[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11263-S11303]
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

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2660, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2660) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 1542, in the nature of a substitute.
       Akaka amendment No. 1544 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funding for the Excellence in Economic Education Act 
     of 2001.
       Mikulski amendment No. 1552 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase funding for programs under the Nurse Reinvestment 
     Act and other nursing workforce development programs.
       Kohl amendment No. 1558 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     additional funding for the ombudsman program for the 
     protection of vulnerable older Americans.
       Dodd amendment No. 1572 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     additional funding for grants to States under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       DeWine amendment No. 1561 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funds to support graduate medical education programs 
     in children's hospitals.
       DeWine amendment No. 1560 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funds to support poison control centers.
       DeWine amendment No. 1578 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide funding for the Underground Railroad Education and 
     Cultural Program.
       Harkin amendment No. 1580 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     protect the rights of employees to receive overtime 
     compensation.
       Schumer amendment No. 1598 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     provide additional funding for programs under the Ryan White 
     Care Act.
       Reed amendment No. 1595 (to amendment No. 1542), to provide 
     funding for home energy assistance needs under the Low-Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981.
       Reed amendment No. 1592 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase funding for immunization services.
       Reed amendment No. 1596 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase funding for certain literacy, library, and museum 
     programs.
       Corzine amendment No. 1602 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     restore cuts in student aid.
       Reid amendment No. 1603 (to amendment No. 1542), to 
     increase funding for certain education and related programs.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are set to proceed with a series of 
stacked votes at 9:45 a.m. There are a fair number of amendments which 
have yet to

[[Page S11264]]

be offered. The distinguished ranking member and I are prepared to work 
through those amendments expeditiously. It may be possible to 
accommodate some of the Members in their requests.
  The majority leader has again announced that upon completion of this 
bill there will be no votes on Thursday or Friday, although the Senate 
will be in session. When that word travels throughout the membership, 
there is more incentive to complete this bill at an early time. 
Yesterday we did have a productive day, starting at 5:15 p.m. We had 
four rollcall votes. We debated six amendments on into the evening.
  As I survey the sheet, if we have cooperation on all sides, it is 
possible to move through this bill in an expeditious way and perhaps 
finish this bill today sooner rather than later.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand we are going to start the 
vote at 9:45 a.m.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the leadership on the other 
side. I thank my colleague and the chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee, Senator Specter, for working out this arrangement. It is 
one that reasonable minds and reasonable cool heads have agreed now we 
are going to proceed ahead on a series of votes this morning.
  I know there are some other amendments today. I see no reason why we 
can't wrap up this bill this evening sometime, hopefully at a decent 
hour anyway. I know there are a lot of other important amendments. I 
wish to take a little bit of time to speak about the first amendment 
that we will be voting on at 9:45.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Are we going to divide the time between proponents and 
opponents of the amendment between now and 9:45? I understand there is 
no time agreement. I would like to have 2 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I inquire of the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no previous order concerning 
division of time. The time set for the vote is 9:45.
  Mr. HARKIN. But there is no time set for dividing the time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no agreement on dividing the 
time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
intervening time be equally divided between both sides--whatever time 
there is--to make a presentation.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. That sounds fair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Iowa.


                             Amendment 1580

  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. President. The first vote will be on 
overtime. I think it has been thoroughly debated. I think Senators know 
what we are voting on in this amendment. I wish to make a few comments 
to bring us up to the point of voting on this amendment.
  Again, I do not see this in any way as any kind of a partisan vote. 
It should not be. This affects workers no matter whether they are 
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or whatever. It does not make any 
difference. This crosses all party lines.
  What has happened, through the Department of Labor, is they came out 
with these proposed changes in overtime rules and regulations. No 
hearings were held, and now they say they do not have to have hearings. 
The law does not mandate that they have to have hearings, but one would 
think on a major issue such as this they would have gone out to the 
public and they would have worked with Congress to reach some 
reasonable agreement on modifying and updating Fair Labor Standards Act 
regulations. But, no, they came out with these changes in a very 
heavyhanded manner.
  If one reads the proposed rules and regulations, they really do wipe 
away the overtime pay protections for I don't know--the figures are all 
over--8 million, 10 million, 6 million. I don't know what the proper 
number is, but I can tell you it wipes out overtime pay protection for 
millions of Americans who have it right now.
  My amendment basically says no money can be expended to further 
promulgate, publish, or enact these rules and regulations.
  That does not mean the Department of Labor cannot come back at some 
point and say we need to modify these. Maybe we need to throw out some 
old terms.
  As I pointed out, the Fair Labor Standards Act has been modified a 
dozen times since 1938, but it has always been done sort of in 
consultation with Congress, in an open fashion. That is the way it 
ought to be done again, especially with something so sensitive as 
overtime pay.
  So this is our vote in which we can basically say no, we are not 
going to move ahead with these; we are going to go back to the drawing 
board. If they want to come up to the Congress, to the appropriate 
authorizing committees in the House and the Senate, and try to work 
something out, that is fine and we can do that.
  In closing, last week the Senate unanimously passed this resolution 
by Senator Hatch, expressing the sense of the Senate that October would 
be National Work and Family Month. The resolution expressed the sense 
of the Senate that reducing the conflict between work and family life 
should be a national priority. We passed this last Friday unanimously. 
Are we today going to vote to say we do not care about what we said; 
what we are going to do is allow these rules and regulations to go into 
effect which will take away the overtime pay protection for millions of 
Americans?
  Let's back up what we said last Friday with our votes this morning.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of the Harkin amendment regarding the Bush administration's 
proposal to make regulatory changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
FLSA, of 1938. The Bush administration's assault on middle-income 
white- and blue-collar workers continues with this latest proposal by 
the Department of Labor, DOL. Under current law, the FLSA requires 
employers to pay time and a half for overtime work except for some 
narrow exemptions. Introduced this Spring with little public notice, 
the DOL has proposed regulations that would disqualify potentially 
millions of workers from the overtime protections afforded them under 
the FLSA. Regulations proposed by the DOL on March 31 of this year 
would make it easier for employers to reclassify their workers as 
``executive,'' ``administrative'' or ``professional'' employees who are 
not entitled to the overtime protections of the FLSA. According to the 
Economic Policy Institute, more than 8 million workers could be 
negatively affected by the Bush administration regulatory changes. This 
is a frontal assault on the 40-hour work week.
  The Harkin amendment would prevent the DOL from issuing any 
regulation that disqualifies currently covered workers from the 
overtime protections of the FLSA. The amendment would not prevent DOL 
from making changes to overtime regulations that would benefit low-
income workers. There is simply no justification for stripping any 
workers of their overtime rights and thus their statutory right to time 
and a half. And the workers who would still be protected by the FLSA 
would also receive a pay cut because employers would naturally shift 
overtime assignments to the millions of workers no longer entitled to 
overtime pay. In 2000, overtime pay accounted for about 25 percent of 
the income of workers who worked overtime or about $161 a week. The 
President's much-touted tax cut would give workers earning less than 
$62,500 a tax cut of a $1.68 per week. This administration's overtime 
proposal is just not worker or family friendly. It will result in 
workers working more hours without overtime pay, undermining the 40-
hour work week. The DOL proposed regulations would deny overtime 
protections not only to white-collar office workers, but also to many 
manual and other union workers. Union workers would be forced to 
negotiate for overtime protections that are now guaranteed by the FLSA. 
The overtime exceptions would affect all

[[Page S11265]]

workers earning more than $65,000 as well as workers with certain 
specialized training such as policemen, firefighters, paramedics, EMTs, 
as well as other white-collar professionals such as secretaries, 
bookkeepers, and paralegals.
  Every facet of American industry will be affected by the proposed DOL 
regulations. For example, assembly line and production workers at auto 
manufacturing plants could lose overtime protection if they ``employ a 
high-level of skill or training.'' Furthermore, factory workers making 
up to $65,000 could lose overtime protection if they perform some 
nonmanual office work and have at least one job duty that can be 
characterized as ``executive,'' ``administrative'' or ``professional.'' 
Nonmanual office work seems to be a broad term that could encompass 
many fairly routine workplace activities. Even a worker who at the end 
of the day is required to document his or her workplace activities 
might be swept in to the administrative exemption. Surely this was not 
the intent of the FLSA.
  At a time when we are asking more and more of our Nation's first 
responders, the administration wants to eliminate their overtime pay. A 
good example are the police officers responsible for the security of 
the Capitol Complex. Many of these officers have consistently worked in 
excess of 40 hours ever since September 11, 2001. Many of these 
officers have spent long periods of time away from their family and 
friends with their only consolation being overtime pay. How can 
President Bush and Secretary Chao possibly tell law enforcement 
officers across this Nation that they no longer deserve to be paid 
overtime for their work?
  Mr. President, we must do what is equitable for American workers. 
Millions of workers depend on overtime pay to make ends meet. If the 
administration really wants to help low-income workers, they will 
support an increase in the Federal minimum wage to $6.65 an hour which 
would benefit far more than the 1.3 million low-income workers which 
DOL estimates will benefit from proposed changes. A vote for the Harkin 
amendment is a vote for working families across America. I hope it will 
receive a resounding ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin 
amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
  I proudly support this amendment because it would prevent the 
administration from implementing any regulation that would take away 
the overtime pay rights of American workers.
  The Bush administration's hostility to this Nation's hard-working men 
and women is shocking and frankly disappointing.
  We all know this administration's performance on job growth: since 
President Bush assumed office, he has pushed for three separate tax 
cuts for the wealthy, yet he has not created a single net job.
  Rather, the policies of President Bush have produced a loss of 3.1 
million private sector jobs. The number of unemployed Americans has 
risen from 6 million to over 9 million. Just last month, the Nation's 
payroll lost 93,000 jobs.
  Instead of working to put Americans back to work, the administration 
has decided to ``modernize'' workplace regulations by eliminating 
overtime pay for million of workers.
  The Economic Policy Institute concludes that more than 8 million 
workers would lose overtime protection. Even the conservative 
Employment Policy Foundation estimates that 1.16 million workers would 
lose their overtime pay.
  The administration, however, claims that only 644,000 workers would 
be negatively affected by its proposal.
  Regardless of the losses estimated, the proposed regulation would 
disqualify more workers from overtime protection, and there is simply 
no justification for stripping any workers of their overtime rights.
  Just yesterday, nursing home workers from my home state came to my 
office and told me that they get paid between $7 and $10 per hour and 
that they rely on overtime pay as an essential supplemental to their 
low hourly pay.
  The administration opposes an increase in the minimum wage which 
would help millions of American workers, but it supports a proposal 
that would decrease the take-home pay of millions of American workers.
  Once again this administration has misguided priorities. We should be 
doing all we can to improve the working conditions and the quality of 
life of the American worker, not make it worse.
  The 40-hour workweek was created in the Fair Labor Standard Act in 
1938. We enacted this legislation because workers were being abused and 
not properly compensated.
  The FLSA became the bedrock of worker- and family-friendly 
legislation because we recognized that after 40-hours of work, 8-hours 
a day for 5 days, an employee should be paid time and a half for work 
performed beyond 40 hours.
  Today, the workers protected by the 40-hour workweek requirement are 
the Nation's first responders and first-preventers like police officer, 
nurses, and firefighters. Other protected workers include the millions 
of administrative, technical, manufacturing, and restaurant workers who 
are struggling to make ends meet.
  We should protect the American workers. And, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I strongly support the Harkin amendment 
to preserve overtime pay protections for millions of hard-working 
Americans. The American work ethic, along with great skill and 
ingenuity, has made the United States an economic world power. 
Americans already log more hours on the job than workers in most other 
developed countries around the world and I believe that those who have 
long driven the American economy should be fairly compensated for their 
work. However, the Bush administration has proposed new regulations 
that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and undermine 
current law governing overtime pay.
  The proposed Department of Labor regulations would raise the salary 
level under which workers are eligible for overtime pay from $8,060 per 
year to $22,100 per year. Raising this income threshold is an 
inadequate adjustment, but it is a step in the right direction. Due to 
the rising expenses facing working families, I recognize the need to 
make more low-income workers eligible for overtime pay. The pending 
amendment does not preclude the Department of Labor from issuing rules 
that make such changes. Instead, it simply prohibits the Department of 
Labor from taking away overtime protections for those who are currently 
eligible under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  Under the Department of Labor's proposal virtually all employees who 
earn $65,000 or more per year would be denied overtime pay protection 
currently afforded under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Additionally, it 
would allow employers to reassign middle-income workers, earning 
between $22,100 and $65,000, to managerial roles, thereby depriving 
them of overtime pay rights. The Harkin amendment would block this 
reclassification.
  Our economy is facing serious difficulties. What we need is 
responsible economic policy that puts our economy back on track. 
Instead, this administration has proposed massive tax cuts to benefit 
the wealthiest among us, presided over the largest job loss in our 
Nation's history, erased a large Federal surplus that it inherited, and 
created a large and growing Federal deficit. Now the administration 
proposes to amend a law that has protected American workers for over 60 
years by taking away the overtime pay that many working families depend 
upon to make ends meet.
  The Department of Labor claims its proposal is necessary to 
``clarify'' and ``update'' overtime rules for the 21st century economy. 
However, consider some examples of the occupations currently eligible 
for overtime pay that may be in jeopardy should the Department of Labor 
go forward with this proposal: firefighters, law enforcement officers, 
social caseworkers, medical assistants, and nurses. These workers are 
performing vital functions in our society and should be compensated for 
the long hours they put in to do their jobs.
  The American people have spoken on this issue. The Department of 
Labor has been flooded by public comments

