[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.

       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 their 
     10th-grade test on their first try this spring. That is 
     significantly better than 69 percent of students in the class 
     of 2004 and 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 the Massachusetts 10-year effort to improve public 
     schools is bearing fruit.

  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.

                          ____________________