point forward no questions would be asked.

Now look at the bill before us and what do you find? Do you find that
the $15 billion over 5 years results in $3 billion in spending in the
next year, as one might expect? No. Scarcely $2 billion will be
available--$2 billion to meet a $3 billion commitment.
There have been many serious casualties in Iraq. We have lost many
lives. Many of our service men and women have been injured. But now we
are dealing with the other Iraqi casualties--funding for our schools,
funding for the global AIDS epidemic.
The President again must be held to the standard that he set, the
standard of American leadership around the world in dealing with the
global AIDS epidemic. I certainly hope my colleagues, many of whom
voted for the resolution offered by Jeff Bingaman, the Senator from New
Mexico, a few weeks ago--I think there were over 80 votes in favor of
it, and we said we should put $3 billion in the budget this year for
the global AIDS epidemic. I hope they will support my amendment which I
hope I can offer later today or the first thing tomorrow, because in
that amendment we will be able to keep our word.
Recently, in the Chicago Tribune, there was an editorial. This
editorial suggested that this is a key floor vote on whether we are
going to implement President Bush's bold $15 billion 5-year plan to
fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. The Tribune went on to say:

The vote will go a long way toward determining if the U.S.
will keep its promise to lead the world in the fight against
AIDS.
That noble pledge seems to be wilting under the heat of
other budget pressures. Bush has lobbied Congress for no more
than $2 billion for the first year. The Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria would be particularly hard-hit
by the reduced commitment.

They go on to say, my colleague from Illinois, Representative Henry
Hyde, in the House:

. . . secured approval for legislation specifying that $2
billion, plus an additional $1 billion for the Global Fund,
would be disbursed each year, rather than ``backloading'' the
money into later years.

Make no mistake, the AIDS epidemic is upon us. Every year we delay,
every dollar we delay will increase the number of deaths and hardships
and orphans created by this terrible disease. We have an opportunity to
do something significant in terms of the global AIDS epidemic, in terms
of our Nation's commitment, in terms of what President Bush has said he
would do as our leader in this country. But we need to follow through.
Let's not look for excuses. Let's, instead, look for the opportunity to
lead, which is before us today.
I encourage my colleagues to join on these three amendments by
supporting Tom Harkin to stop the overtime pay change, which the Bush
administration is pushing; secondly, to support Senator Robert Byrd,
who has said the President must keep his word to fund the mandate which
he has sent to public schools across America; and again, in my
amendment, to offer the $3 billion to a world desperately in need of
our help to deal with the global AIDS epidemic.
We can do this. We can keep our word. We can show the leadership that
the President has promised.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will speak briefly about my higher
education amendment, which I offer with my friend and colleague,
Senator Collins, from the State of Maine.
It is our hope that we might be able to vote on the Byrd amendment
and the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and this amendment
later this evening. I do want to take a few moments, once again, to
review the importance of adding the $2.2 billion to make sure the Pell
Grant Program will continue to be alive and well.
Very quickly, the issue of availability of college for young people
on the basis of their talent and educational achievement goes back to
the 1960 campaign. That was a prime issue in that campaign: whether we,
as a matter of national policy, were going to say to any young person
in America, that if they had the ability to get admitted to any of our
fine universities across this country, the size of their pocketbook or
wallet would not limit them in terms of attending any of the great
public or private universities, that they would be able to put through
a package which would include grant programs, some loan programs,
perhaps some work-study programs, perhaps a summer job program, and
whatever else they might bring to the table, but at least it was going
to be available.
There was going to be help and support for any young person in
America. And any young person who was to take advantage of it was not
going to have to mortgage their future in terms of borrowing from banks
or from loan agencies. That was enormously important.
As a result of that, we have seen the opportunity for higher
education available to millions of Americans. It was not really much of
a surprise because we had seen the GI bill and then the cold war GI
bill that was made available to veterans who took advantage of it.
The GI bill, after World War II, opened up enormous opportunities for
new generations. Any careful review and study of that GI bill would
find that paid back into the Treasury $9 for every $1 that was invested
in students. It more than paid for itself just in terms of the bottom
line economics of it, let alone the opportunity it gave to millions of
young people. And then we had the cold war GI bill.
So this issue has been discussed and debated in this country as a
matter of national policy. But what we are seeing, in the very recent
times, is the sliding away from that fundamental commitment that says
young people, if they are able to meet the academic standards, would be
able to go to college.
In fact, I can remember a Secretary of Education, under a Republican
administration, testifying before the Education Committee and saying:
That is not what this Republican administration is really all about.
Any young person will go where they can afford to go. And it should not
be the Federal Government that is going to provide them with any of the
help and the assistance.
That was an absolute retreat on what I thought for a time was a
matter of a national kind of policy and priority. But, nonetheless, we
have had to have that battle every several years. We have to have that
battle on this Appropriations Committee because any careful reading of
this appropriations bill would reflect that this Republican bill does
effectively nothing to help families afford college. This has a zero
increase in individual Pell grants. It has a zero increase in campus-
based aid. It has a zero increase in the college work study. These are
programs to provide job opportunities in the schools, as well as the
Pell Grant Program.

If we look at the difference, the contrast between grants and loans,
we can look back over the recent history. This goes back to 1980, 1981,
where you will see that 55 percent of the education assistance was
actually in grants, and then about 42 or 43 percent were actually in
loans.
If you look at where we are now, in 2001, 2002, you will find 58
percent are loans and 41 percent are grants. This is a dramatic shift.
What this has meant is that great numbers of young people--estimates

[[Page S11216]]

are anywhere from 35 to 45 percent--who are attending higher education
are working 25 hours a week or more.
If you visit any of the campuses, you will find that the young
people, at the time there is a break in the instruction, are talking
about their jobs rather than talking about the books or their poems or
the ideas which they are taking from their classes.
What we have seen is enormous indebtedness that the young people have
experienced over this period of time, and this is for the average
student who is going to any of the schools. About 68 percent of any of
the young people who are attending schools or colleges get some
financial aid.
Four years ago, when they were graduating from any of the public and
private institutions across the country, the average was $27,000,
$28,000 a year in terms of debt. Now that has doubled effectively
because of the increase in the amounts the young people have to
borrow. That has increased dramatically with a number of the young
people who are going to graduate schools. And it is not infrequent that
those who are graduating from the graduate schools end up with debts of
$100,000 or $120,000.

This chart shows the shrinking buying power of the Pell grant. Going
back to the late 1970s, if you got a Pell grant, it was about 84
percent of the cost of your education, if you went to a public 4-year
institution. If you went to a private institution, it was still about
40 percent. Now we find it is 39 percent instead of 84 percent, if you
are going to a public 4-year institution. If you are going to a private
4-year institution, it is down to 15 percent.
One of the most dramatic factors is the median income for the Pell
grant recipients. It has gone from a little over $11,000 for family
income in 1989 to 1990, to the year 2000 where it is now $15,000. This
is the average income, 15,200 for 4.8 million young people who get the
Pell grant who go to college today. But these are individuals who have
the academic know-how and who have worked hard, come from humble
backgrounds, and have been able to excel academically and gain entrance
into some of our finest schools and colleges in the country. They are
demonstrating an extraordinary perseverance.
What we are saying with this amendment is that we are going to make
sure the Pell grant is going to continue its value in terms of young
people who are qualified for it. Under this particular amendment, it
will add $450 to the value of the Pell grant, which will mean 200,000
more children will be able to take advantage of the Pell grant in this
$15,000 range. These are young people of talent, commitment, and
conviction, who are hard working. This gives them the opportunity. That
is what this is about. If this amendment is not successful, there will
be over 100,000 Pell grant recipients, it is estimated, receiving the
Pell grant today who will lose it as a result of the increase in the
tuition that we have seen escalate over the past year.
I will not take the time to go over the increases, but every Member
of the Senate understands what has happened in terms of increases in
their States.
Finally, I draw the Senate's attention to the administration's policy
itself, talking about Pell grants. The bill provides $12.7 billion for
Pell grants, $538 billion less than the President's request for the
high priority program. We are asking for $2.2 billion in order to
provide for the Pell grant but also the TRIO programs, which are the
indispensable link for children who come from disadvantaged educational
circumstances but are gifted and talented, so they are able to gain
entrance into the schools, as well as the GEAR UP Program which has
been such a success.
We believe this is one of the most important amendments. If you care
about education, you will stand with Bob Byrd, with his increase in No
Child Left Behind. If you care about providing opportunities for the
sons and daughters of low- and middle-income families who have ability,
who have creativity, who have demonstrated their willingness for hard
work, you will vote for this amendment. This amendment makes sense. It
is an expression of a nation's priorities. I hope we will have a strong
vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will engage in a colloquy now to explain
a little bit about what has been going on today and yesterday and
outline what the plans will be for tonight and tomorrow. It will be
myself and Senator Daschle and the managers of the bill, to clarify our
general understanding.
First of all, last week tremendous progress was made on the bill. The
managers have done a superb job in taking what we all know is a large,
very important bill, a complicated bill, and systematically addressing
the amendments that Senators have brought to the floor. A particular
amendment, the Harkin amendment, has been the amendment talked about
today and over the last 3 days. And it is an amendment that people feel
very strongly about on both sides of the aisle.
In addition, both sides have looked at a whole range of amendments.
And the managers have been made aware of those amendments.
As is always the case, the list is very long. But after discussion
with the managers, it is clear that we have a manageable number of
amendments that can be addressed if we started right now, tonight, in
which case we would have to go very late tonight, tomorrow, and
tomorrow night and complete action on the bill.
What it would mean is going back, in essence, to regular order in the
sense of going back and voting shortly on four amendments, starting in
a few minutes, after which the general understanding is that we would
debate about six amendments tonight. Again, these are amendments which
have been presented. They have been talked about and discussed. They
would be debated tonight with the expectation that tomorrow morning we
would vote on those amendments that require a vote and that we would
vote on the Harkin amendment in the morning.
All of this is with the understanding that we would complete the bill
tomorrow night and that we would stay and complete the appropriations
bill as long as it takes tomorrow night, understanding that it is going
to be challenging, that we are going to have to stay right on the bill
and the amendments under discussion and stay focused in order to
complete that bill tomorrow night.
If that could be done--and it will be done, based on the agreement--
then it would be possible for us not to have rollcall votes on Thursday
or Friday. We have September 11 on Thursday. We will have services here
at the Capitol, and most of us will be participating in services either
in our districts or here. So it is a challenging day. But I also think
it is important for us to continue the normal business of the Senate on
September 11 around those services. We would have a legislative day on
Friday. In fact, we would be able to move to other business on Thursday
and on Friday. But when we finish the bill tomorrow night, it would be
with the understanding that we would address the amendments that I
mentioned tonight, the specifics of which we will talk about shortly,
and that we would finish the bill tomorrow night; that we would not
leave until we finish the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with what the majority leader
has just described as the current understanding. It is not our
intention to ask for unanimous consent. That is not necessary. We have
a number of amendments under regular order that can now be called up.
It is our hope that we could get at least through four of them, perhaps
more. It is also our expectation that we will have additional
amendments offered tonight with an understanding that those votes will
occur in a stacked sequence tomorrow morning, following the vote on the
overtime amendment.
I believe it is possible for us to finish our work tomorrow if we put
in a full day. We have lost a lot of time, unfortunately. But I think
we can make up for that lost time tomorrow, with the understanding that
Senators have to travel to their States, in many cases. We know of at
least eight Senators, those most affected by 9/11, who will want to be
in their States on Thursday.
I think it is important that we accommodate their understandable need
to be in the States they represent. To do that, we really, out of
necessity,

[[Page S11217]]

will have to try to finish tomorrow night. I think we can do that.
The managers on both sides have done a very good job of working
through the list of amendments we have, and we are prepared to vote on
a substantial number of amendments already. If we do that tomorrow,
with the assurances given by the majority leader--and there is also one
other assurance. It is my understanding from previous conversations
that we would be going to another appropriations bill as the next order
of business whenever we complete this one. I know there is the
outstanding question of when the so-called legislative veto of the FCC
rule will occur, but except for that, it is the understanding, I think,
on both sides, that we will stay on appropriations bills for the
foreseeable future.
Mr. President, it would be my hope that we could begin voting soon to
accommodate that schedule. I would like to work with the majority
leader to complete our work on time tomorrow night.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the two leaders are on the floor, I
have spoken with Senator Byrd. His amendment has been pending for a
long time. He indicated he is ready for a vote now. I wonder when the
two leaders wish to begin that first vote. It is on amendment No. 1543,
Senator Byrd's amendment. Can we do that?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I understand the regular order, that
would be the first amendment. With his cooperation, I see no reason
why, at least on our side, we couldn't begin the vote almost
immediately.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, before we call for the regular order,
again, a lot of what we are going over today, tonight, and tomorrow is
on good faith that we are going to finish this bill tomorrow night and
do everything within our power.
A lot of people say: Why don't you put it in writing; get a unanimous
consent agreement. We are not doing that because of this determination
and good-faith effort as we go forward.
Before going to the regular order, I ask the managers to make a
statement that they understand what the two leaders have said in terms
of completion of the bill; that we will start voting here shortly,
offering other amendments tonight, stacking votes in the morning,
having a full and productive day, and staying here as long tomorrow
afternoon or tomorrow night as it takes to complete the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader and the
Democratic leader for their statements. I am prepared to move ahead
with the vote on the Byrd amendment. We have Senator Durbin waiting to
offer an amendment.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. REID. To give people a little bit of notice, Senator Durbin is
going to be one of the four votes tonight. He is going to take 10, 15
minutes to offer his amendment, which is one of the four amendments
tonight. As soon as he does that, maybe we can start voting. He needs
15 minutes and the Senator from Pennsylvania needs time to speak in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that arrangement is satisfactory. I want
to be sure we do not go to the vote on Senator Byrd's amendment before
we give Senator Durbin a chance to offer his amendment with a brief
reply, if necessary, on this side.
I reiterate, perhaps supplement, what has been said that we are going
to be looking for at least six more amendments to debate tonight. We
will be discussing with the Members during the votes their intentions,
with an effort on all sides to pare down the list to the maximum extent
possible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the leader yield?
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding. I wish to express my
thanks to the majority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid,
Senator McConnell, and, of course, my appropriations leader, Senator
Specter, for helping to work this out. In good faith, we are going to
move ahead on this bill.
I concur with everything our majority leader has said. I believe we
can move ahead. I believe we can get these votes in tonight. We can
have debate on a number of amendments, and we can stack them for votes
in the morning. I see no reason why we cannot finish this bill tomorrow
night. I will make every effort to make sure that is accomplished.
Again, I want to make it clear, that after Senator Durbin offers his
amendment and makes his speech, we could then move to four amendments
we can vote on quite rapidly. That will be Senator Byrd's amendment on
title I, Senator Kennedy's amendment on Pell grants, Senator Dodd's
amendment on Head Start, and Senator Durbin's amendment on global AIDS.
For those Senators who may be watching in their offices right now and
their staffs, we are going to move ahead very aggressively on this
bill. We have a number of amendments people have contacted me about,
stating they want to offer them and on which they want a vote. If
Senators want to offer an amendment and get a vote on it, be here this
evening and offer that amendment and debate it. We will stack it in the
morning because after tomorrow morning, things are going to move pretty
rapidly. We know how things go.
I am saying: A word to the wise. If any Senator has an amendment and
wants to offer it and wants an up-or-down vote, I respectfully suggest
and hope they will come over this evening and offer that amendment so
we can vote on it in the morning.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, may I ask the majority and minority
leaders, who are in the Chamber, a question about another scheduling
item? I understand there is no unanimous consent request pending with
respect to this bill, and I understand the desire to finish this
appropriations bill. I am a member of the committee and know we have a
lot to do, so I am fully supportive of moving ahead and finishing this
bill.
As the leaders know, there is a privileged resolution on the calendar
dealing with the Federal Communications Commission rules and the
resolution of disapproval. I filed that with a discharge petition with
35 signatures. It is bipartisan. We will need time to have a Senate
vote on that. This is attendant to a 10-hour period for debate and then
a vote on the resolution of disapproval on the rules that the FCC has
now developed dealing with broadcast ownership.
These are very controversial. This is a very important issue. I have
spoken with both the majority and minority leaders previously about
this. I ask the majority and minority leaders if we can expect at some
point in the next day or so to set a time so the Senate will know when
we will vote on the resolution of disapproval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this is, in part, related to the Democratic
leader's request about order of business. The Dorgan issue will be
brought up at a mutually agreed time, and I think we will have an
opportunity to do that this week. Depending on how things go tonight
and tomorrow night, that means we have Thursday and Friday which, when
we complete the bill tomorrow night, the agreement is we will not be
voting Thursday or Friday. I think what we might well consider is doing
the Dorgan bill Thursday or Friday. Again, I am a little hesitant
because Thursday there is so much going on in terms of ceremonies,
although I know we will be in session Thursday afternoon--we will be in
session all day--but Thursday afternoon there is a block of time, or
Thursday night or Friday. I would like to move to another
appropriations bill on either Thursday or Friday. I think we can work
that out. We would probably vote Monday night, if that is a reasonable
time. We will have other votes Monday night because if we go to an
appropriations bill, likely we will have several votes Monday evening.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my intention to be cooperative, and
I want to finish the appropriations bill as well. I think we can work
in a way that gives the Senate an opportunity to know when the vote
will occur. We can find a way to do the debate and give us an
opportunity to weigh in on this issue.
Incidentally, it is the Dorgan-Lott proposal. It is bipartisan, with
many Members of the Senate from both sides

[[Page S11218]]

of the political aisle. What I hear correctly is we probably could get
some final arrangements for a vote next Monday evening. That makes
great sense to me. Then we can have the debate between now and that
period. I am only interested in nailing this down so Senators
understand exactly what will happen.
I thank the majority leader for his response.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed. Thus, I
ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Byrd amendment
No. 1543 occur at 5:50 this evening, with 15 minutes for Senator Durbin
and 5 minutes for Senator Specter, and that there be no amendment in
order to the amendment prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Amendment No. 1591 to Amendment No. 1542

Mr. DURBIN. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will offer an
amendment which I understand will be fourth in order for voting
tonight.
I rise today to offer an amendment to fulfill our pledge to the
millions of people around the world, in Africa in particular, who
suffer from HIV/AIDS.
AIDS is fast becoming the worst plague the world has ever endured.
Already, 25 million people have been killed by the disease. These
charts have been provided to us by the United Nations World Health
Organization. If we will look at these startling numbers, they indicate
the number of adults and children newly infected with HIV during the
year 2002: 3.5 million in sub-Saharan Africa; 700,000 in South and
Southeast Asia; 270,000 in East Asia; 150,000 in Latin America; 250,000
in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The numbers of newly infected
people last year are truly startling.
Take a look at those who are living with HIV/AIDS at the end of the
year 2002: 29.4 million in sub-Saharan Africa; 1.2 million in East
Asia; 6 million in South and Southeast Asia; 1.2 million in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia; almost a million in North America. The numbers
are startling.
Then, of course, the mortality tables really tell an equally sad
story. The estimated adult and child deaths from HIV/AIDS during the
year 2002: 2.4 million in Africa. I know what happens when these
numbers are read. Eyes glaze over, minds turn numb, and one thinks, I
cannot calculate all of these numbers.
If you had been there, as I and so many of my colleagues have been,
to meet with the families who are infected, who understand that they
have a death sentence from HIV/AIDS, families who show extraordinary
courage every single day getting up and doing their work, realizing
they will never be able to afford the medicine necessary to prolong
their life, families trying to keep it together with their children for
that last moment, realizing their time will soon come, you would never
ever forget it.
The statistics, as I said, may be something that numbs our mind but,
frankly, for those who seen it firsthand, as I have, they will never
forget it. As parents are dying, 14 million AIDS orphans have been left
without the care and support they need. Unless we act soon, there will
be 25 million AIDS orphans. Each year, the world loses a population
greater than the city of Chicago because of AIDS.
We know how to stop the deaths. In his State of the Union Address,
President Bush made a 5-year pledge of $15 billion to help millions of
AIDS sufferers in Africa and around the world in fighting the AIDS
epidemic. Listen to what he said:

We can turn our eyes away in resignation and despair, or we
can take decisive, historic action to turn the tide against
this disease and give hope of life to millions who need our
help.