[[Page S11266]]

that run overwhelmingly against the implementation of its proposal. The 
American people are right. The number of individuals eligible for 
overtime should be increased, not decreased. A responsible economic 
plan would put more disposable income into the hands of working 
Americans, not take it away.
  I find the Department of Labor's proposal unwise and unfair, but very 
much in keeping with this administration's failed economic policies 
that seek to leave no millionaire behind while increasing the financial 
burden on average Americans. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support 
the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Harkin 
amendment related to proposed administration changes to overtime 
regulations, and I am pleased to be a co-sponsor.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established that--with only a 
few specific exceptions--American workers were entitled to overtime 
pay, meaning time and a half wages, for every hour worked beyond the 
accepted 40-hour work week. The Fair Labor Standards Act was not passed 
out of context. The legislation derived from the labor abuses that 
occurred in the early 1900s. Furthermore, it was signed into law 
because political and labor leaders at that time agreed that workers 
should not be pushed beyond their breaking point. By making every hour 
beyond 40 more expensive, the legislation discouraged employers from 
assigning longer hours and rewarded employees for sacrificing their 
personal or family time for their company. Workers could still work 
longer hours if they chose to do so, or if they needed additional 
income--many do so today--but they could not be required to do so by 
their employers, and they could not be required to do so at the same 
wage level they earned during their 40-hour work week.
  I think this was a perfectly reasonable bargain to have made then, 
and I think it is a perfectly reasonable bargain now. It is a form of 
social contract--one of many made at the time that have extended to the 
present because they make good rational sense. And I am strongly of the 
view that it should not be broken at this time.
  The Bush administration has recently proposed substantial regulatory 
changes that dramatically alter this social contract, and the 
underlying principles that form its foundation. Under the guise of 
``flexibility'' for employees, it has decided to change the categories 
that will classify a worker as eligible for overtime, and in doing so, 
will vastly increase the number of employees that are exempt from 
overtime pay. The Department of Labor has estimated that the proposed 
changes will affect only 644,000 workers. But the Economic Policy 
Institute has concluded that the numbers are significantly 
miscalculated and the correct figure is closer to 8 million. This 
includes everyone from police officers, no firefighters, to registered 
nurses, to medical technicians, to floor supervisors in service 
industries, to paralegals, to journalists--any number of individuals 
that currently earn more than $22,100 per year.
  Worse, many of these individuals are currently in professions that 
are essential to national security or difficult to fill. In my State of 
New Mexico, for example, the proposed regulations would have very 
profound effects. According to an analysis undertaken by the New Mexico 
Department of Labor, over 37,000 workers will lost overtime benefits as 
a result of the proposed rule change. Many of these workers are in 
professions that we need in the State and we may lost if salaries are 
decreased--specialty fields like teachers, physical therapists, health 
care technicians, first responders, and so on. For the life of me I 
don't see why the Bush administration would be providing disincentives 
for people to work in fields where we need them the most. Why are we 
telling teachers, or nurses, or firefighters that we don't value the 
extra time you put in on the job? In my State these folks are 
frequently living on a shoestring as it is. How can the Bush 
administration justify a policy that takes money away from them?
  I have three specific problems with the proposed overtime 
regulations. First, as I have mentioned previously, it pulls back from 
the social contract made with American workers in the past. I don't 
understand what has changed over the last few years to require that 
overtime rules be altered, and I don't believe it is time to alter an 
agreement that at its core is designed to allow Americans to be 
rewarded for hard work and spend more time with their families.
  Second, I think it's the wrong time for change. We have now some of 
the worst economic conditions that we have seen in years in this 
country. Levels of unemployment continue to climb, so much so that many 
workers have simply given up looking for work. Why are we telling those 
who have work at this time that they should get less for what they do? 
Why are we telling these folks they have to take a pay cut? Why are we 
taking money out of the pockets of these folks, money that these days 
go to make ends meet, but can also go for mortgages, education, and 
savings accounts?
  Third, given the current record of the Bush administration on key 
labor issues--be it outsourcing, minimum wage, FMLA, workplace 
protections, or anything else--I am not convinced that it is time to 
give it ``flexibility'' to apply regulations of any type that will 
affect American workers. From what I have seen so far, I think the 
administration has taken a very clear stance against the low- and 
middle-income workers that form the very heart and soul of this 
country, and I think it is time that we push back on these policies.
  I think it is essential that we send an unequivocal message to the 
Bush administration that we will not allow changes on the overtime 
regulations to occur. I believe it is bad policy that will hurt working 
Americans at a time when they need our support.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my Senate 
colleagues to support the Department of Labor's proposed changes to our 
nation's overtime regulations. The amendment being offered by my friend 
Senator Harkin to the 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education appropriations bill would prohibit spending to implement the 
Department of Labor's proposed regulations and, thereby, cripple the 
Department in making these important changes. This is not a wise course 
of action and I wish to voice my support today for the Department's 
proposed regulations changes.
  Before discussing the proposed regulations, I would like to take a 
moment to address current overtime rules. As you may know, there have 
been very few changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act's, FLSA, overtime 
provisions since the early 1970s.
  Under these outdated rules, most workers are only guaranteed time-
and-a-half overtime pay if they earn less than $155 per week. If they 
earn more than $155 per week, then employers have to use a number of 
complicated and confusing tests to decide if a particular worker's job 
is ``executive, administrative, or professional,'' and must also use 
complicated tests to determine if the worker's pay qualifies as a 
``salary'' rather than an hourly wage.
  Thus, if a job pays over $155 per week--$170 per week for 
``professionals''--and the job is executive, administrative or 
professional, and the worker's pay fits the official definition of a 
``salary,'' then that particular worker is not eligible for overtime. 
You can imagine the complexity and confusion that businesses have to 
deal with when they try to determine which workers have to be paid 
overtime and which do not.
  The current rules mean that a restaurant manager or a factory shift 
supervisor who is paid a salary of $300 per week would be ineligible 
for overtime, since these kinds of work are generally considered 
executive or administrative.
  I want to discuss the proposed rules in some detail, as I believe 
there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what they would do and 
why they are necessary. The Department of Labor's proposed regulations 
would raise the $155 per week test to $425 per week. That means that, 
as a general rule, anyone earning less than $425 per week would 
automatically be guaranteed to be eligible for overtime pay, regardless 
of what kind of work they do.
  Therefore, the Department of Labor's proposed rules will guarantee 
overtime pay to both the restaurant manager and the shift supervisor I 
mentioned above. The proposed regulations will be

[[Page S11267]]