Unfortunately, the President's solid and courageous rhetoric was not
backed up by his own budget request. His budget this year falls nearly
$1 billion short of the $3 billion for the coming year that is needed
to meet the 5-year $15 billion pledge.
Sadly, the President's shortchanging on AIDS will cost lives. The
additional $1 billion we seek to restore today will put 1 million
people on treatment and prevent 2.5 million new infections.
In July of this year, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a real
leader on this issue, asked us to enact a sense-of-the-Senate
resolution to tell the world, listening carefully to what we have to
say on this issue, what we believe. Senator Bingaman offered a very
courageous resolution, as follows:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress, when considering
appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2004, should fully
appropriate all the amounts authorized for appropriation in
the Act, even to the extent that appropriating such amounts
will require Congress to appropriate amounts over and above
the funding levels in the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget. . . .

Senator Bingaman said we should put $3 billion into this fight on
AIDS as we promised, and he said we should do it even if it violates
the budget resolution.
What happened to Senator Bingaman's resolution? It passed with 78
Members voting in favor of the resolution.
The Members who stood up and said they are prepared to vote for $3
billion to fight the global AIDS epidemic include the chairman of the
subcommittee on appropriations which brings this bill to the floor,
Senator Specter of Pennsylvania; the Republican majority leader,
Senator Frist, his assistant leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky; as
well as the Presiding Officer from Georgia. All of these Senators and
many more voted in favor of this resolution, saying they were prepared
to stand up and vote for $3 billion to fight for AIDS. In just a few
minutes, they are going to have that chance. They will be able to
demonstrate to the world that what they voted for in the Bingaman
amendment was more than just posing for holy pictures, that they were
in fact prepared to cast the vote even if it broke the budget
resolution because the AIDS epidemic was that powerful and that
overwhelming.
With those 78 votes, this Durbin amendment should pass easily. Maybe
I do not even need to complete my speech, but on the off chance that
some of my colleagues might be thinking of changing their minds--having
voted for the Bingaman resolution and now given a chance to actually
vote for the money, decide they want to vote the other way--let me tell
them why they should not. Remember what the President himself said:

We care more about results than words. We're interested in
lives saved.

Now is our opportunity to go beyond words and fulfill the pledge the
President made in his State of the Union Address and the pledge we made
in the Senate this last July. Keeping our promise and fighting against
AIDS is in America's interest. AIDS is not just a humanitarian crisis,
it is a security crisis. Living up to President Bush's promise on AIDS
is important for showing the world we will keep our commitments.
As the CIA Director recently said when asked is AIDS a security
issue, Director Tenet said: You bet it is. With more than 40 million
people infected right now, a figure that by 2010 may reach 100 million,
AIDS is building dangerous momentum in regions beyond Africa. As this
disease spreads, it unravels social structures, decimates populations,
and destabilizes nations around the world.
The National Intelligence Council found that in five of the world's
most populous nations, the number of HIV-infected people will grow to
an estimated 50 million to 75 million by the year 2010.

AIDS is particularly devastating to national armies around the world
that ensure the stability of their nations. In South Africa, according
to the Rand Institute, some military units have infection rates as high
as 90 percent. Keeping our promise on AIDS to the world is not only the
compassionate thing to do, it is the smart thing to do in terms of
national security as well.
Today, we have a chance to change the course of the AIDS pandemic by
providing $3 billion, as promised, in the next fiscal year. The
amendment I am putting forward would close the gap between the rhetoric
of our promise in the State of the Union Address and our 78 votes on
the Senate floor and the real needs of AIDS sufferers by fully funding
the $3 billion. The amendment provides $939.7 million to close the gap
and fully fund this $3 billion pledge.
The stakes could not be higher. Let me quote Majority Leader Frist
who said recently:

History will judge whether a world led by America stood by
and let transpire one of

[[Page S11219]]

the greatest destructions of human life in recorded history
or performed one of its most heroic rescues.

Senator Frist is right. In just a few moments, with the Durbin
amendment, on a bipartisan basis, we can say to the world we will not
stand idly by and make budgetary excuses about an epidemic that
threatens our world; we will come to the rescue as we promised.
Instead of fulfilling this pledge, unfortunately, the White House is
claiming that the full amount cannot be spent in the next year. All the
leading development organizations and medical authorities have rejected
this White House claim. This week in Roll Call, a newspaper on Capitol
Hill, all--and I underline ``all''--of the leading relief and
development organizations in the United States placed an ad endorsing
the fact that the full $3 billion could be well spent. Don't fall for
the argument: That $3 billion, they won't know what to do with it.

The fact is, there are ample opportunities to stop the spread of AIDS
right now. There are not enough funds available, and $2 billion does
not meet the global need. By putting in the full $3 billion we
promised, we will save lives. By not appropriating that money, lives
will be lost, more people affected, and more AIDS orphans to populate
this troubled world.
The White House is also ignoring the capacity of the Global Fund to
fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, the most effective tool we have to beat
AIDS. The Global Fund that is chaired by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, a member of President Bush's Cabinet, Secretary Tommy
Thompson, is scaling up successful programs on the ground in Africa and
is working to stop the wave of the pandemic in India. It needs hundreds
of millions of dollars this fall to fund the grant applications which
they know will work to slow down the spread of AIDS.
The White House should not forget the extraordinary needs of AIDS
orphans. According to a soon-to-be-released report by the Earth
Institute at Columbia University, orphans and vulnerable children need
$15 billion each year for basic health, education, and community
services. The Global HIV Prevention Group found that AIDS prevention
spending falls $3.8 billion short of what is needed by 2005. Although
we can spare the lives of babies with AIDS for the price of a Sunday
newspaper in the United States, only 5 percent of the women at risk
have access to medication to prevent mother-to-child transmission.
I say to my 78 colleagues who voted for the Bingaman amendment just a
few weeks ago, understanding that to meet the $3 billion funding
request might cause us to go beyond the allowed amounts in the budget
resolution, you, including my friend from Pennsylvania, who is the
chairman of this subcommittee, voted in the affirmative and said you
understood the seriousness of this challenge. You were prepared to take
an extraordinary step on the floor of the Senate for an extraordinary
challenge which faces the world.
Have they forgotten? Will the rollcall reflect political amnesia on
the part of my colleagues or will they stand strong and stand tall for
the position that they took not that long ago when we voted on this
Bingaman amendment just a few weeks back?
I hope they will join me and commit to fully funding the $3 billion
to fight AIDS. We have a unique chance to change the future and save
lives. It is in our hands.
Today, a 15-year-old boy in Botswana faces an 80-percent chance of
dying of AIDS. I have been to Botswana. This wonderful country
unfortunately has a clouded future because of the specter of AIDS which
hangs over it today. If we act now, we can change the future for these
children before it is too late. I beg my colleagues in the Senate,
please look beyond the sterility of this budget resolution. Look in
your heart and realize, as Senator Frist has said, we cannot stand idly
by. We cannot make procedural arguments. We cannot find any comfort or
refuge in some procedural element that suggests maybe we can't afford
it. We know better.
We voted with Senator Bingaman. I hope my colleagues will join me in
voting for this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Murray be added as a cosponsor to
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I don't know if it is appropriate now to ask that the
amendment be read by the clerk?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mrs. Murray, proposes
an amendment numbered 1591.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent 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 funding for the prevention, treatment, and control
of, and research on global HIV/AIDS)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ____. For necessary expenses to carry out the
provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the
United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and
Malaria Act of 2003 for the prevention, treatment, and
control of, and research on HIV/AIDS, in addition to funds
appropriated in this Act and under the heading ``Global AIDS
Initiative'' in the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004, $939,700,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That funds
appropriated under this section that are made available for
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria
shall be made available in accordance with sections 202(d)(1)
and 202(d)(4) of the United States Leadership Against HIV/
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
25): Provided further, That if the President certifies to the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives that the
funds provided under this section can not be effectively used
to implement HIV/AIDS prevention or treatment programs or
programs that improve health care infrastructure to more
effectively deal with the HIV/AIDS pandemic, then the funds
provided by this section shall be returned to the Treasury:
Provided further, That the amount $6,895,199,000 in section
305(a)(1) of this Act shall be deemed to be $7,834,899,000:
Provided further, That the amount $6,783,301,000 in section
305(a)(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be $5,843,601,000:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this Act
for the National Institutes of Health, $330,000,000 shall not
be available for obligation until September 30, 2004.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Durbin
amendment regarding the global AIDS fight. I commend Senator Durbin for
his brave leadership on this issue.
Less than 4 months ago, the President signed into law a bill
authorizing his administration to spend $3 billion for the next 5 years
on a comprehensive program to combat AIDS. Congress passed this
legislation in response to the President's call for action in his State
of the Union address. Legislators on both sides of the aisle commended
the President for his leadership and vision in recognizing the need to
launch a major offensive against the spread of a disease that has
already killed 25 million people worldwide, and infected 42 million
more.
Unfortunately, President Bush's call to action proved to be nothing
more than empty rhetoric. Despite Congress's commitment to combating
AIDS, President Bush's own budget request has fallen fall short of his
promises, seeking under $2 billion, more than $1 billion less than what
he is authorized to spend.
President Bush argues that the full $3 billion amount cannot be
invested effectively in the fight against HIV/AIDS, citing the lack of
administrative infrastructure in Africa and other regions plagued by
the disease. He says that he does not believe Africa and Asia can
absorb so much in the way of resources for the fight against AIDS.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I traveled to Africa last summer and
visited with health care workers and their patients at Africa clinics
in South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, and Kenya. I saw the overwhelming
positive impact of voluntary counseling and testing programs on women
in Soweto and Nairobi and Kasane. Those who test positive are taught to
prevent the virus's spread, and those who test negative are taught to
stay virus-free. I saw how Nevirapine can save a child's life when it
prevents mother-to-child transmission of the virus. I saw what we in
the United States now consider a standard course of anti-retroviral
drugs rescue an AIDS-ridden man from the virtual throes of death.
My trip to Africa showed me clearly that what Africa needs to fight
AIDS is

[[Page S11220]]

not fewer resources, but more. I believe that the $3 billion Congress
has authorized not only can be spent, but is desperately needed.
First, the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria assures us it
can put millions of dollars of additional resources to critical use
immediately. Moreover, as the President argued in France earlier this
spring, additional investments in the Fund from the United States will
pressure our friends in Europe and Asia to contribute their fair share
to this fight.
Second, additional resources can dramatically expand the remarkable
training programs the United States runs through the CDC, NIH, and
USAID, particularly in those countries not included in the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief covered, so that we can jumpstart our
efforts to improve health infrastructure in those countries already
struggling with HIV/AIDS--and those, like India, we know soon will be.
Third, we ought to vastly expand education programs in schools and
universities throughout Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, increase the
voluntary counseling and testing centers that have already helped
thousands of AIDS-positive men and women, and expand the work of those
centers to provide treatment for those who need it. As the Washington
Post reported recently about local women overturning that country's
tradition of the sexual healer, women armed with information and
options will halt the transmissions of this deadly disease.
It's easy to become overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the
problem. Misinformation and misguided traditions exacerbate this crisis
and absolutely must be addressed. But there are thousand of public
health experts and community leaders across Africa and Asia who
understand the problem and are ready to take these concrete steps to
save millions of lives--if they only had the resources. We cannot hide
from the fact--nor should we want to--that if we make an investment
now, we have the opportunity to avoid a tragedy of far greater
proportions. For example, since the President's historic announcement
in January, new studies have found what we feared may be the case--the
epidemic is moving with a vengeance into huge population centers like
India, where U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance remains inadequate--and we remain
unprepared.
Senator Durbin's amendment will restore AIDS funding to the full
level authorized in this chamber earlier this year. It says, very
simply, that we will fulfill our promise. I commend the Senator for his
commitment to seeing the U.S. lead the world in this essential fight,
and I encourage my colleagues to cast their votes for saving lives.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer my overwhelming
support for Senator Durbin's amendment on AIDS funding, of which I am a
co-sponsor. I urge my colleagues to vote on this matter based on
principle rather than politics. This amendment does nothing more than
fulfill President Bush's promises to the international community that
he made this year in his State of the Union Address.
In January, President Bush called on Congress to increase U.S.
funding for global anti-AIDS work to $15 billion. In the spring, he
signed a bill authorizing $15 billion over the next 5 years. And he
spoke often of this comment during his recent trip to Africa, the
continent hardest hit by the AIDS plague.
But while the President signed a bill to authorize this important and
critical cause, he failed to appropriate adequate funding for it. While
signaling his intent to help deal with the global AIDS crisis, he did
not back his intentions with actions.
Senator Durbin's amendment holds the administration's feet to the
fire. It will fully fund the $3 billion authorized to combat HIV/AIDS
in Fiscal Year 2004. This should be an easy vote for my colleagues, who
seemed to support the AIDS authorization bill in May.
Some of my colleagues have registered concern that we cannot fully
appropriate funding this year to the authorized level because the
necessary humanitarian and non-governmental organizations would not
know how to handle so much money so soon. With all due respect, this is
just not accurate.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which was
established with support by this administration, is inundated with
applications for international AIDS/HIV treatment, vaccination, and
public education projects that cannot even be read because of the
scarcity of funds.
AIDS killed 2.5 million Africans in 2002. Current infection rates in
Africa, Asia, Central Europe and elsewhere are staggering. I urge my
colleagues to recognize the awesome responsibility they hold to save
lives and to support this amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, of which
I am a cosponsor, and I commend my friend from Illinois who has been so
passionate, and so relentless, in seeking additional funding to combat
AIDS.
Senator Durbin has been carrying on this fight for several years. He
has offered amendment after amendment. He has urged the White House to
declare AIDS an emergency, which we all know that it is. And time and
again he has been opposed, by the White House and some in the Congress.
I hope that does not happen again today.
This debate is not about whether AIDS is a catastrophe of historic
proportions. It is not about whether it is the worse public health
crisis in history. There is no dispute that 15,000 people are becoming
infected with this deadly disease each day, that over 42 million people
are already infected, and that over 25 million people have already
died.
Nor is this debate about what needs to be done. We know what types of
prevention programs work, and that it depends on the culture and
practices in each country. We know that only a tiny fraction of people
infected are receiving treatment, and that care often amounts to
nothing more than a hospital bed, if that.
We know that in many countries, where the infection rate is
increasing and where there are already millions of AIDS orphans, faith-
based and other private voluntary organizations are working around the
clock, with nowhere near the staff or resources they need.
There are countless examples of grandmothers struggling to care for a
dozen orphaned grandchildren, or children as young as 9 years old
caring for their younger siblings.
We know that no country is immune, and that the number of people
infected is increasing exponentially, especially in Asia.
We also know that people infected with HIV often succumb to
tuberculosis, which is rampant in many countries, including drug
resistant TB. And we know that malaria kills 1 million people each
year, mostly African children. Many of these deaths could be prevented.
An estimated 500 million people get sick from malaria each year.
Again, this debate is not about any of that. Rather, it is about
whether the United States should spend $2 billion in 2004 to combat
AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, or $3 billion.
Earlier this year, at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the President
spent a good deal of time talking about the global AIDS crisis. I
commend him for that, and for going to Africa, where he highlighted the
suffering caused by AIDS there.
President Bush has shown real leadership on AIDS, although Senator
Durbin and I and others have been pushing for stronger action on AIDS
for years.
A short time after the President's Coast Guard Academy speech, we
passed the United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act,
which authorized $15 billion over 5 years. That was consistent with
what the President proposed in his State of the Union address back in
January. It was an important step. It showed that we are beginning to
take AIDS seriously.
But that was an authorization bill. It did not appropriate any money.
For all intents and purposes, it was like writing a check without
enough money in the bank.
The President's budget for 2004 contains only $2 billion of the $3
billion we authorized for AIDS.
The United States Leadership Against AIDS, TB and Malaria Act also
called for up to $1 billion for the Global Fund to fight AIDS and TB
and Malaria. Again, a promise. For 2004, the President only budgeted
$200 million for the Global Fund, which is one-fifth of the amount
authorized. It is also a cut of $150 million from what was appropriated
last year.

[[Page S11221]]

There is another problem. While the President's 2004 budget for
Foreign Operations includes approximately $1.3 billion to combat AIDS,
TB and malaria, it robs Peter to pay Paul to pay for increases in these
programs. The President's budget would cut other essential global
health programs.
Child survival and maternal health programs would be cut by 12
percent. These are the programs that provide lifesaving child
immunizations. They help to prevent the 600,000 pregnancy-related
deaths each year that could be avoided. The President's budget cuts
these programs by 12 percent.
It would cut programs to combat other infectious diseases like
measles, SARS, or ebola, by 32 percent. Measles kills 1 million
children not 100,000 or 200,000 but 1 million children a year. Again,
this disease is easily preventable.
These are not my numbers; these are the administration's numbers.
These numbers are in the President's budget.
Anyone who knows anything about public health knows that building the
health infrastructure in developing countries is essential if you are
going to fight AIDS. It is the same with child nutrition. It is the
same with maternal health. You don't fight AIDS in a vacuum. It isn't
an either/or proposition. People who are malnourished, who are in poor
health, who have weak immune systems, who are at risk of other
infections, are far more vulnerable to AIDS. It is common sense.

Senator McConnell and I were able to restore the funds for these
other global health programs. In fact we increase funding to combat
other infectious diseases, and to support child and maternal health.
But because of that, we did not have additional funds to fight AIDS.
That is why we need this amendment.
Senator Durbin's amendment builds on an amendment in July by Senator
Bingaman to the State Department Authorization bill. That amendment,
which passed 78-18, called for full funding--$3 billion--for the first
year of the President's $15 billion AIDS initiative, even if it means
exceeding the budget ceilings.
His amendment would provide an additional $984 million that we
already authorized. That is what we said we would do when we passed the
AIDS authorization bill, and again when we passed the Bingaman
amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment would do it.
If we are going to lead, and especially if we are going to ask others
to do more, we are going to have to stop playing shell games with the
foreign aid budget. We are going to have to start doing what we say.
We are spending over $4 billion each month in Iraq. This amendment
would provide an additional $1 billion for the year to combat the worst
health crisis in world history. Americans are threatened with AIDS not
just in this country, but every time they travel abroad.
I have traveled to Africa, to Haiti, to Vietnam and China, to Central
Europe and the former Soviet Union. I have seen how AIDS is ravaging
those countries.
In all my travels, and in all my conversations with the leaders of
those countries and with public health experts--from the Gates
Foundation, to USAID, to the World Health Organization, to the
directors of America's public health institutions, to the private
voluntary and faith based organizations doing the work in those
countries, I have never met anyone, no one, who believes that the
additional funds provided by this amendment could not be well spent.
No one who works in the field or AIDS prevention and treatment, or TB
or malaria, who I have spoken to, believes that we do not need these
additional funds. We need them now, not a year from now.
The White House argues that $3 billion could not be spent effectively
in combating AIDS in the 14 countries where it plans to focus. They may
be right, but that is not what the United States Leadership Against
AIDS, TB and Malaria Act says. Why limit our efforts to 14 countries,
when 5 times that many countries are being ravaged by these diseases?
Why ignore the other two dozen countries in Africa, or Russia, or China
or India where AIDS is spreading out of control? It makes absolutely no
sense. It is a false argument.
Fighting AIDS is not about 14 countries. There are dozens of
countries that need help, and if there are not enough trained people or
infrastructure, we should help build that capacity. We should train
more people and provide the vehicles, the testing equipment, the drugs,
to carry out effective prevention and treatment programs. Ask anyone
working in public health in those countries, and they will tell you
what needs to be done.
I really cannot understand the White House's argument. It is not
based on fact. It is not based on reality. It is not based on public
health.
Is it because they don't want to spend the money? We are paying far
more today to fight AIDS than if we had faced up to this disease back
when it was just beginning. We wasted two decades, and 25 million
people died, in part because we and others failed to act. We will spend
far more tomorrow if we do not do what is needed today.
That is what this amendment does. I commend the Senator from
Illinois. I urge the White House not to oppose this amendment. I urge
the majority leader to support it. He recently traveled to Africa and
saw the same tragic consequences of AIDS that many of us have seen
there. We need to work together. Let's not make the same mistake again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding I have control of the time until
15 minutes before 6, and I yield to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining. The
Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I support the Senator and his
amendment. There are certain things in life, if we apply our efforts,
our research, our development, our technology, we can ultimately lick.
One of them that, of course, we are working real hard on is cancer. One
of them, another big killer, is heart disease. And clearly the plague
of AIDS is one of them.
I support the Senator and thank him for bringing this amendment to
the floor.
At the appropriate time I would like to address another amendment
with the manager.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the remaining few seconds I have under
the unanimous consent agreement, I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to help us. We heard from the President the other night. We
need to rally as a nation to put up our resources where we made our
commitment in Iraq. We made a commitment, as well, through the
President and through the Senate, to deal with the global AIDS crisis.
Frankly, I think it would be difficult for us to explain how we can
find $87 billion in Iraq and not find the $3 billion that the President
promised to the world, and we in the Senate stood behind him by a vote
of 78 in favor to support. This will be our chance to do it.
When we do it, we will be able to look back at this moment as not
only doing the right thing, but doing something very important for
generations to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I request of the manager of the
bill I be given some opportunity to speak on another amendment, but at
his pleasure. I will speak whenever he would prefer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from
Florida, we are now moving ahead to the 5 minutes on my time, in
response to the Senator from Illinois. We are then going to proceed to
four votes. But we will be here following those votes. We are looking
for amendments, and we will put the Senator from Florida first on the
list following the votes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the vote in relation to the Byrd amendment, the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the Kennedy amendment, No. 1556, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the Durbin amendment, No. 1591;
further, that no amendments be in order to the mentioned

[[Page S11222]]

amendments prior to the votes. I also ask unanimous consent there be 2
minutes equally divided for debate prior to the second and third votes
in sequence. And, finally, I ask unanimous consent the last two votes
in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
I ask unanimous consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we think this
is a tremendous step forward. However, we are trying to get a fourth
vote as the two leaders have requested. Both of those amendments are
those by the Senator from Connecticut, the senior Senator from
Connecticut: one dealing with Head Start and one dealing with special
education. The one on Head Start he has not offered yet, but he wanted
to do that tonight. There was a time period--we were told we could not
do that because there was a second-degree amendment. We next come to
the special education amendment, No. 1572. We are told the same thing.
We are in good faith trying to move this bill. But we can't be
expected to meet the impossible. We have waited here a couple of days
trying to move this stuff forward. We come up with amendments and
people say we can't let you do that one. We are doing our best to meet
the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader. We
asked Senator Dodd, and he has agreed to do it in 20 minutes evenly
divided--Head Start.
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I was just
informed of a different proposal than I was operating under when I had
the discussion with the distinguished minority whip and the ranking
member of the chair of the committee. If you will give me 2 minutes to
resolve the conflict, which of these matters should be dealt with
tonight or tomorrow, we could come right back to this. I am sure we
will get an agreement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor and cannot
suggest the absence of a quorum. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. There is no objection at this point to the unanimous
consent request. We hope we can add to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe in short order we will be able
to work out an additional portion of the unanimous consent for the vote
on the Head Start amendment.
Mr. DODD. I hope so, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. We will sequence that prospectively fourth in line for
another 10-minute vote. The expectation is there will be a short time
for debate, expected to be 10 minutes equally divided.
Mr. DODD. Something like that.
Mr. SPECTER. We can work that through in just a few moments.
Mr. REID. We can announce that prior to the next vote beginning.
Mr. SPECTER. We can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, inquiry: Do I now have 5 minutes to
respond to the Durbin amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 18 seconds remaining.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree a great deal with what the
Senator from Illinois has said about funding on HIV/AIDS. Just a few
months ago, the Senator from Illinois and I offered an amendment of
$700 million on the foreign aid bill. Before it became generally
recognized that there should be major U.S. appropriations for AIDS, the
President included in his State of the Union speech a program for $15
billion. As much as I would like to see another $900 million-plus
added, we simply do not have it in the budget resolution. We are now up
to the amount of $137.6 billion in the budget resolution and in the
allocation.
I think it is important to note that we have in this bill in excess
of $14 billion.
I ask unanimous consent that a table be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

GLOBAL HIV/AIDS FUNDING
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2004
final request Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDC Global AIDS Program................ $142,569 $143,763 $142,569
CDC Int'l Applied Prevention........... 11,000 11,000 11,000
Mother-To-Child Transmission........... 40,000 150,000 90,000
Global Fund for HIV/AIDS............... 100,000 100,000 150,000
Bilateral TB and Malaria............... 15,000 15,000 15,000
NIH Global AIDS research............... 252,300 274,700 274,700
Global AIDS in the workplace........... 10,000 ......... 10,000
--------------------------------
Total............................ 570,869 694,463 693,269
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOTAL HIV/AIDS FUNDING IN THE FY 2004 SENATE LABOR-HHS BILL
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Resources & Services Administration................. $6,996
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention................... 932,189
National Institutes of Health.............................. 2,869,858
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services................... 171,774
Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality................... 1,800
Office of the Secretary.................................... 63,113
Global Fund for HIV/AIDS................................... 150,000
Ryan White CARE Act Programs............................... 2,041,599
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Discretionary Including Ryan White............. 6,237,329
========================================================================
HIV/AIDS Services in Medicare and Medicaid................. 7,800,000
========================================================================
Grand Total in Labor-HHS bill........................ 14,037,329
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 FY 2004 budget
Program appropriation request FY 2004 Senate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcommittee--Foreign Operations:
Child Survival Assistance for bilateral programs............ 591,500 650,000 500,000
Other Economic Assistance................................... 38,500 40,000 50,000
Bilateral Malaria & AIDS.................................... 105,000 105,000 105,000
State Department Global AIDS Initiative\1\.................. .............. 450,000 700,000
Global Fund Contribution................................ 250,000 100,000 [250,000]
Other....................................................... 2,000 1,500 2,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Foreign Operations.............................. 987,000 1,346,500 1,357,000
Subcommittee--Labor-HHS:
CDC Global AIDS program..................................... 142,569 143,763 142,569
CDC Mother to Child Transmission............................ 40,000 150,000 90,000
CDC International Applied Prevention Research............... 11,000 11,000 11,000
NIH International Research.................................. 252,300 274,700 274,700
DOL AIDS in the workplace................................... 10,000 .............. 10,000
Global Fund Contribution from NIH........................... 100,000 100,000 150,000
CDC Malaria & Tuberculosis.................................. 15,000 15,000 15,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total Labor-HHS....................................... 570,869 694,463 693,269
Subcommittee--Defense: DOD HIV-AIDS education w/African Armed 7,000 .............. ..............
Forces.........................................................
Subcommittee--Agriculture: Section 416(b) Food Aid.............. 25,000 .............. ..............
===============================================
Total--All Subcommittees.............................. 1,589,869 2,040,963 2,050,269
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes up to $250 million for Global Fund.

Total to Global Fund is $400,000,000 ($250 million from Foreign Ops & $150 million from NIH).

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have an additional $4 billion from
other Departments.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

HIV/AIDS PROGRAM LEVEL 2002-2004
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS:
HHS Discretionary............................ $5,789 $6,130 $6,390
Medicaid (Federal Share)..................... 4,200 4,700 5,200
Medicare..................................... 2,050 2,350 2,600
--------------------------
Sub-Total, HHS......................... 12,039 13,180 14,190
All Other Government:
Social Security--DI.......................... 961 985 1,014
Social Security--SSI......................... 390 410 430
Veterans Affairs Department.................. 391 396 402

[[Page S11223]]

Defense Department........................... 96 78 88
Agency for International Development......... 510 740 790
Justice/Bureau of Prisons.................... 16 17 19
State Department............................. 0 0 459
Labor Department............................. 11 1 1
Education Department......................... 0 0 0
Housing and Urban Development................ 277 292 297
Ofc. Personnel Mgmt.--FEHB................... 297 321 343
--------------------------
Sub-Total, All Other Government........ 2,949 3,240 3,834
--------------------------
Total, HIV/AIDS........................ 14,988 16,420 18,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are making enormous strides with some
$19 billion. Much as I would like to see another sum added, we simply
do not have the money in our resolution.
I refer to a letter from Dr. Joseph O'Neil, Director of the Office of
National AIDS Policy, to Senator Frist dated July 17 specifying--and I
will not take the time to read it now--that the $2 billion on this
particular program is all that can be usefully expended.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, July 17, 2003.
Hon. Bill Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader Frist: It is my understanding that an amendment
regarding funding for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria may
be offered today to the Department of Defense FY2004
appropriations bill currently under consideration on the
Senate floor.
I want to reiterate the Administration's strong support for
the FY2004 budget request of $2 billion for all international
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria activities, including $200
million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and
Malaria. This request is a solid first step in fulfilling the
President's commitment of providing $15 billion over the next
five years to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, the
Caribbean and around the world.
I recently finished traveling to Africa with the President
where he saw first-hand the positive impact that current U.S.
funding is having in caring for the sick, providing treatment
for individuals living with HIV/AIDS and extending lives. He
also witnessed the vast infrastructure and capacity
challenges that need to be addressed in order to scale-up
many of these efforts.
It is by careful design that the President's FY2004 budget
request is for $2 billion. This request was based on the
sound judgment that funds in excess of this amount could not
be spent effectively in this first year. These funds will be
spent in a focused manner, increased each year, to
efficiently and effectively create the necessary training,
technology, and infrastructure base needed to ensure delivery
of appropriate medical treatment protocols and the long term
success of this initiative.
These funds are vital to our efforts to combat HIV/AIDS
abroad, but must be spent in the right way, at the right
time. Similarly, efforts to increase funding to the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria are not appropriate at
this time. Currently, the United States is responsible for
over 40% of all contributions made to the Global Fund. We
have reached a critical time in the Global Fund's
development, and other nations must join the U.S. in
supporting the work of the Global Fund.
For the reasons stated above, the Administration strongly
opposes any efforts to increase funding beyond the $2 billion
requested in the President's FY 2004 budget. I appreciate
your unwavering leadership on this issue and look forward to
the continued strong bipartisan support of the Senate in
ensuring the success of this lifesaving initiative.
Sincerely,
Dr. Joseph F. O'Neill,
Director, Office of National AIDS Policy.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
the last stacked vote in this sequence, Senator Dodd be recognized to
offer an amendment relating to Head Start; there be 10 minutes equally
divided for debate in relation to the amendment; further, that
following the debate, the Senate then proceed to a vote in relation to
the Dodd amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior
to that vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1543

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment
to fully fund title I. America's strength is our opportunity ladder.
One of the strongest rungs on the ladder is our public schools.
Education is what gives parents hope for their children. That is why it
is so important to continue our commitment to improving public schools.
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we placed the
burden on schools to improve. It is a worthy goal--but it will be a
difficult task. We knew this when we passed No Child Left Behind, and
so we promised to give schools adequate resources. Yet only 1 year
later, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill
falls far short of our commitment to providing the resources needed to
make the reforms work. I have heard from teachers and parents from all
over Maryland. They all tell me that they are worried about whether
their school will make the grade. They are worried about how they're
going to meet all the requirements in No Child Left Behind--especially
in this time of budget cuts and budget crunches.
This bill shortchanges our schools and our students. I am concerned
that we have lost track of what America stands for--empowerment, hope,
and opportunity. Instead of funding for our schools, this Congress
passed a tax cut for the rich. And guess what? The tax cut left us
shackled. It left us with no money in the Federal checkbook for
education.
That is why I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which would
provide an additional $6.15 billion for title I. Title I is vital to
the success of No Child Left Behind. Reforms without resources is a
hollow opportunity. Fully funding title I will help our Nation's
poorest schools hire more teachers, buy more computers, and implement
the kind of reforms they need to improve student achievement.
There is a lot of talk about leaving no child behind. Yet today we
are still fighting to make sure our children go to good schools with
good teachers and up-to-date books and facilities. The No Child Left
Behind Act will be a hollow promise if we don't match our rhetoric with
resources. That is why this amendment is so important. We must make
sure no child is left out of the budget. I urge my colleagues to vote
for the Byrd amendment.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I support the Byrd amendment, which
provides $6.15 billion in additional funding for title I grants.
Two years ago, we promised school districts that they would have the
resources they needed to meet new standards mandated by the Federal No
Child Lift Behind Act.
As it stands, this bill fails to adequately, fund title I--the
cornerstone of No Child Left Behind, NCLB. In fact, it provides $6.15
billion below the amount promised to school districts for fiscal year
04.
This funding level in this bill is even $334 million below the
increase that was slated for title I in the budget resolution for
fiscal year 04.
Children are failing in many of our schools in all of our states.
These children need extended learning time. They need instruction from
high-quality teachers and they need to learn in smaller classrooms.
The Byrd amendment gives schools the resources they need so that they
can create the best possible condition in which all teachers can teach
and all children can learn.
Today, 23.3 percent of all children in New York are living in
poverty, more than all but six other States.
The proposed appropriation in this bill fails to meet the need for
more resources for these children. As a result, 458,745 eligible New
York children would not be fully served and will consequently be left
behind.
Funding title I at its NCLB-authorized level of $18.5 billion would
provide New York with $682,595,000 more than the current proposal.
Title I grants help school districts in all State pay for tutoring
instruction, specialized services, class size reduction and other
critical support services to help the neediest of all children achieve
high standards.
With this funding, New York school districts can hire up to 13,379
teachers to reduce class size and provide specialized instruction in
math and reading aimed at helping these needy children meet state
standards.
The impact of the proposed funding level is especially felt in key
cities across New York State. Without the resources provided by this
amendment, 243,803 eligible children in New York City, 2,902 children
in Albany, 15,222 in Buffalo, 7,362 in Syracuse and 5,887 children in
Yonkers will not be fully served. These children will be left behind.
Securing these additional funds could enable districts to hire an
additional 72