a boon to lower-income salaried workers. The Department of Labor 
estimates that its proposed rules will make 1.2 million more lower-
income workers eligible for overtime pay. They also estimate that 20 
percent of salaried employees earn $425 per week or less, roughly 
$21,000 per year.
  The rules will also modernize the definition of ``executive, 
administrative, or professional'' work to reflect better the realities 
of today's workforce and to reduce the incomprehensible regulatory 
definitions that businesses have had to interpret for the last 20 
years. That means that workers who earn more than $425 per week will 
find it easier to determine whether or not they qualify for overtime 
pay, and it will reduce the number of lawsuits over the ``gray areas'' 
in current overtime regulations.
  Further, the Department of Labor also proposes to allow salaried 
employees' pay to be docked for full-day absences taken for 
disciplinary reasons, such as sexual harassment or workplace violence. 
Currently, only hourly workers' wages are subject to such discipline-
related pay deductions.
  And finally, the proposed rules state that workers who earn more than 
$65,000 per year will be ineligible for overtime pay if their job has 
at least some duties that are ``executive, administrative, or 
professional.'' Therefore, employers who have these kinds of highly 
compensated workers will find it easier to make them ineligible for 
overtime. The Department of Labor chose the $65,000 threshold because 
roughly 20 percent of salaried workers earn $65,000 or more per year. 
The Department chose to focus its energies on strengthening access to 
overtime for the most vulnerable workers, a group that is unlikely to 
include many workers whose salaries are in the top 20 percent.
  I believe that the current overtime regulations are confusing and 
outdated. They have created a maze of uncertainty for business owners, 
who can be fined up to 3 years of back wages if they misinterpret the 
overtime eligibility rules. The Department of Labor's proposed rules 
will make over a million more lower-income workers eligible for 
overtime while also creating clearer overtime eligibility rules for all 
businesses to follow. The Department of Labor's rules would guarantee 
overtime pay to the bottom 20 percent of salaried workers--some of the 
most economically vulnerable people in our society--while at the same 
time giving employers more freedom over how they compensate the top 20 
percent of salaried workers.
  These rules are part of this administration's broader agenda for 
long-lasting, long-term wage growth. These clearer, simpler regulations 
will increase the efficiency and productivity of American businesses. 
And since higher productivity is the key to higher wages, I expect 
these regulations to help increase the typical American's standard of 
living.
  I have received numerous letters from individuals and industry who 
support these regulatory efforts by the Department of Labor. I believe 
the Department has done an excellent job of researching the overtime 
issue and preparing regulations that meet the needs of American 
workers. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to support these 
regulations and vote against any amendments that would weaken or impede 
these much-needed overtime regulation updates.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Harkin 
amendment, which would prevent the Department of Labor from 
implementing its regulation that would deny overtime pay to 8 million 
Americans, including 450,000 New Yorkers. I am proud to be a co-sponsor 
of this amendment and hope that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting it with their vote this afternoon.
  Many of us celebrated Labor Day with picnics, parades, and fanfare, 
but for too many American workers, there was not much to celebrate at 
all. Close to 10 million Americans are about to lose overtime 
protection because this administration has decided to do the bidding of 
its corporate donors instead of protecting the rights of overworked and 
underpaid Americans.
  The regulation being proposed by the Department of Labor unilaterally 
removes entire classes of workers from overtime eligibility. 
Paralegals, engineers, social workers--today rely on overtime. Tomorrow 
these individuals will be forced to work longer hours for less pay.
  An let's not forget our police officers, firefighters, and nurses--
individuals who regularly work overtime because they are on the front 
lines of our homeland defense. Does anyone imagine that these dedicated 
individuals will stop working overtime after this regulation goes into 
effect?
  I can assure you that the New Yorkers who tell me how this will 
affect them do not think so. They know that when duty calls, they will 
respond. They simply will not be compensated for their effort.
  A nurse from Lancaster, NY, wrote to me recently to say, ``I assure 
you that as a Health Care Professional I work many exhausting though 
rewarding hours in my position. However, I feel strongly that being 
forced to work overtime without appropriate compensation is an insult. 
As a dedicated health professional, I find it impossible to leave my 
patients untended.''
  If the administration wants to help working families as they say they 
do they can fight to expand access to overtime, to raise the minimum 
wage, and to ensure that every working American can take a sick day to 
recover from the common cold without fearing for their jobs.
  Instead, this regulation would make unpaid overtime a household word 
and make it easier for bad-faith employers to coerce other workers into 
accepting time off instead of overtime pay.
  I do not think the administration is unaware of the impact of what 
they are proposing. If they were, they would not have proposed this 
overhaul of the Fair Labor Standards Act under the cloak of secrecy, 
without a single Congressional hearing, without a single public 
hearing.
  As many of my colleagues know, when the Clinton administration tried 
to issue ergonomics regulations, Republicans in Congress attacked the 
Labor Department for ``rushing to judgment'' because it held ``only'' 
27 days of public hearings. Twenty-seven days.
  And from this administration, not even one.
  Those who support the administration's regulation argue that 
Democrats are overstating our case. They claim that the proposed 
regulation will not have anywhere near the impact that independent 
experts say it will.
  But for the sake of argument, let's assume the Department of Labor's 
impact analysis is absolutely accurate. The administration's own 
analysis reveals that 644,000 workers will lose overtime pay. But that 
is only the number of workers currently earning overtime pay who will 
lose eligibility. For each worker earning overtime pay, there are 
another four or five who are protected by the overtime provisions of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act but do not currently work more than 40 
hours a week. All of them--between 3.2 million and 3.8 million by the 
Department of Labor's own estimates--will lose their overtime 
protection under the proposed rule. Their employers will require many 
of them to work longer hours because they will have no incentive not 
to. It won't cost them a dime, but it will cost our firefighters, our 
police officers, our nurses, and so many others in time away from their 
families and money out of their pocket.
  The Department of Labor's analysis goes on to state that the changes 
in the education test alone will result in 44 percent of the ``learned 
professionals'' losing their right to overtime pay. That is 44 percent 
of those working in the fields of chemistry, biology, nursing, 
engineering, accounting, and more. That is 440,000 cooks who would lose 
their right to overtime pay.
  That analysis assumes, and I quote, ``that six years of work 
experience might be considered equivalent to a bachelor's degree''--
even without a day of higher education. But this assumption is not 
grounded in the rule. In fact, the Department of Labor's rule requires 
no minimum education standard. If employers decide that their employees 
have the same skills as employees with college degrees, employers may 
exempt those employees from overtime.
  So a cook from Buffalo who has never attended a day of college can be 
deemed an exempt professional and denied overtime.

[[Page S11268]]

  The administration is taking away the bread and butter earnings 
American families count on, and leaving them with crumbs.
  Republicans in my State have crossed party lines to block this 
regulation--and I applaud them for doing so. They know how many New 
Yorkers rely on overtime pay--not as a luxury, as a necessity.
  I recently received a note from John, New York City police officer, 
who wrote to me to say ``police officers like myself are forced to do 
overtime whether we like or not because we need the money to stay ahead 
of our bills.'' John is not alone. Overtime compensation accounts for 
25 percent of the total compensation of all workers who receive 
overtime pay.
  This issue is not trivial. At its very core, this issue is about our 
American values of work and family. Workers stripped of their overtime 
protection would end up working longer hours for less pay. That 
translates into less time with their children, less time with their 
parents, their spouses, less time to volunteer and contribute to the 
fabric of our community. More work hours, for less pay, and less family 
time--that is not the American way.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Harkin amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will be voting on an 
amendment that is of vital importance to the working people of 
California and indeed the Nation.
  Earlier this year the White House proposed redefining the job 
descriptions of millions of workers and thus eliminate their right to 
overtime pay. Left alone, these rules will go into effect early next 
year.
  The Bush administration's proposal could wipe out overtime pay 
protections and increase work hours for at least 8 million workers. 
Losing overtime pay protections would also result in huge pay cuts for 
many workers.
  For more than 65 years we have maintained an appropriate balance 
between family life and work life by forcing employers to pay certain 
workers time and a half when those workers were required to work more 
than 40 hours in a single week.
  Thanks to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this requirement has protected 
the 40-hour workweek which has been a trademark of our economy for more 
than six decades. And, as a result, our Nation's workers now have 
greater dignity, better health, and a more appropriate balance between 
work and family.
  This is an issue of fairness. Our workers are more productive than 
ever and yet the Bush administration believes it is necessary to 
penalize those very individuals who have literally built this Nation.
  The men and women who will be most hurt by the President's decision 
will be the hourly workers who maintain our streets, ring up our 
groceries, and respond to our calls to 911. Those hurt most will be 
disproportionately women and minority. They will be mostly middle and 
lower income. They will be struggling to make ends meet and they will 
be worrying about paying the mortgage. They are, in fact, our neighbors 
and friends.
  Given the high unemployment rate and economic uncertainty that is 
still smoldering in our economy, this is not the time to be making it 
harder for our hardest workers. Rather, it is a time when we should be 
helping all workers achieve fairness in the workplace.
  Fairness in the workplace is good for business. It is well known that 
by requiring companies to respect the 40-hour workweek, we encourage 
businesses to hire additional workers. With unemployment above 6 
percent, we should continue to encourage companies to maximize 
employment while respecting the workforce they have.
  I support Senator Harkin's amendment to stop the Department of Labor 
from issuing any regulation that disqualifies workers from the overtime 
protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  I think the amendment is fair and just.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I oppose President Bush's plan to deny overtime pay to 
millions of workers. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment 
to protect overtime pay for 8 million American workers. Millions of 
Americans depend on overtime pay to make ends meet and pay their 
housing, food, and health care bills. Yet the Bush administration wants 
to strip overtime protections for these hard-working men and women. I 
thought in this country, the best social program was a job. I thought 
in this country, we reward those who practice self-help.
  Eight million workers would lose overtime protection under the new 
Bush proposal. Who are these workers? They are nurses, firefighters, 
policemen, secretaries, and social workers. These men and women work 
hard to serve our communities. They protect us, and they help us when 
we are in need. They deserve extra pay for their extra efforts.
  If we do not stop the Bush proposal, workers will have to work long 
hours for less money because they will no longer be eligible for 
overtime pay. They might have to find a second job, because they will 
not be able to count on overtime pay to make ends meet. They will spend 
less time with their families but they will not get compensated. I 
think that is outrageous.
  America is facing a crisis in nursing. In Maryland hospitals, 12.6 
percent of nursing jobs are vacant. They desperately need over 2,000 
nurses. Nationwide, we will need about 2.8 million registered nurses by 
the year 2020, but only about 2 million will be available. Nurses work 
an average of 8.5 weeks of overtime each year, and 87 percent of 
Maryland nurses work overtime just to make up for the shortage. If the 
Bush proposal becomes law, nurses will have to work these same hours 
for no extra pay. Hospitals will have to get by without enough nurses 
to take care of patients. Lack of overtime pay will discourage young 
nurses from entering the profession and experienced nurses from 
staying. I worked hard to pass legislation to help eliminate the 
nursing shortage. Changing the overtime rules would be a huge step 
backwards.
  The Bush plan would also deny overtime pay for our first responders: 
our firefighters, policemen, and EMTs. Maryland has about 2,000 
professional firefighters and 7,500 police. These men and women put 
their lives on the line to keep us safe no matter what time it is or 
how many hours they have worked already. When the Pentagon was on fire, 
the firefighters in my own State of Maryland dashed across the Potomac 
to help. They were there night and day. We say a grateful Nation never 
forgets. We give our heros parades, but now some want to take away 
overtime and make them work for free to protect the homeland. What a 
thing to say to first responders and their families.
  Every time a firefighter or police officer leaves their home, they do 
not know when they will be home. They do not even know if they will be 
home, and now the Bush administration is asking them to donate their 
overtime. That is no way to show our appreciation. We need to protect 
the protectors so that they can protect us. That means protecting their 
overtime pay.
  Nurses and first responders are just a few examples. The Bush 
proposal would deny overtime pay for workers in many industries. It 
would take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans and their 
families unless we do something to stop it. I urge my colleagues to 
vote to uphold overtime pay by voting for the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Harkin. The Harkin amendment 
would prohibit the Department of Labor from pursuing a proposed rule to 
modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations.
  In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to protect the 
lowest paid of our nations working population. The Fair Labor Standards 
Act guarantees overtime pay for all employees who work over 40 hours in 
one week, except for those employed in certain ``white collar'' jobs. 
Unfortunately, the current regulations have not been revised since the 
1950s and employers face serious challenges in trying to interpret this 
law and classify modern jobs into categories created in a different 
era. Consequently, what should be a simple test, has become a very 
complex one with little certainty.
  Thankfully, this past March, the Department of Labor proposed changes 
that would update the regulations to reflect the realities of our 21st 
century workplace. The purpose of these new

[[Page S11269]]