[[Page S11224]]

teachers in Albany, 385 in Buffalo, 7,862 in New York City, 312 in
Rochester, 164 in Syracuse, and 159 teachers in Yonkers.
If we expect every single child to succeed there should be no
exception to our commitment to turning around struggling schools. This
amendment will reaffirm our commitment by giving schools the resources
they need so that teachers can teach to the highest standards and all
of our children can learn.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the
amendment of my colleague from West Virginia to increase funding for
the title I program by $6.15 billion. By bringing the total up to $18.5
billion, title I would be funded at the level authorized in the No
Child Left Behind Act for fiscal year 2004.
The title I program is critical for disadvantaged students because it
targets federal resources to the poorest school districts where Federal
dollars are needed most.
In my State of Arkansas, this funding is crucial because 67 percent
of students attend title I schools. These schools depend on these
important funds to upgrade technology, provide professional development
for teachers, and implement school-wide programs.
Like dozens of other States today, Arkansas is currently experiencing
a serious budget crisis at the same time the State is expected to meet
the new requirements we imposed in No Child Left Behind.
To make the situation even more challenging for my State, the
Arkansas Supreme Court ruled last November that the current funding
level for education in Arkansas is inadequate and that the distribution
of funding is inequitable. The AR Supreme Court gave the state until
Jan. 1, 2004 to comply with its order.
Arkansas is not alone. States all across the country are facing
similar financial woes, which means title I funding is more important
than ever.
Like title I, additional funding for IDEA is also critical to
students and school districts in my State. I hear more complaints from
constituents about the Federal Government's failure to meet its
obligation under IDEA than any other Federal education program.
Even though Congress has increased funding for IDEA in recent years,
the funding level in this bill falls far short of the promise we made
in 1975 to pay 40 percent of the costs of providing a quality education
to special needs students.
Currently, IDEA is an unfunded mandate, which is profoundly unfair to
school districts, teachers, and the students they serve. I am
disappointed that an amendment offered last week by Senator Dayton to
fully fund IDEA in fiscal year 2004 was not adopted.
For the sake of the students who depend on the services provided
under IDEA and the educators who are responsible for implementing the
law, I am hopeful the Senate will have another opportunity to consider
full funding either on this legislation or another bill before Congress
adjourns this year.
We also need to pass meaningful legislation that will encourage more
students in Arkansas and the Nation to pursue a college education. I
think that promoting post-secondary education is an essential element
of any effort to prepare our workforce to meet the demands of today's
global marketplace.
I also believe we should continue to build on our success regarding
Federal student financial assistance. That is why I am pleased to
support an amendment to this bill by Senator Kennedy that would
increase student financial aid in fiscal year 2004 by $2.2 billion,
which is essential to keep up with the growth in college costs.
One of the most worthwhile financial assistance programs is the Pell
grant. Since its inception in 1972, students nationwide have received
enormous benefits from Pell grants, so I think we need to continue to
make a larger investment in this area. The higher education funding
amendment would increase the maximum Pell grant by $450, which would
give close to 2,000 more Arkansans access financial assistance for
higher education.
This higher education amendment also includes additional funding for
the TRIO programs, which are particularly important to Arkansas. The
TRIO programs are designed to help low-income, first-generation college
students prepare for, enter, and graduate from college. While student
financial aid programs help students overcome financial barriers to
higher education, TRIO Programs help students overcome class, social
and cultural barriers. Considering Arkansas has one of the lowest
percentages of residents with a four-year college degree, the more than
50 TRIO programs currently serving participants in my state provide a
critical source of encouragement and support to thousands of students
who might otherwise never receive their college degree.
As many of my colleagues know, for the last 3 years I have circulated
a sign-on letter with the Senator from Maine to increase Federal
support for the TRIO programs. Our goal is to increase the population
served under these programs from 6 percent to 10 percent of eligible
students. By passing the Kennedy higher education amendment, we would
be making a significant downpayment on that goal.
Nearly 40 percent of the children in this country attend rural
schools. These schools face enormous challenges such as teacher
recruitment and retention and small student populations.
I am extremely disappointed that the Senate rejected an amendment
that I supported which would have fully funded the Rural Education
Achievement Program, REAP. This program recognizes the unique needs of
small and rural schools while ensuring accountability. It provides
essential funding that many of these schools rely on because they lack
the personnel and resources to apply for competitive grants.
Last year, well over half of Arkansas' school districts received
approximately $5.6 million in total funding under this program to help
meet critical educational needs. And this funding is needed now more
than ever as schools strive to meet the new accountability measures of
the No Child Left Behind Act.
I want to close my remarks by emphasizing my strong belief that
education can be and must be a high priority for our Nation.
I was proud to support a bold reform plan for our Nation's public
schools a few years ago because I believe firmly that every child
deserves a chance to receive a quality education regardless of where
they live or go to school.
The approach I supported created a new contract between the Federal
Government and local school districts--more funding and flexibility for
public schools in return for greater academic achievement for all
students.
I said at the time that additional funding and reform go hand in
hand--you can't have one without the other and expect to succeed.
As many of the accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind
take affect, it is critical for Congress to meet its obligation to
provide schools and students with the resources they need to meet
higher standards.
I hope my colleagues will rise to the occasion during consideration
of this bill and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all
students.
My greatest fear is that we won't meet our obligations to our
children in this bill. In the years ahead, our children will provide
the workforce and leadership for our nation. Indeed, our children are
our future. We don't have the luxury of waiting to fund these programs
adequately at some undetermined time in the future. We should fulfill
our responsibility today.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section
504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004
that the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits in this
section and, therefore, is not in order; that is, as to the Byrd
amendment on which we are about to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Byrd amendment
is now pending.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, under the applicable statutes, I move to
waive the point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion, and the clerk will call
the roll.

[[Page S11225]]

The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is
absent because of death in family.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolinda (Mr.
Edwards) the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Florida (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas, 44, nays, 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

YEAS--44

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

NAYS--51

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
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
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--5

Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are
51. 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.

Amendment No. 1566

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the Kennedy amendment No.
1566.
Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
There are 4.8 million young Americans who take advantage of the Pell
Program. That is $4,050. The average cost of public university tuition
has increased 10 percent. This amendment effectively provides the $2.2
billion that will increase the Pell grant to $4,500. That is an
increase of 10 percent. Without this kind of increase, more than
100,000 students who have been admitted to colleges on the basis of
merit will drop out. There is no question about it; this amendment is
about opportunity. It is about hope. It is about the future of America.
I hope the Senate will accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the Pell grants
are very important. We have increased Pell grants in the past decade,
almost doubling them. And while I would like to see more money in this
education budget and fought to have a greater allocation, we simply do
not have it within the budget resolution to appropriate any more money.
With respect to the higher education items, there is very substantial
funding in TRIO, GEAR UP, Perkins, and other education programs. So as
much as I would like to see this appropriation, we simply do not have
the funds in the budget resolution or in the allocation of the
subcommittee.
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 in this section and therefore is
not in order.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive section 504 of the
concurrent resolution for the purpose of the pending amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be to be a sufficient second.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is a 10-minute vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is
absent because of death in family.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessary absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

YEAS--49

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

NAYS--46

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

NOT VOTING--5

Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are
46. 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.

Amendment No. 1591

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes
of debate evenly divided prior to a vote on the Durbin amendment No.
1591.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my colleagues will remember the
President's State of the Union Address, during which $15 billion over 5
years was pledged to fight global AIDS.
This bill only provides $2 billion. When Senator Bingaman offered his
amendment on the floor on July 10, by a vote of 78 to 18, we said we
want it to be $3 billion regardless of the budget resolution; 45
Democrats and 33 Republicans voted for $3 billion in spending. It can
be spent. Every major organization has come forward and said the need
is there, the need is now.
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the chairman
of the subcommittee, who voted for the Bingaman resolution, if 33
Republicans will step forward today as they did July 10 for the same
proposition, we guarantee our 45 Democratic votes will be there with
you. Let's pass this resolution and keep our promise to fight the
global war on AIDS. Stand behind President Bush's promise of $3
billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Illinois on
the importance of fighting HIV/AIDS. A few years ago, Senator Durbin
and I joined together on an amendment for $700 million before there was
a general recognition of the importance of U.S. funding on AIDS and
even before the President made his speech committing some $15 million.

[[Page S11226]]

We have in the budget at the present time $14 billion. We have some
$4 billion from other agencies. The Director of the Office of National
AIDS Policy has expressed the view that the $2 billion now for global
AIDS is all that can be used.
Much as I would like to see additional funds, we simply do not have
it in the budget resolution or in our allocation. So I must oppose the
amendment, and 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, therefore, is not in order.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to waive section 504 of the Budget
Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith)
is absent because of a death in the family.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 332 Leg.]

YEAS--43

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

NAYS--51

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

NOT VOTING--6

Domenici
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are
51. 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.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Connecticut is recognized
to offer an amendment on which there will be 10 minutes of debate
evenly divided prior to a vote.
The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 1597 to Amendment No. 1542

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

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Corzine, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mrs. Clinton, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 1597 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. DODD. Mr. 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 increase funds for Head Start)

On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. ____. (a) Head Start Funding.--In addition to any
amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act to carry out
programs and activities under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9801 et seq.), there are appropriated an additional
$350,000,000 for such programs and activities.
(b) Offset.--Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, $700,000,000 shall not be
available for obligation until September 30, 2004. The amount
$6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this Act shall be
deemed to be $7,245,199,000, and the amount $6,783,301,000 in
section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be
$6,433,301,000.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself
and a number of my colleagues. I will not recite the entire list of all
of those who have joined with me on this Head Start amendment.
This amendment would increase the appropriation by $350 million above
the increase recommended by the Appropriations Committee over the
coming fiscal year. Very briefly, what this means, in the absence of
this amendment being adopted, we will have to cut the number of
children who are presently in Head Start programs. With the adoption of
this amendment of $350 million, we can increase the enrollment by
36,000 children in Head Start programs across the country.
There are 19,000 centers and 50,000 classrooms. This is a program
that has worked remarkably well over the past almost 40 years. It
serves children by helping them get ready to learn. It has been
remarkably successful. We are still underserving a very needy
population, as the Presiding Officer knows. If we do not get them
started right, these are the children who drop out of school, who
become teen parents, who end up in the juvenile justice system, and
become people who abuse substances.
Head Start works. We are going to be reauthorizing the program in the
coming year, to do a variety of things to improve the program even
further. In the absence of this kind of a start, when we now know the
poor population of children has been increased by 600,000 just in the
last 2 fiscal years, to be reducing the number of children presently in
the program would be a huge mistake. These are poor children. They come
from single-parent families. They are struggling to make ends meet.
Head Start gives them an opportunity to get on the right track early on
before they begin a formal education.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to be able to find the resources
to do this. Head Start has been remarkably successful. It deserves our
bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield to my distinguished friend from Florida who would like to be
heard on this issue as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I have been to Head Start
facilities all over my State. What a wonderful little academic
atmosphere for these 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds who are starting the
program, as well as those who are younger than 3. It is this little
academic atmosphere where they start to learn their letters, the
alphabet, and their numbers. They start to learn respect for their
fellow little citizens, respect for property. In addition to that
academic environment, we are looking at their health, their physical
health, their mental health, their dental health.

Back in July, the House of Representatives by a 1-vote margin, 217 to
216, started to sound the death knell on this fantastically successful
and wildly popular program by saying, instead of funding it directly to
the Head Start centers, they were going to put it in a nice little
block grant and send it to eight State legislatures and Governors.
You know the fiscal distress the States are in. You know the
temptation it is going to be for those States if we ever entertain
anything like that.
To the contrary, here we have an opportunity to take a stand with the
amendment of Senator Dodd, to say responsibly we are going to increase
the Head Start Program that gets these little fellows, these little
children, prepared to enter prekindergarten and the first grade.
I support the Senator's amendment.

[[Page S11227]]

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to close by talking about the
reauthorization of Head Start. We need these resources to keep trying
to expand the number of children who can participate in this program.
We all know the importance of literacy. We know the importance of
getting these children ready to learn. If we end up reducing the number
of children presently in the program, as we will if we accept just the
language of the pending appropriations bill, it is a major setback in
early education.
I yield the floor.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support the Dodd amendment to add $500
million to the Head Start Program. I have heard from communities all
over Maryland that are being forced to make tough choices because
funding for Head Start is inadequate. Communities have to choose
between two bad options: diluting the quality of Head Start, or
shutting the doors on some eligible children.
And what does President Bush propose to solve this problem? Instead
of putting the resources in the budget, he proposed dismantling Head
Start by handing it over to the States. Head Start is already one of
the more successful Federal programs. Head Start can be even more
effective than it already is. But you know what? It is going to take
Federal leadership and a serious investment--not a block grant and a
prayer. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Dodd amendment.
Currently, only 60 percent of eligible preschool children are in Head
Start, and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are in Early
Head Start. In Maryland, about 25 percent of eligible children under 5
are in Head Start and Early Head Start. At the same time, we are trying
to improve Head Start by requiring stricter teacher qualifications, by
improving academic instruction, and by maintaining vital health and
social services. Yet this bill provides only $148 million more for Head
Start. That is not even enough to cover inflation.
The Bush budget puts communities in a tough position. They have to
choose between diluting the quality of their Head Start programs or
serving fewer children. In my own State of Maryland, we are facing this
kind of impossible choice. For years, Montgomery County contributed $16
million of its own money to run a very high quality Head Start Program.
But they still didn't have enough money to serve to all the low-income
children in Head Start.
Recently, the county proposed using its money for a pre-K program
that would serve more children. But they also proposed making cutbacks
and sacrifices. They proposed cutting back on comprehensive health and
family services for the new pre-K classes. They proposed shortening
pre-K classes, which would mean teachers couldn't accomplish as much.
And they proposed reducing the number of children in Head Start by
almost half.
The Bush budget forced Montgomery County into this situation by not
providing the resources to serve all children in Head Start. I think we
need to put the money in the Federal checkbook so that communities
won't have to make bad choices between bad options. The Dodd amendment
is a step in the right direction.
You can't get more for less. You get what you pay for. We need to
increase Federal funds so that all eligible children can benefit from
high-quality Head Start. I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Connecticut
about the desirability of Head Start. I think it is a marvelous program
and the increase in appropriations reflects a doubling in the past
decade. In my capacity as chairman of this subcommittee, whenever we
could find an extra dollar we put it into Head Start.
In fiscal year 2000, we increased Head Start by more than $600
million. In fiscal year 2001, we increased Head Start by $933 million.
I just wish we had the funds available now to add the $350 million
requested by the Senator from Connecticut. For next year, we have
funded an increase in Head Start for almost $150 million. Regrettably,
we are stretched very thin with respect to the budget we have here, on
the budget resolution and on the allocation to this subcommittee.
My colleagues are coming to me for relatively small sums, some in
tribute to former Members of this body, and we simply do not have the
money. The Senator from Wisconsin wants $1 million, not a large request
in a $137.6 billion bill, but there is just not enough money here.
Being a manager of a bill has a great many challenges getting it
organized and getting it in gear. But in the last 3 days I have cast
more controversial votes--I would consider really bad votes, according
to my own instincts of what I would like to see done--than I cast in
the whole last year.
The title I Amendment offered by Senator Byrd, I voted against and I
deplore the inadequacy of funding on title I. With regard to Pell
grants, Senator Harkin and I have led the way. When we pushed it up to
$4,000 a couple of years ago, the Director of OMB came to my office and
threatened a broad-scale rescission of the entire bill.
I would very much like to see more money for Head Start. But we just
do not have it in the resolution and we don't have it in the
allocation. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip and this bill has
turned into a turnip. I don't think it is a lemon but I think it is a
turnip.
Mr. President, for that reason I raise the point of order under
section 504 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year 2004 that the amendment exceeds the discretionary spending and
therefore is not in order.
Mr. DODD. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) is necessarily absent and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith)
is absent because of death in family.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), 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. Talent). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 333 Leg.]