regulations is not, as many claim, to take away overtime pay from 
hardworking Americans; nobody wants that to occur. The purpose of these 
new regulations is to bring up to date overtime regulations so that 
employers will be better able to understand their obligations and 
comply with the law, and the Department of Labor will be better 
equipped to more vigorously enforce the law.
  If adopted, the Department of Labor proposal will guarantee overtime 
pay for any employee making less than $22,100 per year ($425 per week) 
regardless of the person's job duties. Current regulations only provide 
guaranteed overtime for those making less than $8,060 per year ($155 
per week). This is almost a 175 percent increase and will mean that an 
additional 1.3 million employees nationwide will be guaranteed overtime 
pay under the proposed changes. In my home state of New Mexico, the 
Department of Labor estimates that enactment of this proposal would 
automatically guarantee overtime pay for 10,000 additional workers, and 
that these workers would receive $3,878,398 every year in additional 
overtime pay.
  The proposed regulations will not deny overtime pay to any workers 
based on salary alone; in fact, they will make it easier to determine 
which employees meet specific tests and thus qualify for ``exempt'' 
status. These exempt employees will continue to qualify for overtime 
pay.
  The proposed regulations will not affect employees paid pursuant to 
the terms of collective bargaining agreements, thus unionized employees 
will continue to have the right to bargain for overtime pay, regardless 
of salary or job duties.
  The proposed regulations will not affect the right to overtime for 
non-white-collar workers such as police officers, firefighters or other 
first responders. This fact has been acknowledged in a recent press 
release from the Fraternal Order of Police.
  Modernization and reform of the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations 
has been on the Labor Department's regulatory agenda since the 1970s, 
and both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that 
the existing regulations simply do not comport with the realities of 
the modern workplace. I therefore encourage my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment, and support the modernization of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let us remember what is happening. 
Basically, the Congress is trying to step into the middle of a 
regulatory process, which is ongoing and has not reached a conclusion, 
and short circuit it. Eighty thousand comments have been received 
relative to these regulations. They have not been promulgated in final 
form. In fact, I know the Department is aggressively reviewing those 
comments, and I expect substantive changes in significant parts of the 
regulatory proposal as it has been put forth. So it is premature to 
step in at this time. It is not ripe. The matter is not before us at 
this time.
  If the regulations come down in a format that is unacceptable, we as 
a Congress have the right to step forward and revoke those regulations, 
as is occurring right now relative to the FCC rule that was promulgated 
by that regulatory agency.
  So we are stepping forward at the wrong time in the wrong place and 
we are short circuiting the regulatory process in doing it in this 
manner.
  Secondly, what we have heard for the last few days and what we have 
heard nationally from some of the promotional groups that advocate on 
the other side of this issue is misrepresentation on the number of 
people involved. They have been saying 8 million people will be 
affected in a negative way.
  That number is absolutely bogus. Of that number, 1.5 million are 
part-time workers who will not be affected at all; 3.8 million of that 
number are already exempt, so they will not be affected; 1.1 million 
will be exempt under the proposal as it is being proposed, so they will 
not be affected; and 800,000 are manual workers who will not be 
affected in the first place. So 7.2 million of that alleged 8 million 
people are off the table and are not going to be impacted. So what we 
are talking about is 800,000 who may be affected by this regulation in 
a negative way.
  On the other side of the coin, let's recall that this regulation 
raises the number at which people get and are guaranteed overtime. 
Today in the workplace, if one makes $8,000, they get overtime. That is 
not much money. Under this regulation, if one makes $21,000, they are 
guaranteed overtime, no matter what their job description is. That 
means it is going to empower 1.3 million people--this is a hard 
number--1.3 million people who do not have it today will be getting 
overtime under this regulation.
  So there is a net win for America's workers. At least 500,000 
American workers are going to come out winners in relationship to 
American workers who may be impacted by this regulation, and that 
800,000 number of people who might be impacted may not be impacted at 
all because they may be union individuals and as a result their union 
contracts may be negotiated over the overtime issue.
  The fact is that we should allow this regulation, this process, to go 
forward, allow these 1.3 million people who are going to be 
enfranchised with the right to receive overtime to receive that 
overtime, and not short circuit the process and leave these 1.3 million 
people who would get overtime without the ability to receive this new 
opportunity.
  This is a proposed regulation. For the Congress to step forward at 
this time is wrong.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1580.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McConnell, I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]

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

                                NAYS--45

       
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     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
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Smith
       
  The amendment (No. 1580) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to add the following as 
cosponsors of the amendment just voted on: Senators Landrieu, 
Rockefeller, Levin, Bingaman, Cantwell, and Biden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1598

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes evenly divided on 
the Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It adds 
$400 million to the Ryan White fund to deal with the problem of AIDS. 
AIDS is spreading throughout our country. Many rural States that have 
not experienced AIDS in the past are experiencing large increases. This 
money

[[Page S11270]]

goes to reducing AIDS, the ADAP funding, to the early detection 
centers, to the centers that develop prevention. If ever there was a 
``stitch in time saves nine'' amendment, this is it.
  This has broad bipartisan support in the Senate. I hope we will fund 
it. This is not an ideological issue. No one disputes whether 
Government should do this. It is not a question of whether the money is 
needed. We all agree it is needed. I hope we can step to the plate and 
support this modest increase so that Ryan White is appropriated at the 
level that is needed.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to state my support for 
Senator Schumer's amendment to increase funding for the Ryan White 
Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act.
  The Ryan White CARE Act is the largest single source of Federal 
funding dedicated to the care and treatment of people living with HIV/
AIDS in our Nation. This exceptional program provides funding for 
primary health care and support services for people with HIV/AIDS who 
lack health insurance and the financial resources to pay for their 
care. Each year, CARE Act programs nationwide reach over half a million 
individuals with or at risk for HIV.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 
850,000 to 950,000 people are living with HIV and/or AIDS in the U.S., 
and of those people approximately one-third are not accessing proper 
care and treatment. CARE Act programs are essential to extending care 
to all those living with HIV/AIDS.
  Recent reports indicate that the number of patients with HIV/AIDS is 
increasing faster than the Federal funding. In my own State of Florida 
that has meant that patients in need have had to delay getting care. 
The number of people on the waiting lists has never been so widespread 
or long-lasting.
  According to a recent article in the Sun Sentinel, AIDS Project 
Florida, Broward County's largest agency serving these individuals, 
exhausted its July funds for medical care before the end of the month 
and had to put newly diagnosed HIV patients on a waiting list to see a 
doctor.
  The same article tells us the situation is in Palm Beach County is no 
better. The Comprehensive AIDS Program of Palm Beach County has had up 
to three-dozen HIV patients waiting to see counselors at each of three 
offices because of a rush of new clients--including some from Broward.
  Ryan White CARE Act programs grant vital resources to communities 
affected by this epidemic. This program's comprehensive scope not only 
addresses a patient's health care needs, but also food supplies, 
alternative medicine options, as well as transportation. We cannot 
expect our communities to meet this growing need without increased 
funds.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Schumer's 
efforts to increase funding to this critical program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from New York 
about the importance of funding to fight HIV/AIDS, but we are funding 
more than $2 billion for the Ryan White program. We have in the Senate 
bill on AIDS some $14 billion-plus. We have on other Departments 
funding some $4 million.
  There has been a certification from the Director of HIV/AIDS that 
this $2 billion is all that can be appropriately used. We raised a 
point of order last night. I very much would like to have a larger 
appropriation for this subcommittee to have more money on education and 
health care and more money for HIV/AIDS, but we are constrained by the 
budget resolution and by our allocation.
  Therefore, I reluctantly oppose the amendment and have raised the 
point of order. The waiver has been asked for. We are now ready to 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budge Act. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that 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) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 335 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     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--3

     Edwards
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 44, the nays are 53. 
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. 1595

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 4 
minutes evenly divided for a motion to waive the Budget Act with 
respect to the Reed amendment No. 1595. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Cantwell, Murray, and Dodd as cosponsors of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join Senator Collins in urging the 
adoption of an amendment that would add $300 million to the LIHEAP 
contingency fund. This fund will be available in cases of severe 
weather or severe economic circumstances during this heating season and 
next year's cooling season. We already know that residential natural 
gas prices are scheduled to rise at least 15 percent. We also 
understand poor economic times may force more people into requirements 
to need this program. This is a vital program. This contingency fund 
would be necessary so that States could meet the needs of heating for 
seniors, for a whole range of people who need heat and need cooling in 
the summertime in a hot climate. I urge all my colleagues to support 
the amendment. The underlying bill does have $2 billion for the basic 
grant program, but without this contingency funding, we will not have 
the flexibility to respond to spikes in heating costs or in economic 
downturns in different parts of the country.
  I yield my remaining time to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island in 
urging support for this amendment which would provide additional 
emergency funding for the Low Income Home Heating Assistance Program. 
When we experience huge spikes in the increase of home heating oil and 
natural gas, it imposes an incredible hardship on our low-income 
families and on our elderly who are living on limited incomes. We are 
taking a prudent action by setting aside $300 million in emergency 
funding in case this winter we experience the kinds of price 
disruptions that create such hardships for our constituents. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the 
Collins-Reed Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, 
amendment. This amendment will provide an additional $300 million for 
LIHEAP.

[[Page S11271]]

  Additional funding at this time is critical because of the crisis the 
United States is facing with natural gas prices. Natural gas, pinched 
by low inventories and a dearth of new drilling activity, has been 
hovering in the United States at about $6 per million British thermal 
units, MMBtu. This amount is roughly twice the historical norm. In 
fact, we set records for natural gas prices this past spring and 
summer. And there is no end in sight. Recently, Federal Reserve 
Chairman Alan Greenspan stated that little prospect is seen for natural 
gas prices to fall much in coming months.
  These historic highs in natural gas prices should be a harbinger for 
the winter. In fact, if we look to this past winter in anticipation of 
what this nation should expect in terms of natural gas prices, the 
outlook is grim. In fact, the utility company that provides my heating 
in Cleveland has already acknowledged the fact that I can expect my 
home heating costs to at least double this winter. In February of this 
year, natural gas spot prices reached an historic high of over $18 per 
MMBtu. To compare, the spot price in 2002 was $2.40 per MMBtu during 
the same time period. That is a 650 percent increase over the previous 
year.
  Why are rising natural gas prices important for LIHEAP?
  In Ohio, of the 235,000 households that receive assistance through 
LIHEAP, 70 percent of them--or 162,500 households are heated by natural 
gas. That means that 70 percent of LIHEAP recipients in Ohio will be 
adversely affected by the rising cost of natural gas.
  And who are LIHEAP recipients? In Ohio: two-thirds of the households 
that receive LIHEAP assistance--160,000 households--are below 100 
percent of the Federal poverty level; one-third are seniors; one-third 
are disabled; and three-fourths of the households have children under 
five years of age. LIHEAP provides crucial assistance to the least of 
our brethren to help survive the most extreme weather conditions.
  In Ohio, there is no doubt that home heating costs are going to rise 
dramatically. The doubling of natural gas prices will not allow current 
resources to provide adequate assistance for low-income seniors and 
families. This is going to force folks on low- and fixed-incomes to 
choose between heating their homes and paying for other necessities 
such as food or medicine.
  This is the environment laid before the Senate: the Nation is facing 
some of the highest natural gas prices in history with no end in sight; 
a soft economy has left an increased number of households in need of 
assistance; and winter is quickly approaching.
  So where does that leave us?
  States, which receive LIHEAP funding from the Federal Government, 
will not be able to adequately plan for the acute need that will 
certainly occur. The National Energy Assistance Directors' 
Association--the folks that run LIHEAP in the States--indicated, in a 
letter dated September 4, 2003, that providing additional funds through 
the regular FY2004 appropriations process is necessary to plan and 
manage for the upcoming winter. If States cannot plan, then this in 
turn leaves social service agencies, like the Council for Economic 
Opportunity of Greater Cleveland and Catholic Charities, unable to 
provide assistance at the local level. The bottom line is that low-
income households will be in dire straits when winter rears its head. 
Inevitably, if we do not appropriate additional funding now, LIHEAP 
funds will be depleted and a growing murmur will turn into a cry for 
additional LIHEAP funds--then to be declared ``emergency funding.''
  I believe all my colleagues here realize that, at some point, we will 
have to increase LIHEAP funding. The question is whether we will do so 
now through the regular FY2004 appropriations process, or through the 
FY2004 supplemental.
  The responsible action to take would be to increase LIHEAP funding 
now. Besides being morally responsible, increasing funding now is 
fiscally responsible. Natural gas prices will continue to rise as 
demand will increase as colder temperature set in. It would be fiscally 
irresponsible for the U.S. Senate not to appropriate additional funds 
that would better help states and social service providers plan 
assistance for low-income households. And while there is no doubt that 
the U.S. Senate should appropriate additional funds for LIHEAP now, I 
would be remiss if I did not take time and reflect on why there is the 
need to do so.
  This natural gas crisis is the result of environmental policies that 
have driven up the use of natural gas in electricity generation 
significantly while domestic supplies of natural gas have fallen. The 
result is predictable, tighter supplies of natural gas, higher energy 
prices and a financial strain on low-income households and a drain on 
our economy. Not only will natural gas prices adversely affect the 
least of our brethren, these exorbitant prices will also affect our 
economy. The agricultural community, the steel and metal industries, 
the chemical and polymer industries and the manufacturing community all 
rely on natural gas and have seen their energy costs skyrocket. Ohio 
companies are closing plants, laying off workers and moving their 
production overseas due to these high energy prices. I recently met 
with a group of manufacturers from Cleveland and was shocked when two 
of them told me that they will be forced to move their operations 
overseas unless something is done to give them some relief.
  In order to deal with this natural gas crisis, we must enact 
legislation that will increase domestic supplies of natural gas and 
ensure that utilities will not be forced to fuel switch from coal to 
natural gas for electricity generation.
  I want to commend Majority Leader Frist and Chairman Domenici for 
trying to pass a comprehensive energy bill that will increase domestic 
supplies of natural gas, and I am currently working with Chairman 
Inhofe to move President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative out of committee 
to ensure that utilities will not be forced to rely solely on natural 
gas. These two important pieces of legislation clearly show that there 
is a fundamental disconnect happening here in Washington. Republicans 
are trying to enact legislation that will address our natural gas 
crisis, keep energy and home heating costs low and protect American 
jobs. Democrats on the other hand are moving in exactly the opposite 
direction.
  Democrats are pushing legislation that will establish a Nationwide 
cap on carbon emissions and their passage would force they utility 
sector, that is now coal to generate over half of our Nation's 
electricity, in my State of Ohio it is 85 percent, to rely solely on 
natural gas for generation. Carbon-cap language that has been sponsored 
by Senators Jeffords, Lieberman, and Carper, if enacted, will force our 
utilities to fuel switch to natural gas, will significantly raise 
energy prices and will cause thousands of jobs to be lost, particularly 
in manufacturing States like Ohio.
  Let me be clear, carbon-caps mean fuel switching. And fuel switching 
means moving jobs and production overseas where there are less 
stringent environmental programs and will actually increase global 
levels of pollution and higher burdens on our poor and elderly.
  The question we face is whether we should enact comprehensive and 
balanced energy legislation and Clear Skies, which will help solve our 
natural gas crisis, or rush into a short-sighted policy that will cap 
carbon, shut down our economy, cost thousands of American jobs and move 
manufacturing overseas?
  The answer is clear. We need to pass the energy bill and Clear Skies. 
And we need to move away from harshly ideological positions that 
advance nothing other than the agenda of national environmental groups 
who have made a carbon cap a political litmus test. There is an energy 
crisis in America. Increasing LIHEAP funding is only a temporary 
measure to help low-income households get by. If we do not enact a 
comprehensive energy bill that balances our Nation's environmental and 
consumption needs, we will be dooming not only low-income households, 
but our economy as well.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the letter I referenced in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S11272]]


                                        National Energy Assistance


                                       Directors' Association,

                                Washington, DC, September 4, 2003.
     Hon. George V. Voinovich,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Voinovich: On behalf of the National Energy 
     Assistance Directors' Association, representing the state 
     directors of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (LIHEAP), I am writing to urge you to consider providing $3.4 
     billion for LIHEAP for FY 2004. The increase in funds is 
     necessary in light of the continuing high prices for natural 
     gas and high unemployment rates.
       Without the additional funding, states will not be able to 
     adjust benefit levels to account for rising natural gas 
     prices. The continuing tightness in natural gas supply has 
     placed very strong upward pressure on price that will keep 
     prices high and volatile into the winter heating season. The 
     Wall Street Journal cites that natural gas prices have risen 
     nearly 3 times the past decade's average. Federal Reserve 
     Chairman Alan Greenspan has also warned that continued high 
     natural gas prices are a serious problem that could 
     jeopardize the economy.
       Additional funding would allow the states to provide 
     benefits to families who are unemployed as a result of the 
     continuing weakness in the national economy. Current program 
     funding levels are not sufficient to allow states to provide 
     adequate services to these families or support active 
     outreach programs. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 
     there were more than two million Americans unemployed for 
     more than 26 weeks--up from 692,000 in 2001.
       By providing these funds now, the states will be able to 
     quickly get the funds in place and to the working, disabled 
     and elderly families households that need them. Please feel 
     free to contact me if I can provide you with any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mark Wolfe,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe low-income home energy 
assistance is a vital program. I have fought for it during my entire 
tenure in the Senate. Pennsylvania has a problem similar to Maine and 
Rhode Island. We have in this budget $2 billion for LIHEAP. Last year 
there was $1.7 billion in the regular account and $300 million in the 
contingency fund. This year we improved it. We put all the money into 
the regular account so you won't have to go to contingency to have the 
extra $300 million spent if certain conditions arise. Had we left the 
account as it was last year, perhaps this amendment would have been 
obviated or perhaps whatever amount of money we would have put in there 
would have been an increase. That is a constant occurrence in the 
management of this bill.
  I must tell you that it gets a little tiresome reading the newspaper 
accounts in the Philadelphia Inquirer and other Pennsylvania papers 
about how Senator Specter is voting against increases on important 
discretionary programs. The fact is, we have funded this program more 
generously than last year. Although the total figure is the same, $2 
billion, we now have it all in the regular account so you don't have to 
go to contingency in order to access the $300 million. I would like to 
have a larger account for this bill to have more money for education, 
more money for health, and more money for LIHEAP. I know the choice for 
many people, especially senior citizens, is heat or eat. But we have a 
budget resolution that this Senator-manager has to stay within the 
limits. Therefore, I reluctantly have raised the point of order.
  Mr. REED. Is there any remaining time on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five seconds.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment is fully offset. And even 
with the $2 billion, not all qualified individuals will receive the 
funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to the Reed amendment No. 1595. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that 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.
  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. 336 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

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

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     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. 1592

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on 
a motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to amendment No. 1592 
offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Lautenberg, Kerry, Clinton, 
and Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment would add $50 million for the CDC 
immunization program under section 317 of the Public Health Service 
Act. My amendment is offset by using the same mechanism that the 
chairman and ranking member utilized on $2.2 billion of the underlying 
bill.
  Immunization of children is one of the great hallmarks of our public 
health system of the United States. It has had remarkable success. 
Diseases such as polio that were terrifying America when I was a child 
have been eradicated. We have to keep up this effort. This $50 million 
will add to that effort to be sure we do not lose ground and that we 
continue to immunize all our children. It is fully offset, and I urge 
my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator add my name as a cosponsor?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be 
added as a cosponsor, and also Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur that the immunization program--
vaccines--is vitally important, but I have to point out that we already 
have in this bill almost $3 billion directed toward vaccines. We have 
the vaccines for children under the one account in the Centers for 
Disease Control, which currently has $1.145 billion. I suppose if we 
added $50 million more to that sum, the Senator from Rhode Island would 
still be asking for more money.
  It seems no matter how much money we allocate to vaccines, more is 
always needed--and I believe they are vitally important. Just this past 
weekend, I visited the Centers for Disease Control to be sure they had 
adequate capital resources and buildings to construct these vaccines. 
No matter how much money we put in, there is always some additional sum 
which is asked for.
  I think the total of $3 billion--and right on top of the issue of the 
Senator from Rhode Island, we have $1.145 billion--that is as good as 
we can do with

[[Page S11273]]

the limitations of the budget resolution in the allocation of this 
subcommittee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. 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 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), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Leiberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     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--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
49. 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. 1572, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of an amendment of 
mine to the desk. I believe I have a right to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? The 
amendment is modified without objection.
  The amendment (No. 1572), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 76, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec.__. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for grants to States under part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.), there are appropriated an additional $1,200,000,000 
     for such grants:
       Customs User Fees.--Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 
     58c(j)(3)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2004''.

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
equally divided for the vote on the motion to waive the budget 
resolution.
  The Senate will please come to order. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on the modification, I do not anticipate 
a problem, but I would like to have a chance to look at it. May I call 
for the regular order? I can examine it when we vote next. The regular 
order is to hear from the Senator from Rhode Island for a brief period 
of time before we vote.


                           Amendment No. 1596

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order. The Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that Senator Daschle and Senator 
Stabenow be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would add funding for our 
libraries and museums. We all understand in every part of this country 
the vital role that libraries and museums play in education and culture 
and in community spirit.
  Many times President Bush is criticized by Members of Congress for 
not living up to his expectations in terms of funding. But here is an 
example where I am proposing to increase funding to the levels 
President Bush requested in his fiscal year 2004 budget proposal to the 
Senate.
  For the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program my 
amendment would add $15.081 million to bring it up to the total of 
$27.5 million that President Bush requested. For the Library Services 
and Technology Act I request an additional $24.1 million to bring it up 
to $171.48 million, the Bush total plus an additional $1.8 million 
needed to double the minimum state allotment. For the Museum Services 
Act I ask for $5.18 million to bring it up to the total suggested by 
the President.
  I believe we should support the President on this one and agree to 
this amendment. It is fully offset.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I strongly support the Reed amendment to 
increase funding for libraries and museums in the fiscal year 2004 
Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill. This amendment would bring 
funding for library and museum programs in line with the President's 
fiscal year 2004 budget requests, adding a total of $44.36 million in 
funding.
  I do not believe the value of libraries and museums can be 
understated. State and local school districts are struggling with 
funding cuts at the same time that they work to improve achievement and 
accountability as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Libraries 
play a critical role in providing students and teachers the resources 
they need to develop academically and professionally, which will 
greatly help them meet the mandates of this legislation. Museums have 
the potential to expand all of our lives and these cultural experiences 
are even more important during economic down turns as they offer a free 
or relatively affordable option to young people and families seeking a 
diversion. An educational and culturally gratifying outing is an ideal 
way to combine entertainment and enrichment. It is a most appropriate 
time to provide adequate funding for our Nation's libraries and 
museums.
  This important amendment would increase funding for the Library 
Services and Technology Act, LSTA, by $24.1 million to bring the new 
total to $171.48 million. This increase in funding for LSTA would reach 
the President's funding request of $169.6 million for library state 
grants and library services to Native Americans, and provide the 
additional $1.6 million needed to double the minimum state allotment as 
included in both the Senate and House versions of the Museum and 
Library Services Act of 2003. It would increase funding for the No 
Child Left Behind Act-authorized Improving Literacy Through School 
Libraries program by $15.081 million to reach the President's fiscal 
year 2004 requested level of $27.5 million. This year, at the current 
funding level of $12.4 million, the Department of Education has 
estimated it will only be able to fund about 70 of the over 800 
applications it received from needy school districts across the nation. 
Finally, the amendment would increase funding for the Museum Services 
Act by $5.182 million to reach the President's fiscal year 2004 funding 
request of $30.28 million.
  The success of our young people, especially those in low-income 
neighborhoods, is dependent upon Congress providing the resources 
required to educate them and enrich their lives. Throughout my career 
in public service, I have worked closely with members of the Maryland 
Library Association, colleges and universities, and others involved in 
the library community throughout my State to strengthen libraries and 
arts programs. I commend Senator Reed's consistent efforts to achieve 
this goal by providing additional funding for our Nation's libraries 
and museums. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that we 
can enable libraries and museums to provide the unique and vital 
services available to all Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senate will please come to order. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

[[Page S11274]]

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the allocations for the Institute of 
Museum and Library Services is obviously very important. We already 
have a very substantial allocation, as specified in the principal 
arguments last night. Here again, much as I would like to increase the 
funding on this important line--and as I noted as a personal matter, my 
sister, Shirley Specter Kety, is a professional librarian. I am going 
to have a little problem at home over this because she is watching the 
C-SPAN proceedings. But we have made as large an allocation as we can 
under the Budget Act and the allocation for this subcommittee.
  We already have $243 million in this account. Again, I wish we could 
do more, but that is the best we can do. That is why I have raised the 
point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that 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), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 47, the nays 
are 49. 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. 1602