YEAS--47

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--6

Domenici
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Kerry
Lieberman
Smith
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 47, the nays
are 47. 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. The amendment falls.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S11228]]

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in our sequencing, we now turn to the
Senator from Nebraska; how long does the Senator intend to speak?
Mr. HAGEL. I request 4 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Amendment No. 1572

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise tonight in support of an amendment I
have offered, along with my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Jeffords and
others, to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act,
IDEA, part B, by an additional $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2004. This
amendment would bring the total IDEA fiscal year 2004 increase to $2.2
billion, which was the level approved by the Senate in the fiscal year
2004 budget resolution earlier this year.
For the past 3 years, I have worked with Senators Harkin, Dodd,
Jeffords, and many of my Republican colleagues to increase funding for
IDEA. I have argued that no education funding priority is as important
or will do more for States in this time of budget crisis than meeting
our Federal commitment to IDEA.
As we all know, in 1975 Congress guaranteed children with
disabilities the right to free and appropriate education. This meant
that, whatever the cost, States and local school districts would be
mandated by Federal law to provide the necessary services to educate a
child with a disability. Congress understood that this Federal mandate
would be costly. As a result, they agreed to provide States with 40
percent of the cost of educating these children. That was almost 30
years ago.
Unfortunately, Congress has not kept its end of the deal. While our
schools continue to meet the necessary requirements under IDEA year
after year, they also bear more than their fair share of the costs for
complying with this law. Today, the Federal Government's commitment to
IDEA is only 18 percent.
As in years past, I offered legislation with Senator Harkin and
others to ensure that the Federal Government provides for special
education by making funding increases for this program mandatory. But
we will have this discussion on mandatory versus discretionary funding
for this program when we take up the IDEA reauthorization legislation
later this year.
We are here today because, again, as years in the past, this
appropriations bill has failed. We failed to keep our funding
proposition. That is why we need this amendment. The fiscal year 2004
budget resolution approved by this body allowed for a $2.2 billion
increase for IDEA, part B funding. Unfortunately, the Senate
Appropriations Committee underfunded this program, only providing an
increase of $1 billion.
The Dodd-Hagel-Jeffords amendment provides an additional $1.2 billion
for IDEA, meeting the approved budget increase of $2.2 billion already
approved this year.
Additionally, the amendment would put us on a realistic path to
reaching our obligation to provide States and local school districts
with 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities.
This is the responsible thing to do. I ask my colleagues to support
this amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow morning.
Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Dodd-
Hagel-Jefford amendment to increase funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. I am pleased to join Senators
Coleman, Murray, Dorgan, Bingaman, Kerry, Mikulski and others as a
cosponsor of this amendment.
IDEA is based on two fundamental principles: first, that all disabled
children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. And
second, to the maximum extent possible, these children should be
educated along side their nondisabled peers.
To help States achieve these principles, Congress authorized funding
at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditures. Unfortunately,
this funding level has never been realized, leaving States with
insufficient resources and jeopardizing the achievement of IDEA's
goals.
In 1996, the year I was first elected to the Senate, the Federal
Government provided only $2.3 billion for IDEA funding, about 7
percent. Last year, IDEA funding had risen to $8.9 billion, about 18
percent. While clearly we have made great strides in this area, the
currently IDEA funding is still less than half of the 40 percent
originally promised by Congress. Over the years, this shortfall has
placed a tremendous financial stress on States in providing these
services, and in particular on small rural communities such as those in
Maine.
As startling as these shortfalls are, they fail to fully convey the
crushing financial blow which can result to a small community when a
medically fragile, high cost child locates there. In these situations,
school systems are often forced to cut back in services to all
children, both disabled and nondisabled, in an attempt to meet their
legal obligations. Unfortunately, this can result in resentment of
these children by members of their own community.
Increased Federal support is desperately needed, and that is why I
want to thank Chairman Specter for the substantial increase in IDEA
funding he has included in the Senate base bill. He has included nearly
a billion-dollar increase over last year's level.
Our amendment seeks to further boost this funding by providing an
additional $1.2 billion for IDEA Part B State Grants. This increase
would result in a $2.2 billion increase over fiscal year 2003 funding
and will keep us on the track toward full funding. Our amendment would
also be consistent with action taking during Senate consideration of
the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, which similarly provided for a
$2.2 billion increase for IDEA. In Maine, passage of this amendment
would result in a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2003 funding
levels.
With this amendment, we would raise the Federal Government's
commitment to roughly 21 percent of the costs of special education. I
urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. Let's
continue our efforts to make good on our promise and fully fund IDEA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 1598 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to increase
the funding levels in the Ryan White CARE Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Kennedy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Cantwell,
proposes an amendment numbered 1598 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. SCHUMER. 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 provide additional funding for programs under the Ryan
White Care Act)

On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. ____. In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act to carry out programs and activities under
title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
11 et seq.), there are appropriated an additional--
(1) $74,010,000 to carry out part A of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.);
(2) $50,000,000 to carry out part B of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-21 et seq.);
(3) $214,800,000 to carry out State AIDS Drug Assistance
Programs under section 2616 of such title XXVI (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26);
(4) $21,130,000 to carry out part C of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-51 et seq.);
(5) $25,450,000 to carry out part D of such title XXVI (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71 et seq.);
(6) $10,450,000 to carry out section 2692(a) of such title
XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(a)); and
(7) $5,590,000 to carry out section 2692(b) of such title
XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(b)).

Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this Act for
the National Institutes of Health, $750,000,000 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 $7,296,629,000: Provided
further, That the amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2)
of this Act shall be deemed to be $6,381,871,000.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know we have a
lot to do to finish this bill tomorrow.
This amendment increases the funding levels of all titles contained
in the

[[Page S11229]]

Ryan White CARE Act by a total of $401 million, with $214 million
specifically going toward the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, commonly
referred to as ADAP.
The CDC estimates that nearly 900,000 people are living with HIV in
the United States, and among those are 362,000 who are living with
AIDS.
Forty percent of the new estimated HIV infections each year occur in
the New York City metropolitan area. So obviously this has great
importance to us.
Adolescents, women, and minority communities are particularly hard
hit by this epidemic. Over 80 percent of the new estimated HIV
infections in women occur among African-American and Latino
populations.
In the last 10 years alone, the number of AIDS cases among women has
more than tripled, and every hour in this country two people under the
age of 25 become infected with HIV.
Now the interesting thing here is, this is not just limited to New
York. Cleveland, OH, and Atlanta, GA, have been named as two hot spots
for this growing trend in the increase in AIDS and HIV, particularly
among women.
In his fiscal year budget of 2004, President Bush stated his goal to
help reduce the number of HIV infections in the United States by 50
percent by 2005. However, the President's budget provides no new
domestic prevention funding for CDC to meet this goal.
The Ryan White CARE Act provides resources to State and local health
departments and community-based organizations for primary medical care,
drug treatments, and supportive services for low-income, uninsured
people living with HIV and AIDS.
The ADAP program provides access to vital but costly new drug
treatments that have enabled many people to live longer, more
productive lives.
Since 1996, the number of people served by ADAP alone has more than
doubled, expenditures have quadrupled, and the need for services still
outpaces available services. If we do not provide full funding for
ADAPs, we will accumulate as many as 21,000 Americans on waiting lists
in the next 20 months.
With no access to lifesaving drugs, they will experience HIV disease
progression, they will end up in hospital emergency rooms and intensive
care units, and they will incur very significant, avoidable costs to
local health care systems.
Currently, Oregon, Kentucky, and Alabama have the longest waiting
lists. Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia all currently have severe access
limitations due to the lack of funding and will have to close
enrollment sooner than they planned.
To effectively fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in the United States,
America's leading organizations committed to fighting this epidemic
have called for an increase of $400 million for domestic prevention
activities at CDC. My amendment attempts to fill in these gaps.
As increasing numbers of people with HIV/AIDS live longer, the cost
of their care and treatment places greater financial demands on State
and local governments and community-based organizations. We can provide
funding for these needed services through the Ryan White CARE Act.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this much-needed amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for
addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic on behalf of the millions of people
affected by HIV/AIDS in New York and around this country. The profound
human tragedy of HIV/AIDS has exacted an incalculable economic and
human toll on civilization--the Ryan White CARE Act programs have
helped to fill the gaping holes in care and survival we have
experienced these last few decades. This amendment will provide
essential funding for those programs so that those struggling to
survive each day can access necessary, life-saving treatments.
We are all familiar with the statistics--800,000 to 900,000 Americans
currently live with HIV/AIDS, 77,000 in my State of New York alone.
Furthermore there are a devastating 40,000 new infections in the U.S.
each year.
This is why we need the $401.43 million that this amendment would
provide for the Ryan White CARE Act programs, including a $214.8
million increase for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program or ADAP. The Ryan
White CARE Act provides invaluable resources to State and community
health organizations for primary medical care, drug treatments,
supportive services for low-income, and uninsured people living with
HIV/AIDS. Ryan White is also crucial to helping people follow
complicated drug treatments, to alleviate high medical costs for people
with low incomes and to combat HIV/AIDS in communities with a high
degree of new HIV/AIDS cases.
It is precisely because of Ryan White CARE Act's documented success
that we need to help the program survive, so they can help patients
survive. Improvements in care and powerful drug therapies are well
publicized and indeed many people with HIV/AIDS are living longer, more
productive lives. Yet as patients live longer, the cost of their care
and treatment places greater demands on community-based organizations
and State and local governments. This funding is vital for health
facilities and State budgets, which have come under considerable
financial strain due to costly new drugs.
For example, the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, ADAP under Title II of
the CARE Act was created in part to address the enormous need brought
on by the advent of new combination drug therapies. However, several
States have been forced to cap or restrict access to drug treatments
through ADAP, and continually deplete their ADAP budgets long before
the fiscal year ends. Turning our backs on patients who have clearly
benefited from better access to newer, more effective drugs would be a
step backwards.
I urge my colleagues, on behalf of patients and states, to support
this amendment. We need to keep one step ahead of this disease with
education and prevention efforts, focusing on hard hit populations such
as women and minorities, or else we risk sliding backwards in our
battle. Millions continue to face the daily grind of living with this
insidious disease, and it is my sincere hope that funding these
programs will bring a measure of help and hope to New Yorkers and
Americans who suffer each day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program
is a very important one. I wish we had additional funding so we could
accept the amendment offered by the Senator from New York, who seeks to
add $400 million to this program.
There have been very substantial increases in the program. In 1999,
the program was set at approximately $1.4 billion and that has
increased to the current appropriation of $2.041 billion.
Overall, on HIV/AIDS, in the Labor-HHS bill, we have in excess of $14
billion. The entire bill, which we have, has an allocation $137.6
billion. I fought to have a larger allocation, but this is the maximum
appropriation we can make within the budget resolution and within our
allocation, as much as I would like to see even more resources directed
toward HIV/AIDS.
For those reasons, Mr. President, because it does exceed the budget,
I raise a point of order under the Budget Act.
Mr. SCHUMER. I move to waive the appropriate section of the Budget
Act, Mr. President.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. We are going to vote on this tomorrow, Mr. President,
but now we are set to go.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1595 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1595 with respect to
LIHEAP.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.

[[Page S11230]]

Leahy, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Sarbanes,
Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Levin, Mr. Harkin, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. Snowe, proposes an amendment
numbered 1595.

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

(Purpose: To provide funding for home energy assistance needs under the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981)

On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec.____. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated
under this Act for additional home energy assistance needs of
one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency, under section 2602(e) of the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621(e)), there are
appropriated an additional $300,000,000 for such needs:
Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this Act for the
National Institutes of Health, $264,000,000 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 $7,195,199,000: Provided
further, That the amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2)
of this Act shall be deemed to be $6,483,301,000.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me start off by commending
Chairman Specter for his efforts to meet the needs that are so evident
in this appropriations bill in a very difficult budgetary climate.
The amendment I offer this evening, together with my colleague from
Maine, Senator Collins, would be to increase funding for the Low-Income
Home Energy Program to $2.3 billion for fiscal year 2004.
I thank my other colleagues and cosponsors--Senators Kennedy, Leahy,
Rockefeller, Voinovich, Jeffords, Kerry, Lieberman, Schumer, Corzine,
Sarbanes, Bingaman, Lincoln, Levin, Harkin, Clinton, Durbin, and
Snowe--for cosponsoring this amendment.
The amendment Senator Collins and I are offering will provide $300
million for the LIHEAP contingency fund. This money is available under
certain specified conditions: a significant home energy supply shortage
or disruption, a significant increase in the cost of home energy, a
significant increase in home energy disconnections, a significant
increase in participation in a public benefit program, or a significant
increase in unemployment.
Contingency money for LIHEAP is very important to ensure that these
resources can be quickly dispensed and targeted to those areas of the
country and those populations that are experiencing either severe
weather or severe economic distress.
Today, on September 9, it is a balmy day in Washington, DC, but no
one can forecast the weather that will take place throughout the course
of this winter on the east coast, in the Northeast, or on the west
coast, nor can we forecast hot weather that could occur in the
summertime. So this contingency fund is absolutely essential.
What we need to do is to ensure that this funding is there in
sufficient quantity so there will be no disruption in meeting the needs
of people who are facing crises, either economic distress or severe
weather.
I particularly thank Senators Specter, Harkin, Stevens, and Byrd for
their commitment to the basic program. This appropriations bill
contains $2 billion for the LIHEAP State grant program. It is the first
time we have had $2 billion for the basic LIHEAP program since 1986,
and it is a testament to the commitment and effort of Senators Specter
and Harkin and their colleagues. It is the absolute minimum we need for
the state grant program. Any lower amount represents a real cut in
dollars. But we also need something else, and that is the contingency
funds. If we don't have those contingency funds, I don't think we can
respond to the needs many of us foresee taking place this winter.
Last year, States provided LIHEAP assistance to over 4 million
families. Yet this is only about 15 percent of the 30 million
households who were eligible for LIHEAP assistance. So 85 percent of
eligible Americans could not be helped because of constrained funding
in LIHEAP.
My colleague, Senator Bingaman, is going to offer an amendment later
which would try to increase the basic State grant by $1 billion up to
$3 billion. This is a goal Senator Collins and I have aspired to for
many years. We annually send a letter asking for state grant funding of
$3 billion. I certainly support that proposal. But I readily
understand, given the constrained budget, where this is a very
difficult judgment to be made by the committee and by the Senate.
Nevertheless, I do believe--and that is why I offer, with Senator
Collins, this amendment--we need, for operational efficiencies and for
the ability to respond, the $300 million in contingency funds. I hope
on a bipartisan basis we can support this $300 million contingency
fund.
My colleague is here. I know she wishes to speak on this issue.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the program for low-income home energy
assistance is a vital program. Pennsylvania, my State, compares about
the same as the State of the Senator from Rhode Island in terms of
weather. It gets very cold. I am well aware of the fact that for many
people, especially seniors, it is a matter of heat or eat.
Since I have been on the subcommittee, we have made enormous progress
in increasing the funding for LIHEAP. I thank the Senator from Rhode
Island for noting the allocation which Senator Harkin, the ranking
member, and I had put in at $2 billion. When the Senator from Rhode
Island cites statistics on the number of people who will not be
covered, it is true. If his amendment is adopted, there will be some
people who won't be covered. If a vastly increased sum of money were
added, we would simply have to make the allocations.
We had an allocation last year of $1.7 billion with a $300 million
amount in the contingency fund. This year the Senator from Iowa,
Senator Harkin, and I decided to put the full $2 billion in the main
account so you wouldn't have to get the contingency to activate those
expenditures. I would like very much to have more money in this
account. I fought hard on the budget resolution for more money for this
subcommittee. If we had more money, nothing would give me greater
pleasure. I don't think I have voted against any increase in funding
for LIHEAP in the time I have been in the Senate.
There are very heavy responsibilities on the manager of the bill. One
is to get the bill moving. If we don't get this bill through by
September 30, we lose $3 billion. So it is with great reluctance that I
have to oppose the amendment from the Senator from Rhode Island,
because I would like to see this funding granted, but it does exceed
the budget resolution. And therefore, with reluctance, I raise a point
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been made.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget, I move to waive section 504 of
that concurrent resolution and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be and is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the plan is to stack this vote until
tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my
colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an
amendment that would increase the funding for the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $300 million.
Before I begin my formal comments, I, too, want to pay tribute to the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his
longstanding support of low-income heating assistance funding. Due to
his efforts, there is in this bill a $200 million increase in LIHEAP
funding over last year. Moreover, the bill would provide $300 million
more in much-needed regular LIHEAP funding than either the
administration's request or the House bill. So the legislation before
us represents significant progress.
Nevertheless, I am joining in the effort of my colleague from Rhode
Island because I think it reflects a realistic

[[Page S11231]]

appraisal of the needs for more assistance in this program.
During the past year, the Nation has gone from energy crisis to
energy crisis. In just this year alone, we have seen price spikes
involving home heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, and electricity.
Earlier this year, one of the largest suppliers of oil to American
markets, Venezuela, ceased production as a result of political turmoil.
A harsh cold snap occurred at about the same time, causing home heating
oil supplies to plummet and prices to surge upward.
More recently, we have run into a shortage of natural gas that has
again sent prices shooting upward. Three weeks ago, 50 million
Americans suffered through the biggest blackout in American history.
And finally, most recently, the price of gasoline rose with
unprecedented speed to approximately $1.75 per gallon.
These energy crises impose an especially heavy burden on our low-
income families and on those of our elderly who are living on limited
incomes. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their
incomes on energy and have fewer options available when energy prices
soar. High energy prices can even cause some families to choose between
keeping the heat on, putting food on the table, or paying for much-
needed prescription medicine.
These are choices no American family should ever have to make.
Despite the hardship which energy emergencies impose on low-income
Americans and despite the frequency with which we have all been forced
to suffer through energy emergency after energy emergency, the bill
before us does not provide any contingency LIHEAP funds to respond to
these kinds of emergencies. Given the frequency with which we have been
beset by energy crisis after energy crisis, in my view it is only
prudent that we plan ahead and that we include some contingency funding
to ensure low-income families can get through the next energy crisis on
the horizon.
I hope we won't have to use that funding. I hope prices will be
stable, that the winter will not be unusually harsh or long, and that
there will be no energy emergencies in fiscal year 2004. If there
aren't, if we are lucky or fortunate, then we will have no need to
spend this money and we will all be much relieved. But just in case the
future repeats the past, doesn't it make sense, just in case there is
another shortage of home heating oil or natural gas or price spikes or
heat-related crisis next summer, we be better prepared? Should we not
set aside some funding to help those who will need the help the most?
I call upon my colleagues to join Senator Reed and me in supporting
this amendment which will set aside an additional $300 million for
energy emergencies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I believe we have concluded our discussions on this
amendment. I ask unanimous consent to lay aside this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1592 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1592.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an amendment
numbered 1592 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 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 immunization services)

On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. ____. In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act to carry out immunization
programs under section 317 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 247b), there are appropriated an additional
$50,000,000 to carry out such programs: Provided, That such
amount 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
$6,945,199,000: Provided further, That the amount
$6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be
deemed to be $6,733,301,000.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, once again, I have to commend Senator
Specter and Senator Harkin for trying their best to meet extraordinary
demands with very limited resources. In this case, it is with respect
to childhood immunization. This is an issue that is too often taken for
granted because it has been such a success throughout many decades in
American public health. They have tried extremely hard to maintain
these funds. They did not accept the President's proposal for a $28
million decrease from the previous year's funding.
Nevertheless, the CDC, the principal Federal agency for immunization
policy and implementation, after enjoying several years of increases,
will only receive a $5 million increase over last year's funding for
global vaccine activities. Regrettably, it is not sufficient to
continue meeting the challenge of vaccinating all of our children and
truly protect children from diseases that are preventable through
immunization.
States and public health authorities throughout the country are
facing difficult issues of increased prices for vaccines and increased
demands for services. These factors argue very strongly for increased
funding, not level funding.
Right here in the District of Columbia, school began last week and
the school department is struggling to contend with thousands of
children who are not up to date with respect to their vaccinations.
The amendment I offer today, in conjunction with Senators Murray,
Durbin, and Cantwell, would increase funding for the CDC National
Immunization Program by $50 million. This additional funding will
ensure that State and local immunization programs can maintain their
commitment to protecting the health and well-being of our children.
One of our greatest successes in the area of public health has been
the campaign to have all children properly immunized by the age of two.
During this century, substantial progress has been made toward
eliminating and controlling many vaccine-preventable diseases. Simply
level funding this effort will not allow us to stay ahead of the
problem but to actually lose ground in this public health campaign.
That is why I am proposing this amendment.
Immunization initiatives have a proven track record of success. They
are terribly cost efficient. Our efforts today have resulted in high
levels of coverage around the country and record low numbers of
outbreaks of diseases. In fact, by looking at this chart, you can see
the success we have enjoyed with immunizations for vaccine-preventable
diseases, including diphtheria, measles, mumps, polio, and rubella.
These diseases struck fear in the hearts of Americans many years ago.
Today, we see a record of success in which diphtheria, for example,
has been reduced by over 99 percent on an annual basis; measles has
been reduced by 99 percent; polio, which when I was a young child was
the most dreaded disease one could imagine, has been eliminated in the
United States. This is a testament to the success of immunizations. We
have to do more than what we were doing last year just to maintain
current services.
Now, the other factor that we have seen in terms of the success of
immunization is the direct and indirect savings when it comes to health
care costs. For example, for every dollar invested in the hepatitis B
vaccine for infants at birth to 2 months of age, that dollar saves
$14.50 in direct and indirect costs. The mumps, measles, and rubella
vaccine saves about $23, or approximately $9 billion each year. This is
an incredibly cost-effective program as well as a very necessary
program. We cannot rest on our laurels. We have achieved this success,
but if we relent and do not continue to put in the effort, we will find
ourselves with fewer children immunized and higher incidence of disease
outbreaks.

There is another factor, and that is at the time we are funding these
immunization programs, we are discovering that science is making great
breakthroughs and creating new vaccines, but these vaccines add to the
cost of the program.
This chart illustrates the recommended immunization schedule in the
year 2003--hepatitis shots, diphtheria shots, polio shots, et cetera.
All

[[Page S11232]]

of these are multiple dosages over a number of months. All of them are
expensive or getting more expensive. So what we have here is an
increased demand not only in terms of children but also in terms of the
vaccines and the immunizations they must receive.
The CDC is at the heart of our efforts. This chart depicts the six
stages or elements of a good immunization program: community
assessment; outreach and education; delivery of the recommended
vaccines by providers; followup; tracking; maintenance of coverage
rates and outbreak control. On all of these efforts, CDC is using their
resources by giving grants to States, by making vaccines available
under their programs.
This is an involved, intricate, and, frankly, expensive program that
we must support. To do otherwise would risk what I fear would be a lack
of progress in the days ahead with respect to the protection of our
children in particular.
Now, the next chart illustrates one other aspect of the dilemma that
is facing public health authorities--many more vaccines to be
delivered, and also the cost of vaccines are going up, particularly the
latest vaccine added to the inventory, the pneumococcal vaccine. The
diagram describes the recommended vaccines in 1985. Back then, it was
diphtheria, polio, and 1-2 MMR, or measles, mumps and rubella. Also,
notice that the cost per child was very low, relatively speaking.
Today, in 2003, with additional vaccination requirements, that cost has
shot up significantly. So the range is almost $450 compared to $50.
That is putting a greater burden on States, causing an additional need
for Federal resources.
One of the things that is happening because of the clash of demand
and limited Federal resources is that, in some cases, we are seeing a
two-tier immunization system. Now, 32 States have implemented the new
pneumococcal vaccine using Section 317 funds; 19 States have not done
it. So in many respects, these 32 States are on the leading edge of
providing total protection--or as much as we can ensure today for
children--and yet 19 States are lagging behind. The principal reason
for that is the inability to finance these new vaccines. Another very
important reason we must, I believe, increase the appropriation this
year for our immunization program.
You can see by these charts that we are beginning to lose a little
bit of ground. This was 2001. The blue figures are the highest levels
of vaccination, ranging from 80 to 89 percent. The yellow are the
passing, if you will, 70 to 79 percent. The red is 60 to 69 percent of
coverage.
Back in 2001, there was one State, Louisiana; and in 2002, because of
strained resources, we are seeing many more red States show up. They
are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, and other States are on
the decline in terms of coverage. This is another reason why we have to
insist--at least I feel it is important enough to insist--that we
increase funding for this very important program. We all, as I said
initially, sometimes take for granted that our vaccine programs are
working, that polio and rubella and measles are something of the past.
You can just look around the country at some of the headlines we are
seeing in local newspapers: ``Whooping Cough Rates Soar in Three Oregon
Counties.'' This one says ``Tetanus Continues to Pop Up in the U.S.''
``Officials Warn of Pertussis Outbreak.'' ``Whooping Cough Cases Could
Double.'' There are other examples.
It reminds us that we cannot take immunization for granted. I know
the chairman has tried valiantly to put more resources into this
program. I urge my colleagues to do what they can to support this
amendment so we can increase funding for this very worthwhile and very
efficient program.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the tremendous
need for adequate vaccines to protect our children from a wide variety
of maladies. The Senator from Rhode Island seeks to add $50 million to
existing accounts. I appreciate his acknowledgment of the work which
Senator Harkin and I have already done on the appropriations for
vaccines.
The current bill has almost $3 billion for vaccination programs.
Health Resources and Services Administration has $1.6 billion. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has $1.65 billion. From
that, $1.14 billion is for vaccines for children. The Center for
Medicine and Medical Services has $300 million related to an
immunization program. The vaccine development at NIH has almost $1
billion--$988 million. In addition to the funds provided in this bill,
Indian Health Services has $1.526 million.
I suggest when we are dealing in the $3 billion range, there has been
very substantial consideration, really adequate consideration for this
important issue.
The Centers for Disease Control is an installation which has received
special attention from this Senator. Three years ago, I made a trip to
the CDC when I heard that it was in deplorable condition and I found
prize-winning scientists with desks in hallways and poisonous materials
unguarded in hallways.
With the cooperation of the ranking member, Senator Harkin, we made
an immediate addition of $170 million and added to that $250 million,
and last year $250 million, and have increased the administration's
request by some $300 million this year with an additional $250 million
for capital improvements.
This past Saturday, I traveled to Atlanta and took a look at the
Centers for Disease Control. I take second place to no one in my
concern for the Centers for Disease Control and all their important
operations on SARS, on HIV/AIDS, and the bioterrorist threats which now
confront America.
Simply stated, I think we have done a pretty good job in this
vaccination area. Certainly, $50 million more might be nice under some
circumstances, but I think this program is adequately funded.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island exceeds the
budget and, therefore, Mr. President, I raise a point of order under
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act and the allocation for
this subcommittee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been raised.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I move to waive section 904(c) of the
concurrent resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2004 for purposes
of the pending amendment, and request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart
showing the extensive expenditures on this line be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

IMMUNIZATION PROGRAMS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 BILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year 2002 year 2003 year 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Resources and Services $1.6 $1.6 $1.6
Administration (in millions)..........
Centers for Disease Control and 1.617 1.683 1.655
Prevention (in billions)..............
Vaccines for children (in billions).... ......... ......... 1.145
Centers for Medical and Medicaid 270 285 300
Services (in millions)................
Vaccine development, NIH (in millions). 610.2 962 988
--------------------------------
Total in Labor-HHS bill (in 2.498 2.731 2.944
billions).........................
Indian Health Service (in millions).... 1,526 1,556 1,580
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1596 to Amendment No. 1542

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1596 with respect to
museums and libraries.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Johnson, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered
1596 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. REED. Mr. 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 increase funding for certain literacy, library, and museum
programs)

At the end of title III, insert the following:

[[Page S11233]]

Sec. 306. (a) In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
(1) an additional $15,081,000 to carry out subpart 4 of
part B of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965;
(2) an additional $24,100,000 to carry out the Library
Services and Technology Act; and
(3) an additional $5,182,000 to carry out the Museum
Services Act.
(b) Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the National
Institutes of Health, $20,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until September 30, 2004.
(c) The amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this
Act shall be deemed to be $6,939,562,000, and the amount
$6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be
deemed to be $6,738,938,000.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, once again, I rise to offer my final amendment of the
evening, and I again commend Chairman Specter and Senator Harkin for
their efforts.
My amendment is designed to increase funding for libraries and
museums. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Kennedy, Bingaman,
Corzine, Levin, Lautenberg, Sarbanes, Boxer, Schumer, Johnson, and
Feinstein in offering this critical amendment.
The appropriations bill before us essentially levels or cuts the
funds in the library and museum accounts for this fiscal year.
The Federal Government has a long history of supporting our Nation's
libraries and museums. The Federal Government started providing direct
assistance to public libraries in 1956 and funding to museums in 1976.
So this is a function we have taken on for many decades.
We all understand that museums and libraries are rich sources of
culture and learning. They are part of the fabric of our intellectual
and civic life in every community, small and large, throughout America.
Libraries have been the foundation of education for years. They are
vital sources of literacy training, of community activities, and so
many things that are important to the quality of life in every
community in America. Our museums bring into the lives of our people
great art, scientific discoveries--indeed a host of discoveries and
amazing items that educate, inform, and, inspire the people of this
country. These institutions are more important now than ever because we
must recall our past to deal with a very difficult present and a
challenging future.
These facilities are also in great demand. If you speak to librarians
and museum directors, they would like to stay open longer and offer
additional programs and services because the demand is there, but the
funds are not there.
We are facing these issues and facing this appropriations bill just a
few weeks after we passed the Museum and Library Services Act of 2003.
This body passed it with strong, bipartisan support. It would
reauthorize these Federal programs for the next 6 years.
Among the many aspects of the bill that passed was providing for a
doubling of the minimum allocation to each State, which is very
important to smaller states like Rhode Island. Also, it established a
reservation of 1.75 percent for museum services for Native Americans,
to match the reservation currently provided for library services.
We are charting down a new reauthorization path but, unfortunately,
we have not been able to, in this appropriations bill, match the design
for that authorization. Indeed, this is one of those situations in
which the President's budget is much more robust with respect to
funding than the Appropriations Committee's proposal to the Senate. The
President sometimes gets criticized for not following through, and then
we have to do more. This is a case where the President's proposals have
been strong with respect to museums and libraries.
For example, in the No Child Left Behind Act, we authorized a program
called Improving Literacy through School Libraries. This program is
designed to provide library resources to schools throughout this
country, a central part of learning. The bill before us would fund that
at $12.4 million. The President requested $27.5 million because I
believe both the President and the First Lady recognize the importance
of school libraries and books and materials for those libraries.
I was the principal author of this legislation in the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I feel very strongly that
we must make a greater commitment to our nation's school libraries. Too
often when you go to a school library, you find books that are out of
date--vastly out of date--or books that are insufficient in number or
quality for students to truly learn.
Indeed, in an ideal world, every young American should have two
libraries to call upon: A good school library and a good neighborhood
public library. This will allow them to learn, to explore, and to
understand that education is not just the hours in school, but it is
every opportunity they have to read and to explore on their own.
I hope we could raise our efforts to increase the level of funding to
$27.5 million, the President's proposal, and not the funding level
contained in the bill. Indeed, the President, in his statement of
administration policy on this bill, said:

The administration also urges the Senate to provide the
full request for . . . Literacy Through School Libraries.

My amendment will also increase funding for the Library Services and
Technology Act by $24.1 million to bring the new total to $171.48
million. This increase in funding for the Library Services and
Technology Act would reach the President's funding request of $169.6
million for library State grants plus provide an additional $1.6
million needed to double the minimum State allotment which is a key
reform in the recently passed Museum and Library Services Act of 2003.
If we do not follow through with this funding, we are going to
inhibit the ability of libraries to serve their neighborhoods. We are
going to inhibit the ability of libraries to take part in literacy
programs which is one of the centerpieces of the President's overall
educational policy. We see it every day in our hometowns and across our
States, where libraries cut back hours, cut back access, cut back
collections and, indeed, as many States face fiscal crises, one of the
first areas that is cut in State budgets is libraries and museums.
I believe we should be able to, hopefully, step into the breach and
help a bit more.
My amendment would also boost funding for the Museum Services Act by
$5.18 million to again reach the President's funding request. Our
museums are key partners not only of our educational programs but also
of our culture and our national memory. I hope we can increase funding
in this regard.
This is a modest amendment, in total increasing resources by $43.36
million that will directly help our museums and libraries throughout
the country.
I reiterate that I understand the difficult challenge both Senator
Specter and Senator Harkin face in trying to fund all of these
programs. I think they would be the first to point out how valuable
they are. I feel very moved to point out how I believe we can do
better. In this case, simply matching the President's request would do
much better.
My amendment is fully offset for fiscal year 2004. It achieves this
by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations and
reappropriating those funds in fiscal year 2003. This is the same
mechanism Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter used to add $2.2
billion to the underlying appropriations bill.
I urge my colleagues to support museums, libraries, and the Reed
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment by the Senator
from Rhode Island with some trepidation, because of two factors: My
sister Shirley Katy is a professional librarian, and my sister Shirley
Katy is reportedly watching this debate on C-SPAN. Senator Harkin just
said, sotto voce--I had better be careful.
That is one of the problems of being a manager of a bill. You have to
try to keep the bill within the budget resolution, within the budget
allocation. If it conflicts with the longstanding interests of my
sister Shirley Specter Katy, that is just one of the costs of being the
manager of the bill.
I might say parenthetically, and not too much at length because of
the hour, that my sister was a great inspiration to me on developing
early reading habits. It actually led to my downfall; I became a
lawyer. She was always

[[Page S11234]]

with a book. She has been a librarian in the Elizabeth, NJ, school
system for many years. She recently retired.
From her and from my educational experience generally, I have great
reverence for libraries. I would like to see the libraries funded even
more than they are. The Institute of Museum and Library Services has an
appropriation of $243,889,000. Notwithstanding the difficulties of the
budget, we were able to maintain that figure.
It is worth noting that the figure is $1,865,000 above the
President's request. Here again, I would like to see more money in
libraries, but we simply do not have the money within the budget
resolution or within the allocation for this subcommittee. Therefore,
it is with reluctance that I raise a point of order that this amendment
exceeds the budget resolution and therefore is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order has been raised.
Mr. REED. I move to waive the Budget Act under Section 504 for
purposes of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 1602 to Amendment No. 1542

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Lautenberg,
and Senator Clinton, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
pending amendments are set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine], for himself,
Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lautenberg proposes an amendment
numbered 1602 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. 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 restore cuts in student aid)

At the end of title III add the following:
Sec. 306. None of the funds provided under this Act shall
be used to implement or enforce the annual updates to the
allowance for State and other taxes in the tables used in the
Federal Needs Analysis Methodology to determine a student's
expected family contribution for the award year 2004-2005
under part F of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1087kk et seq.) published in the Federal Register
on Friday, May 30, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 32473), to the extent
that such implementation or enforcement of the updates will
reduce the amount of Federal student financial assistance for
which a student is eligible: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated in this Act for the National Institutes of
Health, $200,000,000 shall not be available for obligation
until September 30, 2004.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It would block
the Department of Education from implementing recent changes in student
aid eligibility that will reduce financial aid to college students by
billions of dollars starting in the fall of 2004. Let me repeat that--
billions of dollars.
These changes come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically,
double digits in many of our State schools across the country; just 9
percent in the State of New Jersey. Students and working families are
straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's
promise of access to higher education.
This challenge to working Americans has been vividly documented in a
feature article in U.S. News & World Report September 8, entitled
``Beyond Their Reach.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that article be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CORZINE. It goes through tuition hikes. It goes through how
Federal funding for grants and loans has not kept pace with the rise in
tuition. It talks about students having to work many additional hours
to be able to meet the financial stress. It is a very complete review
of what the burden on working families is with regard to paying for
higher education and having access to the American promise that
provides.
I put that into the Record because it sets the framework for what I
am talking about with regard to these regulations on financial aid.
I will explain these cuts in student aid which I feel are
inappropriate for the times, but I think I can show they are totally
unfair within the context of what is happening in the real world. This
is a case where people in the Department of Education are operating off
of information that is dated and is not applicable to the current
circumstances.
I will take a few minutes to explain the situation, which is not
immediately obvious, but it is very clear it undermines access to
higher education in a very substantial way. On May 30 of this year, the
Department of Education changed the formula for determining eligibility
for Pell grants and other types of Federal financial aid. The formula
is complex. It looks a lot like a tax return. I guess people have to go
to H&R Block to figure it out, but it is very clear what this does. A
family starts with their gross income and through a series of
calculations subtracts from that their income to calculate what is
called the expected family contribution. They start with gross income
and subtract away a number of items to get to expected family
contribution.
As the name implies, this is the amount a family is expected to
contribute toward the college education of their child in any given
year, at least for those families above $15,000 in gross income--hard-
working, middle-class families. Expected family contribution then is
subtracted from the cost of education for that year to determine a
student's need for the purpose of Federal aid, such as Pell grants. The
expected family contribution is also used by many State and private
institutions. This is important to understand. This doesn't just apply
to Pell grants; it applies to private institutions as well, all kids
who are going to school, not in every instance but in most instances.
It impacts their ability to get financial aid and basic allocation of
financial assistance for both loans and grants across the country.