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote with respect to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, my amendment is pretty simple. It 
restores cuts to student aid by prohibiting the use of funds for 
implementation of new regulations put out by the Department of 
Education reducing the amount of Federal student aid that individuals 
will receive. This is Federal aid, for Pell grants and subsidized 
loans.
  The Department of Education estimates these reductions in State and 
local tax allowances in computing the expected family contribution 
formula will eliminate Pell grants for 84,000 students across the 
country; 49 out of the 50 States are impacted. It will cost $270 
million in Pell grants. The ripple effect, using the same formula 
throughout all State grants and private grants, could reach into the 
billions of dollars. And I think all of you know, across the country 
colleges are raising their tuitions. State and local taxes are going 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
fully offset amendment.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would like to make a few additional 
comments beyond what I said last night about my student aid amendment, 
No. 1602. In particular, I want to describe my intent as to how the 
amendment would work.
  The amendment says that the Department of Education cannot use any 
funds to implement the May 30, 2003 updates to the State and local tax 
allowances, to the extent that they would reduce aid for any student.
  In effect, what the amendment means is that the Department must 
republish its State and local tax allowance tables, and use the prior 
allowances in all cases in which the prior allowances were higher, 
which is the case for the vast majority of States and types of 
students. There were a few cases where the Department got it right. 
That is, they increased the State and local tax allowances for 
independent students in a handful of States. And I don't want the 
amendment to hurt those students.
  That is why the amendment qualifies the prohibition on implementation 
or enforcement of the May 30 updates by adding that the prohibition 
applies ``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.''
  I want to clarify that it is the Department's responsibility to make 
sure this qualifier works by publishing new tables as I just described. 
It is not intended that college aid administrators would have to figure 
out which students would be hurt by the May 30 updates on a student-by-
student, case-by-case basis at the college level. That would be an 
unnecessary, unwieldy and burdensome approach, and is not my intent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
New Jersey is a very complicated amendment which ought not to be 
handled on an appropriations bill in an amendment to limit funding. It 
ought to be submitted to the authorizing committee so the Secretary of 
Education could be heard on this calculation as to scholarship benefits 
and so the Secretary of the Treasury could be heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey talked last night about a swing of 
billions of dollars. This is affecting the flow of money for the 
National Institutes of Health, which ought not to be affected. The very 
document which he has cited, the Congressional Research Service study, 
says this issue remains ``largely undetermined'' ``without substantial 
and complex modeling.''
  This is an amendment which ought not to be considered at this time. I 
hope we will not have the traditional party-line vote, which we see all 
the time invariably here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Anybody who takes a look at this amendment would say, 
fairly stated, it is too complicated to be discussed in 2 minutes after 
an argument last night. It ought to go before the authorizing 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SPECTER. Then I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from New Jersey. 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 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 51, nays 44, as follows:

[[Page S11275]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The amendment (No. 1602) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change Of Vote

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 339 I voted 
``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will 
not change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from New Hampshire 
is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendments to be offered and debated be the following: Boxer, 
afterschool, 30 minutes; Landrieu, 20 minutes; Durbin, No Child Left 
Behind, 40 minutes; Durbin, teacher quality, 10 minutes equally 
divided. I further ask consent that there be no second degrees in order 
to the amendments prior to votes in relationship to the amendments, 
and, further, that the votes occur in relationship to the amendments in 
sequence beginning at a time determined by the majority leader after 
consultation with the Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Senator from New Hampshire to 
modify his request to allow the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to 
speak for up to 15 minutes on the amendment that is now pending, the 
IDEA amendment, and the Senator from Connecticut can take whatever time 
he wishes, not to exceed 15 minutes, in opposition to that, after which 
time there would be a voice vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection, except that I will not be speaking in 
opposition. I wish time to speak on the amendment, though.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I could have the attention of the 
Senate, we hope to be able to complete debate on these amendments by 
around 2 o'clock, if the leaders wish to schedule the vote around that 
time, to begin the series of votes, prior to the 3:15 matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1572, as Modified

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1572.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition 
to the listed cosponsors, Senator John Warner be added as a cosponsor 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will now turn to my colleague from 
Arkansas, Senator Pryor, for up to 5 minutes for him to discuss the 
subject of the professional education amendment that is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today in support of Mr. Dodd's 
amendment, as well as Mr. Jeffords' and Mr. Hagel's. I know Senator 
Dayton, my seatmate here, has been a strong advocate of IDEA funding 
and fully funding IDEA, and I want to mention Senator Dayton because he 
is such a great advocate on this issue.
  There is no commitment we can make, no investment we can make, no 
service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well-
being of this country than to educate our children. It truly is an 
investment in the future.
  I quote a statement from Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS, 
in 1954:

       When I say in these days it is doubtful that any child may 
     reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the 
     opportunity for an education, such an opportunity is a right 
     which must be made available on equal terms.

  That is what IDEA is all about--providing a quality, equal education 
to our children who are disabled.
  This proposal by Senator Dodd will increase the funding for IDEA--
unfortunately, not up to the 40 percent threshold the Federal 
Government committed to several years ago but, nonetheless, a sizable 
increase in IDEA funding. I am very supportive of Senator Dodd and his 
efforts.
  I also believe that for 27 years, we have found excuse after excuse 
to break our promise when it comes to IDEA. If it is not one thing it 
is another. There is always some reason. There is always some 
explanation. There is always a promise to do better next year. Senator 
Dodd's leadership and this great amendment he is offering is getting us 
closer to fulfilling our commitment and our promise this year in this 
bill.
  In 2003, we appropriated only 17.6 percent of the funding for IDEA. 
We promised to fund 40 percent. We have never come close. In my State 
of Arkansas, we have 58,000 disabled children who will benefit from 
Senator Dodd's amendment.
  Again, I thank him for his leadership and for his courage in standing 
up on this issue. It is very critical for this country that we educate 
our disabled children.
  The last point I wish to make before I turn the floor back over to my 
colleague from Connecticut is that when I was attorney general of my 
State, many of the cases dealt with IDEA. Not in all cases, but in many 
instances, the fundamental problem and the reason the State was being 
sued was because we were not providing enough money and resources to 
educate our handicapped children. Today, we are taking a step in the 
right direction to do that.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back the remainder of my time to my 
colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for his 
eloquent comments and his support in this effort. He brings a special 
knowledge and awareness to this issue, as we heard, as a result of his 
experience as attorney general in Arkansas.
  Like his colleagues, attorneys general around the country have 
grappled with this issue. As he points out, almost 30 years ago, when I 
first arrived as a new Member of Congress with my colleague from 
Vermont--President Gerald Ford initiated the idea of the Education of 
All Children Act--which included, of course, special education. He did 
this to see to it that far more than 20 percent of special needs 
children receiving services at the time would have an opportunity to 
receive an education. Less than 20 percent of special needs children 
were being educated 30 years ago.
  As a result of the efforts of people such as Senator Pryor as 
attorney general in his State, and now as a Member of this body, and 
others over the years, we have increased the funding for special 
education, and almost 6 million children across the country today who 
are special needs children are getting help. Several hundred thousand 
infants are getting help, and several hundred thousand preschoolers are 
getting help, giving them a chance to maximize their potential.
  Just this past Monday, I was at the Buttonball School in Glastonbury, 
CT.

[[Page S11276]]

I wish all of my colleagues could have been there with me to see what 
this remarkable school is doing. They have consolidated the special 
education children and the services that they need and mainstream them 
each day in their respective classes so they have an opportunity to 
learn to the maximum extent possible. The affection and the dedication 
of the teachers and assistants who work one on one, in many cases, to 
see to it that these children have an opportunity to grow and prosper 
is marvelous to see. I know it goes on in every State.
  As I have said before, almost 30 years ago, we committed to provide, 
at the Federal level, 40 percent of special education funding. To date, 
we have only gotten up to about 17 percent of that funding. As a result 
of the amendment I am offering today on behalf of myself, Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Hagel, Senator Kerry, Senator Collins, Senator 
Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Pryor, from whom we just heard, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator Stabenow, Senator Leahy, Senator Johnson, Senator Clinton, and 
Senator Warner, we are able to offer a $1.2 billion increase in special 
education funding bringing us from a little more than 17 percent of 
total cost to in excess of 21 percent. We are still 19 percent short of 
where we need to be, but certainly this amendment is a major step in 
the right direction.

  If we increase our grants now with the money that is in the 
amendment, plus what we are already offering, to the tune of $2.2 
billion a year, as we promised, by the way, in the 2004 fiscal year 
budget resolution, then over the next 7 years, we will meet our 40 
percent commitment, and we ought to do so.
  My hope is that we do not have to go through this every year; that we 
will have these numbers included in the budget process.
  I am anxious to hear--and I know he is going to address us in a 
moment--from the Senator from New Hampshire about our ability to hold 
this in conference. Obviously, we have to deal with the other body. 
Previously, this body adopted language to increase funding for special 
education, and the other body rejected it. My hope is that this year 
will be different. I will be anxious to hear the level of commitment we 
have to adopt this amendment, have it supported by the House of 
Representatives and have it supported by the White House. No other 
issue I can think of engenders as much support as this one does at the 
local level. I don't care what State you are from, talk to a county 
supervisor, talk to a mayor, a first select person, a city council 
member, they will tell you that in the area of education they need 
help. That is why Senator Jeffords has fought so hard over the years, 
Senator Harkin, Senator Hagel--they have been the champions on this 
issue to try and increase the level of funding for special education to 
give these kids a chance.
  I am delighted to hear my colleagues are going to accept the 
amendment we have offered for the $1.2 billion increase, in addition to 
what is in the bill. This is going to make a difference. This is the 
way this body ought to be operating. We need not have to go through 
these huge battles each year to bring these amendments up in order to 
convince people that this is deserving of our collective support.
  With the adoption of this amendment, we are going to make a huge 
difference for an awful lot of people in the country. While there are a 
lot of other programs I would have liked to have seen in this bill, all 
of us can take some pride in the fact that we have done a good job on 
behalf of special needs children, their families, and the communities 
that wrestle every day to provide the resources to see to it they have 
an opportunity to achieve.
  A special thanks goes to Senator Jeffords of Vermont who has been a 
champion in this area, and Senator Harkin who has been the leader over 
many years on special needs children and special education efforts. 
Senator Hagel has been tremendously helpful. Senator Collins, Senator 
Coleman, as well as other colleagues over the years, have been 
tremendous champions. Senator Murray from the State of Washington has 
been a tremendous fighter on behalf of these children. Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Bingaman, of course, Senator Dorgan, and many others 
as well, I thank them for their efforts.
  We are serving 5.4 million children, 200,000 infants, and 600,000 
preschool children.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of all 50 
States, with the additional amounts of money that will become available 
to them as a result of this amendment being adopted, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Dodd/Hagel/
                                                                             FY2004 Senate      Jeffords FY2004
                        State                            FY2003 final       Appropriations     increase of $2.2
                                                            amount         Committee amount      billion over
                                                                                                 FY2003 amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................        $143,066,000        $158,700,000        $178,923,000
Alaska..............................................          26,501,000          29,838,000          33,468,000
Arizona.............................................         132,563,000         149,252,000         167,414,000
Arkansas............................................          85,906,000          95,603,000         107,944,000
California..........................................         933,124,000       1,046,811,000       1,178,446,000
Colorado............................................         112,272,000         126,407,000         141,789,000
Connecticut.........................................         103,861,000         114,227,000         128,051,000
Delaware............................................          24,288,000          27,346,000          30,674,000
District of Columbia................................          12,212,000          13,750,000          15,423,000
Florida.............................................         479,525,000         530,376,000         596,151,000
Georgia.............................................         233,043,000         262,383,000         294,312,000
Hawaii..............................................          30,632,000          34,489,000          38,686,000
Idaho...............................................          41,226,000          46,416,000          52,064,000
Illinois............................................         393,134,000         435,094,000         489,367,000
Indiana.............................................         200,791,000         221,789,000         248,948,000
Iowa................................................          96,042,000         105,628,000         118,411,000
Kansas..............................................          84,072,000          93,293,000         105,220,000
Kentucky............................................         122,827,000         135,917,000         152,848,000
Louisiana...........................................         142,508,000         160,449,000         179,974,000
Maine...............................................          43,047,000          47,343,000          53,073,000
Maryland............................................         153,622,000         169,751,000         190,613,000
Massachusetts.......................................         223,317,000         245,605,000         275,328,000
Michigan............................................         308,119,000         342,792,000         387,640,000
Minnesota...........................................         149,337,000         164,529,000         185,076,000
Mississippi.........................................          92,158,000         103,760,000         116,387,000
Missouri............................................         178,701,000         196,536,000         220,321,000
Montana.............................................          28,125,000          31,490,000          35,519,000
Nebraska............................................          58,742,000          64,605,000          72,424,000
Nevada..............................................          49,853,000          56,129,000          62,959,000
New Hampshire.......................................          37,334,000          41,060,000          46,029,000
New Jersey..........................................         284,356,000         312,736,000         350,583,000
New Mexico..........................................          71,699,000          79,229,000          88,969,000
New York............................................         597,208,000         660,212,000         741,706,000
North Carolina......................................         235,924,000         260,564,000         293,542,000
North Dakota........................................          19,722,000          22,205,000          24,907,000
Ohio................................................         344,364,000         386,101,000         434,899,000
Oklahoma............................................         116,368,000         129,216,000         145,834,000
Oregon..............................................         100,991,000         112,110,000         126,494,000
Pennsylvania........................................         336,056,000         374,907,000         424,147,000
Puerto Rico.........................................          81,033,000          91,234,000         102,337,000
Rhode Island........................................          34,402,000          37,836,000          42,415,000
South Carolina......................................         137,797,000         153,708,000         172,926,000
South Dakota........................................          23,494,000          26,452,000          29,670,000
Tennessee...........................................         181,996,000         201,695,000         227,175,000