In other words, changes in a student's expected family contribution
has direct impact on that student's eligibility for all kinds of
financial aid. As a student's expected family contribution goes up,
their eligibility for financial aid goes down.
As I noted earlier, the way the student's expected family
contribution is calculated is similar to the way Federal taxes are
calculated. One of those similarities is the fact that you get credit
for State and local taxes that you pay. For income tax purposes we call
it a deduction, and it reduces the amount of your taxable income. In
the financial aid world it is called an allowance, but it works in a
similar way. A student's family gets an allowance for paying State and
local taxes. This allowance then reduces the amount of their student's
expected family contribution. So, as the State and local tax goes up,
the student's expected family contribution goes down. The eligibility
for financial aid goes up. If the allowance goes down, the opposite
happens: A student's family gets less credit for paying State and local
taxes and the student is eligible for a smaller amount of financial
aid. This gets at the heart of the problem, this issue I am trying to
address tonight.
The allowance for State and local taxes is not determined for
families based on what they pay; it is not individualized; it is
determined by the Department of Education, and through publication in
the Federal Register they establish those for each and every State.
Each year, the Department of Education publishes a table, and the
percentage of income that family can deduct from their income as an
allowance for paying State and local taxes is established. Until this
year, the Department of Education had not changed these allowances in
10 years. Let me repeat: They had not changed these allowances in 10
years. Somehow or another they decided to do it this year but had not
done it in 10 years, while State and local taxes are moving up and down
in different amounts in all different environments. On May 30 they
decided to slash the allowances across the board.
I will just show you this chart, show what actually is taking place
in many States. I would like to show, for instance in South Carolina,
they would

[[Page S11235]]

argue taxes fell from 7 percent to 3 percent, so they reduced the
allowance by 57 percent.
If I am reading this correctly, the Presiding Officer, who lives in
Missouri--they have gone from 5 percent to 3 percent and they reduced
the allowance for Missouri citizens 40 percent, the deduction to change
the eligibility for families to access financial aid.
You can go through this chart for every State. Local tax allowances
were cut in every State but one, Connecticut. Some of those allowances
were 100 percent, 50 percent, 80 percent. New Jersey is one of the
lucky ones; it was only 14 percent.
I see the Senator from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's cut was, if I am
reading it correctly, 50 percent.
It is important that people understand that, again, this is
determining financial eligibility of families on a very wide basis. We
can talk about each of the States and how much is being cut. Almost
every State except, as I suggested, Connecticut has reduced the
allowances we have here.
The bottom line is students and their families all across America
will get less on allowance for State and local taxes next year for
purposes of applying for Federal financial aid. I repeat, it also
applies for many private institutions and private aid beyond that.
As a result, the expected family contribution, what families are
expected to contribute, will go up for nearly all American families and
students. While the financial aid impact will vary from family to
family, it is clear that an increase will reduce aid for many students.
I am having a hard time understanding, as I read the newspapers and I
hear that State income taxes and local income taxes are going up, why
we have decided to implement this today.
This is a very hard thing to calculate for a lot of different issues,
but one of the places the Department of Education has worked with CRS
is with regard to local allowances as they apply to Pell grants. They
have acknowledged that there will be 84,000 students across America who
will lose their Pell grants entirely. Not everybody is going to lose
them. Some are going to lose just a portion of their eligibility. I
will go through an example later.
We know that for those 84,000, that is a $270 million drop in the
amount of financial aid being provided for students in grants across
the country. The fact is, if you sum it up for those who are partially
participating and all the others, we are talking about billions of
dollars. I emphasize, it is not just Pell grants.
Listen to the assessment of Bryan Fitzgerald, the Director of the
Advisory Committee for Student Financial Assistance, created by
Congress to advise it on higher education. Mr. Fitzgerald was quoted in
the New York Times on July 18. Asked about whether damage from the
Department's action would just affect the Pell Grant Program, Mr.
Fitzgerald said:

It doesn't stop there. It will have a ripple effect through
all the other financial aid programs--State grants, loans and
institutional dollars. The cumulative effect will be much
larger.

Bryan Zucker, president of the Human Resources Capital, in the same
New York Times article stated:

[I]n aggregate, there's no question that we're talking
about a swing of billions of dollars [in financial aid.]

I think it is important that we have laid out these facts, that
tinkering around with the formula is going to end up undermining the
ability of literally hundreds of thousands of middle-class Americans to
have access to financial aid grants and loans. It is going to make
something that is already very difficult even more troubling, to have
access to higher education.
I think it is very difficult to understand why we are doing it.
Let's put this in the context of what is going on in our States. The
Department of Education is reducing the allowance families get for
paying State and local taxes. But I think everyone in this Chamber
knows State and local taxes are not going down; they are going up.
According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, States
raised taxes by more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2003 and already
plan to enact additional tax increases of over $17 billion for 2004.

It is likely through the 2003 and 2004 period that we will see State
taxes go up by $25 billion, compared to what the Department is using,
where they are saying they are going down. That is before we take into
consideration what is happening at the local level, local taxation in
many places.
I want to use one example. Students and families in Pennsylvania, for
example, will have their State and local tax allowance cut from 6
percent to 3 percent. For purposes of this calculation, Pennsylvania
families will get 50 percent less credit next year than they did this
year. But in fact the senior Senator knows, State taxes are going up in
Pennsylvania. In fiscal year 2003 they were raised by $569 million, and
in 2004 Pennsylvania is planning more increases. I don't think that is
fair to Pennsylvania any more than I think it would be fair in New
Jersey. In fact, we have many of the same situations.
I think you can go State by State and look at it, look at this
possibility. I will not go through each State but I think you can
calculate it for every State but Connecticut and you will see there is
a loss. State taxes are going up. Local taxes are going up. The only
people who do not realize it seem to be the Department of Education.
I want working families to have an opportunity at this American
dream. I think this needs to be done.
I also would cite this article about which I spoke. There is a
specific case of a lady named Lynn Caputo of Massachusetts, one of
hundreds of thousands of students going through this process about
which I spoke.
I am not going to read this article. We have a quote here that shows
how deeply flawed this is when you apply it to an individual. Ms.
Caputo lost a father. By these calculations, she will lose over $1,000
in financial aid next year. Just at the time when her personal
situation is changing, taxes are going up in Massachusetts. By these
standards of how we deal with expected family contributions, she is
doing better than she would have been doing before. It is very hard to
understand how that fairness fits with the reality of the world in
which we live.
Eighty-four thousand students are losing Pell grant loans, and 270
million of them broadens it out to billions of dollars when you take
into account all of the other higher education needs.
I think we need to do something about this. We can do that without
impinging on our budget formulation. That is what my amendment would
do. It says the Department of Education cannot use any funds to
implement new State and local tax allowances to the extent that they
would reduce aid for any student.
By the way, there are some technical things about one class of
students here or there. But the vast majority are losing.
I should note that the amendment is fully offset by provisions to
delay the obligation of $200 million in NIH funds until September 30,
2004. As a practical matter, this should have no real impact on their
operations or change their needs. We are talking about a serious impact
on a broad swath of middle-class Americans having access to financial
aid.
This isn't partisan. There are Republican States and Democrat States.
This is just bureaucracy not keeping up with the times.
Let me repeat that they haven't changed these formulas in 10 years.
They somehow or other woke up on May 30 and thought we needed to change
these formulas. They have not done it for 10 years. Now they are
reducing that allowance for taxes at just the time taxes are going up.
I don't get it. We are trying to do this in a fiscally sound way by
getting an offset. I think we can make a big difference in a very
substantial way for a lot of folks. It will not cut Pell grants in any
way. I think it will make a big difference in providing access to
higher education for kids who are really stretched.
I hope the Senate will consider this tomorrow. It really is something
that I think goes to the heart of everyone in this Chamber. We are not
talking about costing money. We are talking about costing working
families in America money.

[[Page S11236]]

Exhibit 1

[From the U.S. News and World Report, Sept. 8, 2003]

Beyond Their Reach

(By Rachel Hartigan Shea)

In July, administrators of tiny Unity College in Maine
tagged 100 fish with vouchers totaling $165,000 in
scholarships and other goodies and dumped the finned
financial aid into a nearby lake. Nearly 100 students and
parents pushed off from shore in canoes, kayaks, and
rowboats, all hoping to snag the big one: a fish carrying the
$56,800 that would cover four years tuition at the private
collage, known for its outdoorsy majors such as aquaculture
and forestry.
It was a good day to be a smallmouth bass. After seven
hours, all but one of the students participating in Unity's
first annual ``Fishing for Scholarships'' paddled back empty-
handed. Mike Bradford, a sophomore from Bear, Del., reeled in
a $50 tuition coupon and a free sea-kayaking trip donated by
a local merchant. Nice, but it hardly covered those hefty
college bills.
A lot of families these days feel as if they're facing
college costs without enough funds on the line. Salaries are
flat, jobs are scarce, investments haven't fully recovered
and savings are tapped out. Financial aid can't seem to keep
pace with financial need, and now the Department of Education
has tinkered with the financial aid formula to some families'
detriment [story, Page 54]. Tuition, particularly at state
schools, continues to rise. Families aren't alone in their
anxiety: Colleges, too, wonder how they will pay the bills,
with endowments down 6 percent last year, the biggest drop
since 1974, and 25 states cutting higher education
appropriations by as much as 14 percent. Many schools have
had to cut classes and sports teams, freeze salaries, and lay
off employees to deal with the budget shortfalls.
Yes, it looks like a crisis. But before you despair, listen
to this: It's still possible to get help paying for college.
There's more financial aid money available today than ever
before, and more students are getting a piece of it. But the
piece is smaller, and it might be in the form of an IOU. It
all adds up to a substantial shift in who ends up footing a
big chunk of the bill for college: you. ``Students and their
families are paying more of the share than they did a decade
ago,'' says Donald Heller, senior research associate at the
Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State.
Financial aid was originally designed, of course, to make
college affordable for everyone. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson
signed the Higher Education Act which gave colleges
government grants to distribute to needy students and
established a loan program for the middle class. Seven years
later came the debut of the Pell grant, the primary funding
mechanism for low-income students. In its early years, the
Pell--with a maximum award of $452 based on family income--
covered as much as 84 percent of college costs. But while
federal spending on Pell grants has gone up 8 percent since
1991, tuition and fees have increased by 38 percent. The
Pell's current maximum of $4,050 covers roughly 39 percent of
the average cost of tuition and room and board. And with the
White House and Congress eager to limit spending, it's
unlikely that the Pell will be raised this year.
Gap math. Because of the high cost of grants, the federal
government in the late 1970s began turning to loans to fill
the gap between federal grants and family need. Two thirds of
federal aid now comes in the form of loans. Subsidized
Stafford loans allow students with demonstrated need to
borrow up to $2,625 their first year ($6,625 for independent
students) and more in subsequent years, up to a maximum of
$22,265. The government pays the interest--currently 3.42
percent--until the student has been out of school for six
months. Students not deemed needy can take out unsubsidized
Stafford loans; parents can turn to Parent Loans for
Undergraduate Students. Both also boast low rates.
It sounds like a pretty good deal. But more loans means
more students (who are today outborrowing their parents) are
paying the bulk of their college costs. ``The student aid
system was based on the parental responsibility to pay for
college,'' says Brian Fitzgerald, staff director of the
Department of Education's Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance. ``Loans mean it's the actual student
who is bearing the burden.'' Nationwide, student debt is up
66 percent since 1997.
Take Erin Brindell, a 21-year-old from St. Louis. In April,
her father, an accountant, took early retirement rather than
risk losing his job. Her mother, a teacher who's been
fighting cancer, also retired. With Brindell's family income
down almost 60 percent from last year, and two other siblings
in college (another four have already graduated), the senior
asked her school, a private university in Missouri, for more
aid. The college said it was out of money and pointed her to
a state loan agency. She borrowed $9,700, bringing the grand
total of her debt upon graduation next spring to $60,000.
Brindell, who is majoring in secondary education, will end up
paying for what her family could not, which promises to be a
struggle on a teacher's salary.
Deep debt. This fall, Congress will consider raising the
Stafford loan cap during the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. The combination of low interest rates and a
higher limit, some education experts argue, will help more
students pay for college without resorting to private loans,
which generally have higher interest rates and require
quicker repayment. But critics respond that the debt load is
already too high and looms darkly over students' futures,
forcing them to consider majors--and careers--based on
potential earnings rather than academic inclination. Some
experts suspect a higher loan limit would not translate into
more aid: Institutions will just reduce grant aid by the
extra amount students can borrow.
At the same time that federal policy is influencing the
growth of loans at the expense of grants, states are driving
up public university prices and accelerating the cost shift
to students. State support for universities has been steadily
declining over the past two decades. Legislators see that
colleges have sources of funds like tuition and private
donations that other pressing budgetary needs like primary
education and healthcare do not. And the recent fiscal
crises have just exacerbated the decline. This year was
the third in a row of drastic cuts to university funding
nationwide. The Maryland university system lost 14 percent
of its budget, while California lost $700 million of the
$9 billion it usually spends on higher education. Experts
predict an additional 2.3 percent decline next year. And
remember this all comes at a time when many states expect
higher enrollments. Nevada, for example, is bracing for a
33 percent boom in high school graduates by 2007.
So what can the state systems do? Mostly, raise tuition.
The tab at the University of Virginia and the University of
California shot up 30 percent this year; the University of
Arizona's, nearly 40 percent. And many of the increases are
on top of previous tuition spikes; 16 states raised tuition
by more than 10 percent last year. Of course, state
universities are still a bargain for in-state students,
almost 70 percent of whom pay less than $8,000 per year. But
low-income students can't afford even small jumps in their
share of college costs. For the poorest families, the cost of
attendance at a public university is more than half their
income. And according to a study last year by the Department
of Education's Advisory Committee, there is a $3,800 gap
between what families in the lower income brackets need to
attend public universities and the financial aid they
receive.
Some states, like Arizona, have tried to shield the
neediest students. ``We ran the numbers to see how we can
increase tuition and set aside enough to hold the most needy
harmless,'' says Jack Jewett, former president of the state's
board of regents, who notes that 14 percent of all tuition
revenue will be funneled into financial aid.
But many states are coming up short. Indiana managed to
boost spending but not enough to cover higher tuition, so it
will now have to limit the amount of the awards. And
Minnesota couldn't give out any grants to new college
students last spring, despite an extra $8 million in the
budget, because current students had already consumed the
available money. ``I think that policymakers are siding with
aid programs more than institutions in terms of cuts,'' says
Kristin Conklin, a senior policy analyst with the National
Governors Association, ``but that relative protection is not
translating into more buying power for students.''
Individual universities are exhausting their financial aid
dollars as well. Take Penn State: While it raised tuition 9.8
percent to about $9,500 for incoming freshmen, it has lost
$45 million in state funding over the past two years.
``Something would have to be traded off, like competitive
wages for faculty or forgoing already delayed maintenance on
buildings,'' says Anna Griswold, an assistant vice provost.
But there may be another significant reason why there's not
enough money to go around. Some critics say that too much is
being spent on merit aid. Over the past decade, state grants
have gone up 447 percent, but much of that is not need-based.
Since 1993, the Georgia HOPE Scholarship, the granddaddy of
all the state scholarship programs, has doled out more than
$1.9 billion to more than 693,000 students with B averages or
better in high school. But programs like Georgia's tend to
favor middle- and upper-class students whose families
probably could afford college without a scholarship. And with
several states funding the merit programs through lotteries,
a 2002 study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University argues that lottery players, who are
``disproportionately low income, poorly educated, and
black,'' are paying for the college education of these
better-off kids. The study found that 12 states with merit
programs gave out nearly three times as much money for those
scholarships as they did for need-based aid.
Not surprisingly, colleges limit their financial aid bills
by being choosy in the admissions game. ``If a student is
marginal and has money, his chances of being admitted are
better than a student who is marginal and has no money,''
says Robert Massa, vice president for enrollment, student
life, and college relations at Dickinson College. That said,
the private Pennsylvania school, which finances most of its
aid through tuition, enrolled more students this year because
the class as a whole was needier. ``Those additional 30
students are helping us afford financial aid to assist the
entire student population,'' says Massa. Just a few dozen
schools--all of them private--still pledge that a student's
financial need won't influence the admissions process and
that they'll

[[Page S11237]]

meet the full need of the students they accept. Trouble is,
poorer students are gravitating to the few need-blind
colleges that are left. ``Places like Macalester are
reaching a point where we have to consider not being need
blind,'' says Michael McPherson, the Minnesota college's
former president.
Looking up. Yet there are bright spots on the horizon.
Institutional aid from private universities rose almost 197
percent in the past decade. Schools with generous endowments
can purposely keep loans to a minimum. ``A one-year downturn
doesn't necessarily severely impact our ability to maintain
our [financial aid] policies,'' says Joseph Russo, director
of financial aid at Notre Dame. And a group of wealthy
schools (called the ``568 Group'' for a section of federal
law that allows them to collaborate) are giving out more
grant aid this year, having decided to cap home equity at 2.4
times a family's income in its eligibility test. (The federal
government does not count home equity when assessing need.)
So, those families whose home prices shot up while their
salaries stagnated will find themselves with better aid
offers.
Even Erin Brindell, with her $60,000 debt, isn't gloomy.
``I can't worry too much,'' she says. ``I've had a great
college experience.''

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield
for a question?
Mr. CORZINE. Sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Has the Senator from New Jersey considered offering
legislation which would be taken up by the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions? I believe he is a member of that
committee.
Mr. CORZINE. I wish I were. I wish the Senator from Pennsylvania
could make the argument that I could be on that committee. I would be
happy to be on that committee.
Mr. SPECTER. I withdraw that portion of my question.
I ask the Senator: Isn't it true the Senator can offer an amendment
which would be considered by that committee?
Mr. CORZINE. I very much will consider looking at all of the various
ways. I think we have legislation pending to be reviewed in that
committee. It just so happens this is one of those places where we deal
with higher education. It seems quite appropriate since we have a
budget-neutral approach both to raise this issue and to make sure we
address it now so people can make their financial plans.
Mr. SPECTER. Aside from considering a substantive law change, has the
Senator from New Jersey proposed one?
Mr. CORZINE. We have a bill that has been submitted. I will check out
the number for the senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raise that question because this is an
issue of some complexity. Nobody has been a greater proponent of higher
education than this Senator. It may be that the whole approach on
making deductions or changes based on taxes is an inappropriate way to
deal with the funding of higher education. What we have here is an
effort to stop funding on a change in a formula which involves a
substantive change in law. We have very few amendments offered. We have
to reach some substantive objective by limitation of funding.
If it is something which is fairly direct, I would think it
appropriate. But where you have something which is as complicated as
this matter is--there have been no hearings on it, there has been no
opportunity for the Secretary of Education to come in to offer an
opinion, there has been no opportunity for the Secretary of the
Treasury to come in and offer an opinion.
We have an article from U.S. News & World Report which I can't even
get a copy of. I sent over for a copy a few minutes ago so I could have
an opportunity to read it and so I would be in a position to know a
little something about what the Senator from New Jersey offers an
amendment to effect, as he calls it, a ``swing'' of billions of
dollars. I would not like to swing on billions of dollars on a U.S.
News & World Report article I can't even get a copy to read.
The Senator from New Jersey has an amendment. It would have been
helpful to have had it in advance of the moment when he offered it. If
he is relying on an article, it would have been helpful to have the
information.
I am very much concerned about what is proposed to be an offset here.
The last part of his amendment, which I have just seen, provides that
the funds appropriated under this act to the National Institutes of
Health--$200 million--shall not be available for obligation until
September 30, 2004.
Anybody who tampers with the funding of the National Institutes of
Health for any amount of money is going to draw strenuous objection
from this Senator. The ranking member, Senator Harkin, and I have
worked for many years to double NIH funding from $12 billion to $27
billion. On a murky amendment such as we have today and not knowing
where it goes, I would strenuously object to it on the grounds that it
ought to be considered in an authorizing committee, and that before we
tamper with the National Institutes of Health on this funding, even
though it may not amount to a great deal of money, because I don't know
how much they will obligate, the $200 million has the potential to be
very substantial. But I would strenuously urge my colleagues to reject
the amendment.