[[Page S11277]]

 
Texas...............................................         725,934,000         811,593,000         916,785,000
Utah................................................          81,887,000          92,196,000         103,416,000
Vermont.............................................          19,016,000          21,410,000          24,015,000
Virginia............................................         214,099,000         236,861,000         266,302,000
Washington..........................................         170,259,000         190,579,000         215,021,000
West Virginia.......................................          59,745,000          65,708,000          73,660,000
Wisconsin...........................................         163,780,000         181,384,000         204,153,000
Wyoming.............................................          19,949,000          22,461,000          25,194,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      State subtotals...............................       8,740,029,000       9,721,766,000      10,937,631,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Dodd-Hagel-Jeffords amendment and the 
money in the bill--$2.2 billion--raises considerably the amount of 
money that will be available in each of the States as a result of our 
efforts. I thank them for their efforts, and each Senator ought to know 
there are going to be a lot more children, families, and communities 
who are going to get needed help.
  My hope is, of course, that we will keep this language in conference. 
We tried over the years to do that. We now need Members of the other 
body to stand up and say to their mayors, Governors, county 
supervisors, and others: You have our support, and we are going to try 
and do it each and every year between now and the year 2009 to complete 
the obligation we made some three decades ago.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time. I see my colleague from New Hampshire who may want to address 
this issue. I don't know if he does. If he does, maybe we can vote on 
this and move on to other matters.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 15 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Connecticut?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes 42 seconds remaining for 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Connecticut, which I think is a good amendment. 
Initially, the proposed amendment used advanced funding, which, in my 
opinion, is inappropriate because it essentially aggravates the deficit 
and tries to escape the budget discipline of our spending caps. The 
Senator from Connecticut has modified his amendment to offset it so the 
dollars being spent will be offset in an appropriate budgetary process 
way that keeps this amendment within the budgetary caps and the 
allocations of this committee.
  Therefore, I can support it with enthusiasm because it is offset and 
it is an appropriate amendment. In fact, I would have offered an 
amendment as an alternative to his had he gone forward with the 
advanced funding approach which would have accomplished the same goal 
on funding but would have also accomplished the budgetary discipline 
that we needed, which is now reflected in the amendment as offered.
  I intend to work and be supportive of this amendment in conference, 
although I do not chair this subcommittee. Obviously, that is Senator 
Specter's role, and hopefully we can be successful in the House in 
retaining this number. I think it is important, however, to reflect 
this number in the context of what has been done in the past and how 
aggressively we have tried to fund special education.
  Trying to get special education funding up has been a priority of 
mine since being in the Senate. When I arrived in the Senate, the 
Federal Government was paying about 6 percent of the special education 
costs of the local school districts in New Hampshire. The original 
agreement under which the special education act was approved, the 
Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the cost of special 
education. So the Federal Government was coming nowhere near its 
obligation. As a result, local communities in New Hampshire, through 
their local property taxes, were having to pick up the responsibility 
of the Federal Government relative to special needs children. We ended 
up with special needs children being pitted against other children in 
the school system, parents against parents competing for these 
resources. It was totally unfair to the special needs child and to 
their parents because they were being reflected as taking a 
disproportionate share of the local property tax to benefit or to 
address their educational needs because of the fact that the Federal 
Government was not fulfilling its obligation.
  I have aggressively pursued trying to increase special education 
funding. As a result of that initiative, when we took back control of 
the Senate in 1996, Senator Lott and Senator Specter took on this 
cause. I like to think I encouraged them in that direction, but I think 
they had that inclination anyway.
  Significant progress in the area of increasing special education 
dollars has been made since then. In fact, we have now gone from the 
Federal Government paying 6 percent, after this bill, to over 20 
percent of the costs of special education. It is on a path, especially 
with this amendment, toward full funding of special education by the 
year 2009, which is a commitment that many of us have made and tried to 
reach.

  It is also important to note that this effort was made pretty much 
unilaterally by the energy and commitment of the Republican Congress at 
that time. In fact, historically, the Clinton administration did not 
send us an increase of any significance in special education funding 
during its first 7 years in office. It was not until the last year in 
office that the Clinton administration actually sent up an increase in 
special education funding of any significance, and yet during the last 
4 years of the Clinton administration we basically reallocated, within 
the budget caps that we had at that time, money in the Republican 
Senate and at that time the Republican House, and we significantly 
increased the funding every one of those years.
  In fact, there was over a billion dollars of increase each year 
during that period of time. That was in large part due to the strong 
commitment made by Senator Specter, who chaired this appropriations 
subcommittee during that period. So I think it is important to put in 
context the effort that has been made in educational funding by 
President Bush and by the Republican Congress.
  Since President Bush has come into office, he has maintained and 
continued this effort that was started by the Republican Senate in 
dramatic terms. This chart reflects it in very stark terms. During the 
8 years of President Clinton's term, the increase for IDEA was about 
$400 million in his proposed budgets. During the 3 years President Bush 
has been in office, his increases in special education funding have 
been over $3 billion, with the addition of funding this time in this 
budget.
  So every year since he has been in office, President Bush has asked 
for and made a commitment to significant increases in special education 
funding--over a billion dollars a year. If we want to put this in some 
sort of statistical context, the average annual increase for special 
education funding since President Bush has been has been $1.1 billion. 
That is a 700-percent higher commitment--almost 770 percent--to special 
education than occurred during the Clinton administration. So the 
commitment by this administration has been there. In fact, this 
administration has increased special education funding in just 3 years 
by 53 percent. Special education is the single largest-growing function 
of the Federal Government on a percentage basis. That is a strong, firm 
commitment to special education.
  This is another chart that shows it rather starkly. That commitment 
has essentially been carried forward as a

[[Page S11278]]

result of a commitment made by President Bush and our party to this 
very critical element of education.
  Why are we so committed to special education? Well, there are 
basically two reasons. One, because special needs children do have the 
right to receive a quality education and, two, local taxpayers have the 
right to be able to use their dollars to fund what they think is a 
priority, not have to use their dollars to fund the Federal 
responsibility in special education. So we are on a path, an aggressive 
path, led by the President in his 3 years and by this Congress, toward 
full funding of special education.
  This amendment increases by $1,200,000,000, the $1 billion increase 
which was already in the bill. That is an appropriate step. It also 
almost assures that we will be on a path toward full funding and as a 
result will do significant good in relieving local school districts of 
the pressure which they are getting to fund special education and the 
Federal role in special education.

  Along with the funding issue, however, we have made a significant 
commitment to trying to improve the quality and the actual terms of the 
program. We have reported out of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee--which I have the good fortune to chair and on which 
Senator Kennedy is the ranking member--a bill which basically reforms 
the IDEA program, the special education program. It takes out a lot of 
the input controls, it takes out a lot of the regulatory morass which 
has been created over the years and refocuses the emphasis of special 
education on the child, on output, on making sure the special needs 
child is actually learning what we think is important and appropriate 
to their skill levels, rather than spending all of our time on 
consultants, on attorneys, and on highly structured plans which 
inevitably end up with a lot more time being spent on paperwork than 
time being spent directly on making sure the child can get ahead in 
their school system.
  This bill which we have reported out of committee also allows the 
local school district to more effectively deal with the issues which we 
hear most often have affected their ability to make the special need's 
child experience in the school system constructive and useful. First, 
the paperwork which I just mentioned, but also the issue of discipline, 
where there were different standards of discipline for different 
children and as a result there were inconsistencies and it was 
difficult to maintain decorum in the classroom in some instances, we 
have tried to address that issue.
  Hopefully, to some degree, we have also taken out this very litigious 
atmosphere that has been out there for far too long where actually in 
some places such as Washington, DC, an entire cottage industry has been 
created which essentially involves litigating all sorts of 
miscellaneous technical points such as whether a 10-day time frame has 
been made versus 11 days, creating very significant costs on the school 
systems, which basically are drained off to lawsuits instead of going 
to assisting children.