I hope to have an opportunity to read U.S. News & World Report before
the night is over.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am sorry. I don't know who has the
floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
Mr. CORZINE. I thank the President. I will respond to the Senator
from Pennsylvania.
It is not the U.S. News & World Report calculations. The
Congressional Research Service calculated what the impact is. It is a
Federal study. The stimulus doesn't come from U.S. News & World Report.
It is reporting to the public what some of the changes are. I think it
is important that we do what is necessary to make sure higher education
is openly available to every student and to every family.
That is what the amendment is about. It is very simple. It is not
changing the law. It is dealing with an issue of regulation. The
Department of Education has chosen to deal with one in 10 years. It is
going to change the flow of funds that is made available--Pell grants,
loans, and other financial aid--to students across the country.
I would be more than happy to provide my own copy of U.S. News &
World Report. But they didn't do the analysis. The analysis was done by
the Congressional Research Service in a study provided to the
Department of Education.
I hope we can consider this not on the basis of publications but
looking at it from the effective study of some of the Government
agencies that have looked at it.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank the Senator for his amendment on issues at
NIH. I very seldom disagree with my esteemed friend and chairman of the
subcommittee, Senator Specter. I may have a slight disagreement here.
A couple of questions: First, I noticed on the chart that the
deduction for my State of Iowa was 57 percent. That looked to be one of
the highest of all the States, if I am not mistaken. Is a 57-percent
reduction correct?
Mr. CORZINE. The distinguished Senator from Iowa is reading the chart
correctly.
Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator state what that would mean? Give me
some idea what that might mean for a family in Iowa that applied for
student aid, has been getting student aid, a son or daughter going to a
private college--Simpson College or Graceland or Clarke or a number of
colleges in Iowa. They have been applying for student aid and all of a
sudden they get hit with this change. Give me some idea what that means
for that family that is eligible for student aid with a couple of kids
in high school and maybe they have a couple of kids in college.
Mr. CORZINE. The Federal study has shown that 84,000 kids across this
country would be dropped from the Pell grant program itself, completely
eliminated.
Mr. HARKIN. Is the Senator saying there could be young men and women
in Iowa who are in college who are getting Pell grants, eligible for
Pell grants today, who, because of this change in this Department of
Education regulation--not a law, but a regulation--will be denied
access to Pell grants next year?
Mr. CORZINE. This change in regulation is done once in 10 years, by
the way, not on a systematic every-year basis looking at what is going
on in the States. It will have the potential to affect your students in
Iowa or my students in New Jersey and anywhere

[[Page S11238]]

across the country. The effect is quite substantial, and it also can
reduce that amount somebody would be eligible for a Pell grant. So
$4,000-plus could be reduced to $2,000. This could be meaningful
dollars in grants that are lost to students across this country just at
a time, by the way, when tuition is going up 10 percent a year--in that
neighborhood--in State universities across the country, at the same
time that universities are having to cut back classes because they do
not have the resources coming and budgets are being reduced from the
State governments. It is a difficult mix of things to be implemented.
We ought to act sooner rather than later. That is why we are talking
about it now.
Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator say further that this change in this
regulation not only affects the families that need this student aid,
the young people going to college who need the student aid but, again,
when they get the student aid, they use it usually to pay their tuition
at school, so not only does it hurt the families--it is a double hit--
it also hits the schools, too?
Mr. CORZINE. When students have to drop out or are not be able to go,
and there is a decreased demand for higher education from students,
that would happen. We are losing a major investment in human capital as
time goes on.
Clearly, universities are hurt. They are having to deal with trying
to find other sources of aid, basically trying to find jobs for kids so
they can work at the same time they go to school.

It seems to me we are being very shortsighted in implementing such a
regulation which does not conform with the facts anywhere. It has been
talked about broadly, obviously in the media. There have been studies
equally by a number of government institutions. I hope the Senate will
consider this in the long run best interest of the country. We are not
changing the fiscal year for the NIH funding, just delaying the timing.
Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for my last question, I want to
make sure I am correct that the Senator in his amendment is not taking
any money away from NIH; is that correct?
Mr. CORZINE. That is correct. As a matter of fact, I am supportive of
what both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa have
done to double NIH funding over a period of time. I will continue to
support that. I believe very strongly in it.
Mr. HARKIN. I know the Senator has been supportive of our efforts to
increase funding of NIH.
As I understand the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, it
delays until September 30, the last day of the fiscal year, by $200
million, NIH obligations. It is my information that NIH estimates that
it will obligate $8 billion next September. In September of next year
it will obligate during September, 1 month, $8 billion.
I assume they work on a 5-day workweek. I assume that. I know NIH
does research 7 days a week, but in terms of this, that is 20 days out
of the month, so $8 billion for 20 days. If we could figure out how
much that is a day, that is $400 million a day.
What the Senator is basically saying, we are just asking for one-half
day, to delay until September 30.
Now, if, in fact, they do $8 billion in September and do it evenly,
which they do not normally do, but if they do, they will be obligating
$400 million on September 30 anyway, so the Senator is saying that for
purposes of getting the funding we need for this, we are simply going
to ask to officially delay $200 million until the last day of the
month. They can still obligate it. This gets us the money we need to
pay for the Senator's amendment. Am I correct in what I said?
Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Iowa is exactly correct. He is talking
about how budget accounting works in the Federal Government, which is a
cashflow system. We are in no way trying to undermine the ability of
NIH to be effective.
Mr. HARKIN. One last observation. If it is $200 million, we take no
money away. They will obligate $8 billion in September anyway. That
$200 million is one dollar out of every 40. That is all you are saying
they will obligate on September 30. I have to believe it. I have been
around NIH now for the 19 years I have been privileged to serve on this
committee, and I watched how they obligate money and how they spend
money. Quite frankly, it is in this Senator's judgment that asking NIH
to obligate $200 million the last day of the month is nothing. That is
a no-brainer. They will do that anyway, but it gets us the money needed
to make sure we do not shortchange the kids and their families needing
help for Pell grants and help meet the needs of our higher education,
our institutions so they can get the young people in and pay the
tuition.
In that regard, I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a
cosponsor, and I ask unanimous consent, also, that Senator Reid of
Nevada be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORZINE. I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, my calculations differ. I took $8
million--and I don't know if that is a correct figure or incorrect
figure--and that works, to me, to be $20 million a day. So if you are
talking about $200 million, that is considerably more than the
calculations we have just heard.
I don't think it is too important how much money it is. If it is
delayed funding which is available for the National Institutes of
Health, I think it is a bad idea.
Mr. HARKIN. Four hundred million dollars a day.
See, Mr. President, that is why we need a hearing. I thank the
Senator from Iowa for proving my point. This is not something that you
can roll off the back of your hand going into the 15th hour of the day,
a little before 9 o'clock Eastern Standard Time.
But whatever the calculation comes out to be, I would strenuously
object to tampering with any of the NIH money. And I say that after
having put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, along with my colleague
from Iowa, on getting the funding up.
When the Senator from New Jersey says he is not changing the law, I
think he is categorically wrong. If you are stopping the funding so
that the change in the formula cannot be worked out, it is conclusively
changing the law.
This amendment to this appropriations bill is a specific effort to
change the law. When you talk about a swing of billions of dollars--and
I don't know whether that is right, wrong, or indifferent, but that is
the representation made by the Senator from New Jersey--the impact on
looking for an offset can hardly be de minimis, can hardly be
minuscule, can hardly be irrelevant.
You are talking about a swing of billions of dollars. I don't know
that is so, but I would like to know a lot more about this amendment
and what its impact is. And I would like to know a lot more about this
whole idea of reducing student aid based upon some formula. I am not
familiar with it. And this is something which I think the Department of
Education and the Department of the Treasury would like to comment
about.
In an effort to peruse this Congressional Research Service document
just a bit, I have some bedtime reading. In fact, I have quite a bit--
U.S. News & World Report. But I note a paragraph in this CRS document.
It is CRS-8, and it says this:

Quantifying the impact of the May 30th revisions to the
state and other tax allowance tables will require
identification of which students will have their eligibility
for federal aid affected by changes in their [expected family
contributions] and to what extent. Although it would appear
that the levels of federal aid awarded to many students will
be affected by these revisions, without substantial and
complex modeling, the size of that student population and the
financial effect on federal aid programs remain largely
undetermined.

So to repeat, it says: ``It would appear that the levels of federal
aid awarded to many students will be affected by these revisions. . .
.'' It does not know it for sure. It says ``without substantial and
complex modeling''--which supports what I am talking about, that you
need to know what this is really all about, which you should have a
hearing on--``the size of that student population and the financial
effect on federal aid programs remain largely undetermined.''
I would ask the Senator from New Jersey, since he cites this as his
authority, How does he explain this authority saying that it is largely
undetermined on the basis of the existing record?

[[Page S11239]]

Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Pennsylvania is asking me a question. I
would just remark that the Education Department indicates that Pell
grant costs will be potentially impacted by $270 million or less. And
they estimate--the Department of Education--based on the information of
the CRS, that 84,000 students would lose eligibility altogether. They
did not make an estimate about how many other students would lose
partial eligibility, partial coverage. And they made no estimate with
regard to how other people in private institutions or State
institutions, using the same calculations of allowances for State and
local taxes, would do it. Just know it will be quite substantial, not
impacting the Federal Government but impacting how student aid is
allocated nationally.

Now, very clearly, the Education Department accepts the estimation of
84,000 students losing eligibility for Pell grants. It is not U.S. News
& World Report. It is their estimate from their own budget service.
I think the Senator is looking at the CRS report of June 25, 2003.
And that point is made on--let's see if I can help the Senator from
Pennsylvania. It is on CRS-8.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, Mr. President, I have an additional question.
How can the Senator from New Jersey make the assertions he has when
his own authority says there would have to be ``substantial and complex
modeling'' to determine ``the size of that student population and the
financial effect on federal aid programs'' which ``remain[s] largely
undetermined''?
Mr. CORZINE. I think the Senator from Pennsylvania has heard me say
that the only number I have used specifically is the 84,000 that CRS
has estimated would lose all Pell grant assistance, not the full
calculation of how many individual students would lose partial benefits
on grants and student loans, by way of Stafford loans and other things,
which would be much more complex. And that is what they are pointing
out.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, Mr. President, the essence is that when you want
to stop funding to carry out existing law, there ought to be a lot more
understanding of what is going on. And our processes for legislation
are customarily carried out by the introduction of bills and by
hearings. And when you affect the Department of the Treasury, you
affect the Department of Education, you affect swings of billions of
dollars--again, the language of the Senator from New Jersey.
This is not the way to accomplish that result. I oppose this
amendment.
Mr. President, are we prepared to move now to the final amendment of
the evening, the amendment from the Senator from Nevada?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1603 To Amendment No. 1542

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 1603.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for certain education and related
programs)

At the end of title III, insert the following:
Sec. 306. (a) In addition to any amounts otherwise
appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
(1) an additional $85,000,000 to carry out title III of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (language
instruction);
(2) an additional $6,449,000 to carry out part A of title V
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Hispanic-serving
institutions);
(3) an additional $4,587,000 to carry out part C of title I
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(migrant education);
(4) an additional $11,000,000 to carry out high school
equivalency program activities under section 418A of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEP);
(5) an additional $1,000,000 to carry out college
assistance migrant program activities under section 418A of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (CAMP);
(6) an additional $12,776,000 to carry out subpart 16 of
part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (parental assistance and local family information
centers); and
(7) an additional $69,000,000 to carry out migrant and
seasonal Head Start programs: Provided, That such sum shall
be in addition to funds reserved for migrant, seasonal, and
other Head Start programs under section 640(a)(2) of the Head
Start Act.
(b) Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the National
Institutes of Health, $146,000,000 shall not be available for
obligation until September 30, 2004.
(c) The amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this
Act shall be deemed to be $7,085,011,000 and the amount
$6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be
deemed to be $6,593,489,000.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am not going to debate this amendment
tonight. We have no vote scheduled tomorrow. I am not sure we are going
to have a vote on it tomorrow. But I will discuss it tomorrow. I am not
going to discuss it anymore tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
Mr. SPECTER. I do.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding you are going to raise a budget
point of order on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey?
Mr. SPECTER. No, I am not because it does not lie. If I could, I
would.
Mr. REID. I missed the first part of the debate.
Mr. SPECTER. I missed most of the debate myself.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Corzine
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be in order to
request the yeas and nays at this time.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Corzine amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the White House and the Republican
Congress see a perfect storm coming. Our policy in Iraq is crashing,
the Federal budget is crashing, and so are State and local budgets.
Family budgets are crashing, too. The administration and the Republican
Congress are worried that their power to stay in office is crashing
along with the electric power grid.
The overtime issue should be an embarrassment for anyone who supports
the Republican position. It's a symbol of all that's wrong with so many
of their other policies.
Three million Americans have lost their jobs since President Bush
took office. Ninety-three thousand more were lost in August alone--the
seventh consecutive month of job losses.
This is no time to end overtime. It's precisely the wrong time.
We need to create more jobs to bring this troubled economy back to
life.
But under the Bush proposal, businesses can raise their profits by
asking employees to work harder for lower pay, and avoid hiring new
employees.
Especially in times like these, the right to overtime pay is a clear
incentive for firms to create jobs, because it encourages employers to
hire more workers instead of asking current employees to work longer
hours.
We know that employees across America are already struggling hard to
balance their family needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring
them to work longer hours for less pay will impose an even greater
burden in this daily struggle.
Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-
family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of
the nation. The last thing Congress should do is to allow this anti-
worker administration to make the balance worse than it already is.
What can the administration be thinking, when it comes up with such a
shameful proposal to deny overtime protections on which millions of
workers rely?
According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees

[[Page S11240]]

without overtime protection are twice as likely to work overtime as
those covered by that protection. Americans are working longer hours
today than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At
least 1 in 5 employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let
alone 40 hours.
Congress cannot sit idle while more and more Americans lose their
jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. Denying
overtime pay rubs salt in the open wounds.
The 8 million Americans who will lose their right to overtime under
the Bush administration regulation include police officers,
firefighters, nurses, and EMTs the heroes of September 11. With the
anniversary of that tragic day just 2 days away, we can't help but
remember the horrifying images of that day. The many lives lost.
The exhausted firefighters raising the American flag. And we recall
the long, grueling hours so many of our first responders invested to
protect and save their fellow Americans.
Today our first responders work long hours keeping our Nation safe
from terrorism and other threats. President Bush wants to take away
their overtime pay.
Cutbacks in overtime pay are a nightmare that no worker should have
to bear. Overtime pay now makes up a quarter of the total pay of
workers who receive it. The administration's proposal will mean an
average pay cut of $161 a week for them. Hard-working Americans don't
deserve this pay cut, and it's wrong for the administration to try to
force it on them.
Our Democratic amendment is clear. It says that no worker now
eligible for overtime protections can lose it as a result of the new
regulation.
The overtime protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act have been a
fundamental right of the Nation's workers for more than half a century.
That basic law was enacted in the 1930s to create a 40-hour workweek.
It requires employees to be paid fairly for any extra hours.
I urge my colleagues to support this essential proposal to keep the
faith with the Nation's working families. We will continue the battle
to restore jobs, provide fair unemployment benefits, and raise the
minimum wage, and we will do all we can to preserve the overtime
protections on which so many Americans families depend.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:45 a.m.
on Wednesday, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the following
amendments in the order stated: Harkin 1580, Schumer 1595, Reed 1595--I
have two 1595s--the three Reed amendments, 1592, 1596, and Corzine
1602. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally
divided for debate prior to the vote in relation to each amendment
beginning with the second vote; further, that no amendments be in order
to any of the amendments prior to the vote.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Senator Schumer has offered
only one amendment, so we will make sure that we are voting on the
right amendment. Senator Schumer is No. 1598, so the Record should
reflect that. I ask, further, that the request of my friend from
Pennsylvania be modified that the following would be added: That there
be 4 minutes for debate equally divided prior to Reed amendment No.
1595. That would be after the Schumer amendment. Rather than 2 minutes,
it would be 2 minutes on each side, a total of 4 minutes. Further, I
ask that the votes following the Harkin amendment be 10 minutes in
length.
Mr. SPECTER. Agreed to.
Mr. REID. Prior to entering the consent, Mr. President, I would note
that we hope to have three more votes lined up here. On the Mikulski
amendment, there has been a good faith offer made by the other side. We
will discuss that with Senator Mikulski in the morning. Maybe we won't
have to have a vote on that. And then we were hoping to have a vote on
the Dodd and Gregg amendments. We will do those side by side. The two
leaders agreed that those two votes would follow the Harkin amendment.
I am not going to say a lot about that now. I know Senator Gregg says
he does not have his ready to go yet. I have spoken to Senator Dodd at
home this evening. He said he is agreeable to doing it following this
sequence of votes. So following the Corzine amendment, I hope we can
have the two votes that are going to be cast dealing with Dodd and
Gregg which are on the same subject matter, I understand.
Having said that, I have no objection to the consent as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, as modified, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________