  Significant progress is being made in the area of special education, 
both on the policy side, where I think we have produced an excellent 
piece of legislation which I hope will be passed by the full Senate 
later this year, and also on the funding side. Year after year since 
this President has taken office, we have dramatically increased the 
amount of money flowing to special education. This amendment continues 
that process. It raises the number by $1.2 billion.
  I believe as we go through the appropriating process, it should be 
funded within the budget caps, as this amendment does, but it does so 
really in a manner which is consistent with the Republican effort and 
this President's effort over his first 3 years in office. He has year 
in and year out made the very substantive commitment to special needs 
children that is appropriate and necessary for taking care of those 
children and relieving local taxpayers of the burden of paying the 
Federal share.
  I support this amendment. I expect we will take it on a voice vote. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I did not intend to have this become a 
partisan discussion at all. Going back, as a member of the Budget 
Committee, I offered I think the first such amendment in the Budget 
Committee, along with Senator Lott. We lost on a tie vote back in the 
Budget Committee in the early 1980s on special education, trying to get 
the dollars up.
  I am very grateful. The only reason we are getting this support now 
is that obviously we have some key Republicans who are willing to help 
us on this--Senator Hagel, principally, who has been a champion on this 
issue for a number of years. Senator Collins, Senator Coleman, and 
Senator Warner have been very helpful.
  Let there be no illusions. We tried to get this. We can argue about 
offsets and so forth, but the fact is, had I not been able to get some 
Republican support, this amendment would have gone down. I do not make 
that case because I think it takes both of us working together here. 
But the reason we are back at this is that, back in the beginning of 
2001, Senator Harkin, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Hagel offered 
language to increase dollars for special education--in fact, they ended 
up getting 100 votes here. The other body, led by the Republican 
leadership, just wouldn't allow a vote to occur on this issue and the 
President never had anything to say about it.
  If we took the increases in the underlying bill, we would never get 
near the 40 percent figure at which special education would become 
fully funded.
  The fact is, we have fought this battle especially hard over the last 
2 years. We have gotten zero help from the White House and zero help 
from the leadership in the other body. As a result, we are back again 
this year making our case again.
  I am very grateful for the bipartisan support we have on this. That 
is the way we get these things done. We are prepared to vote on this, 
accept a voice vote.
  They don't want a rollcall vote. They only want a voice vote. I was 
born at night, Madam President, but not last night. I know what that 
usually means--it is so no one has to be on record here. We are just 
going to have a vote and go along with this. It makes it a little 
easier for the other body to reject it because we have not had a 
recorded vote on it.
  I accept that because I think if you can get something done, get it 
done, whether it is by voice vote or recorded vote. If we are going to 
get this done, let's get it done. Let's hope it stays in conference so 
the real winners of this will be the children and the families and the 
communities that need the help--not one party over another but people 
who desperately need our help and support, children who are, 
unfortunately, suffering from special education needs who will get some 
help from their Federal Government.
  Most of special education funding comes from local property tax 
payers. We are just fulfilling an obligation we promised we would meet 
30 years ago and we are coming only halfway there as a result of this 
amendment.
  I am grateful, again, for the support we have received. It is 
unfortunate it has taken us this long. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota 
offered a full funding amendment, which I supported, that would get us 
there right away. Obviously, that did not make it. This is a partial 
step in that direction. But Senator Dayton deserves a great deal of 
credit for telling us all how important this issue is and how quickly 
we ought to meet that obligation.
  With that, I yield the remainder of my time. If we are going to have 
a voice vote on it, let's have that voice vote and move on to other 
business.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of the Dodd-Hagel-
Jeffords amendment No. 1572 to H.R. 2660. I am also proud of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the 6 million disabled 
children who this year have the keys to a brighter, more self-
sufficient future. But so too am I greatly disappointed in this 
Congress and the President for breaking a promise for 28 straight 
years.
  In 1975, we made a deal with our State and local school boards. Give 
our disabled children the education they deserve, we said, and we'll 
pay 40 percent of the additional cost, no matter what it takes. An 
expensive commitment? You bet. But without it, our values of fairness 
and personal initiative are just words on a page.

[[Page S11279]]

  In the nearly three decades since, tens of millions of Americans have 
risen through the ranks of special education to become independent, 
productive citizens. They go to college, get jobs, and pay taxes. Every 
one of them a shining example of what can happen when people are 
empowered.
  Yet where they have fulfilled their promise, we have broken ours. We 
carry just 18 percent of this noble burden on our broad shoulders. Our 
States stagger under the heavy weight of the rest.
  We have tried to correct this problem before. In 2001, this body 
wisely passed a version of No Child Left Behind that was true to its 
name.
  We didn't mean ``no able-bodied child left behind''. We didn't mean 
``no disabled child in private school left behind''. We meant that no 
child--no child--would be denied the tools needed to succeed. That's 
why we included--by a unanimous vote--full funding for IDEA.
  Unfortunately, George Bush and his henchmen in the House of 
Representatives had other ideas. They decided that our tax dollars were 
better spent on corporate welfare and massive tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans. This amendment would begin to right that wrong by 
restoring the $1.2 billion for IDEA cut from the Budget Resolution. Use 
the Republican forward-funding mechanism to pay for it. Get us back on 
the road to full funding.
  I know most of my colleagues recognize the desperate needs in special 
education. But this amendment is about so much more than that. It's 
about a principal made heart-sick by pitting one group of students 
against another. It's about a mainstream teacher on the short end of 
that equation who loses her job. It's about a mother and father who 
just want their child to have a chance.
  And right now, it's also about keeping a promise made to our most 
vulnerable children. We must take a stand. We must pass the Dodd/Hagel/
Jeffords amendment on IDEA.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dodd-Jeffords 
amendment. I am proud to support this amendment--the first step to 
fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, in 
8 years. This bill adds about $1 billion over last year's funding level 
for IDEA. That may sound like a lot. But at that rate it will take at 
least 30 years to get to full funding.
  I think it is shocking that Congress passed tax breaks for 
zillionaires while delaying help for those who need it most--the 
children with special needs and their parents and teachers. This 
amendment increases IDEA funding by another $1.2 billion, for a total 
of $2.2 billion, on pace to full funding in 8 years. We must fully fund 
IDEA to ensure that children with disabilities are receiving the 
services they need to succeed with their classmates in public schools.
  In 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the cost of special 
education when it passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. Yet it has never paid more than 17.5 percent. That means local 
districts must make up the difference, either by cutting from other 
education programs or by raising taxes. I do not want to force States 
and local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher 
training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has 
failed to live up to its commitment to special education. That's why 
fully funding IDEA is one of my top priorities.
  Everywhere I go in Maryland, I hear about IDEA. I hear about it in 
urban, rural, and suburban communities, from Democrats and Republicans, 
and from parents and teachers. They tell me that the Federal Government 
is not living up to its promise, that special education costs about 18 
percent of the average school budget, that schools are suffering, and 
the parents are worried.
  Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs 
just to make ends meet, trying to find day care for their kids, and 
elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government should not add 
to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the Federal 
Government not paying its share of special education, these parents 
have real questions in their minds: Will my child have a good teacher? 
Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be learning what 
they need to know?
  Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. School 
should not be one of the many things they have to worry about, 
particularly when the laws are already on the books to guarantee their 
child a public school education. The bottom line is that the Federal 
Government is shortchanging these parents by not paying its share of 
special ed costs.
  This bill will give local governments the resources they need to 
improve education for all children. It will free up money in local 
budgets for hiring more teachers, buying new textbooks and technology, 
and repairing old school buildings. It will help the teachers who 
struggle with teaching the toughest students. It will help students 
with disabilities and their families by providing enough funding for 
special education programs so parents can have one less thing to worry 
about, and students get the opportunities they deserve.
  Full funding of IDEA is essential. It will give disabled children a 
chance to succeed in school and in life without shortchanging other 
vital education programs. It will give parents peace of mind about 
their children's education. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of Mr. 
Dodd, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Hagel, to increase funding for the 
education of disabled children.
  I will also note that a few days ago, Senator Dayton offered an 
amendment to increase Federal funding for the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act to its full amount of 40 percent of excess 
cost to local education agencies.
  I was proud to support that effort, although it failed, and I want to 
thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of those who cannot always 
help themselves. I was proud to support it if for no other reason than 
to call attention to what is right and what is fair and to where our 
priorities should lay.
  There is no commitment we can keep, no investment we can make, no 
service we can perform that is more important to the domestic well-
being of this country than educating our children.
  By the same token, it doesn't do us any good to educate some while 
leaving others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for all of our 
children, we are closing doors. Instead of educating and shaping future 
productive citizens and leaders, we are, in some cases neglecting those 
who need our help the most. Those, who if we do not help now, will 
surely revisit us in the future disguised as another societal problem--
ill prepared for life and solely dependent on the Government.
  I quote, Mr. President: ``In these days, it is doubtful that any 
child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the 
opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, is a right which must 
be made available to all on equal terms.''
  That excerpt comes from the decision of Brown v. Board of Education, 
1954.
  The amendment offered today by the distinguished Senators from 
Connecticut, Vermont, and Nebraska remind us of our commitment to those 
children who need our help the most, those children who have been left 
out and left behind, those who have been denied this right.
  They propose to raise funding for IDEA in the Labor-Health Education 
appropriations bill by $1.2 billion to the budget authorized increase 
of $2.2 billion.
  This was a budget, incidentally, that we authorized only several 
short months ago. The IDEA authorization, a bright spot in an otherwise 
misprioritized budget, was agreed upon by a vast majority of this body. 
Now we find ourselves taking a step back from that vote, from that 
commitment. A vote, I am sure many of us trumpeted in our press 
releases and in trips back home.
  I realize that a lot has happened since we debated and voted on a 
budget resolution. In the coming days, we will be looking at another 
war supplemental, revenues are down, and deficits are soaring through 
the roof.
  We have many priorities and little money to meet them. These facts 
are not lost on me. But, I also believe that for 27 years, we have 
found excuse after excuse to break our promise. If it wasn't one thing 
it was another. There

[[Page S11280]]

was always some reason, always some explanation and always a promise to 
do better next year. We can start doing better by this Nation's 
children this year, right here, right now with this vote.

  This is a highly necessary step to continue us on the path toward 
fully funding IDEA, toward fulfilling the promise made by this body 27 
years ago. And I say continue because I recognize that we have 
increased funding in recent years in this body. I recognize that the 
level of funding we have provided to Part B of IDEA has increased by 
over 200 percent since 1996. Even so, if you look at where we started 
with this legislation, funding less than 7 percent of excess cost, we 
have woefully shortchanged those whom we have sworn to protect. In 
addition our current funding levels fail to keep pace with escalating 
special education costs.
  To listen to some of our colleagues speak about the ``revolutionary 
increases'' and massive gains we have made in education funding and 
special education funding in specific, one might think that we have 
fulfilled those commitments.
  But in the history of this legislation, appropriations have never 
neared the 40 percent promise we made to our schools back in 1975. In 
fact, in 2003, appropriations only funded 17.6 percent of the excess 
cost to States. And this is at a time when we are asking our States to 
shoulder more burdens than ever before. This year, the Economic Policy 
Institute estimates that local communities and States will take on 
approximately $10 billion in unfunded mandate, Federal special 
education costs.
  In my State of Arkansas, there are roughly 58,000 disabled children. 
With adequate Federal funding to IDEA we can provide these children 
more teachers, we can provide those teachers better training, we can 
reduce class size, and we can create more efficiency in diagnostics. We 
can do all this while alleviating the pressure to States and localities 
not to mention lessening the tax burden on individual taxpayers.
  Some of my colleagues might tell us we cannot afford to fund IDEA at 
the levels it needs to be funded. I would say we can't afford not to. 
If this is not a priority for us now, I ask if it will ever be?
  It was once said by Hubert H. Humphrey that the moral test of 
government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of 
life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; 
and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the 
handicapped.
  Well, this is a discussion about those in the dawn of their lives and 
we in this body, we in government have an opportunity to save these 
children from being cast in the shadows of life.
  I am not sure if there is anyone in this body that disagrees to 
whether or not IDEA works.
  Prior to IDEA's passage, nearly half of all children with 
disabilities were not allowed to enroll in public schools. The 
remaining half were segregated in inadequate classrooms.
  Today, over 6 million children with disabilities receive a free 
appropriate public education, because of IDEA. Since IDEA was enacted, 
the number of young disabled adults in college has tripled. The 
disabled child dropout rate has decreased by more than 50 percent.
  These are wonderful results. Imagine the results we could attain, if 
we funded this legislation to the appropriate levels.
  We made a commitment; we should keep it. I think we owe our children 
that much. They reap the rewards or pay the price for the policies we 
enact today. They are the ones who cannot defend themselves.
  As I prepared to speak on this issue I read the debate that preceded 
the passage of the `Education for All Handicapped Children Act,' in 
1975. I tried to perhaps shed some light on the intent of Congress in 
passing this legislation. Immediately I saw the importance members of 
that distinguished body placed on funding special education.
  In fact, Senator Javits from New York, a Republican, said ``Again, I 
point out, Mr. President, that we have only appropriated $100 million 
under the present law, part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act, 
which authorizes $666 million yearly. Mr. President, this shows our 
lack of the right priorities and our deficiencies.''
  Senator Stafford, a Vermont Republican, said ``If enacted into law, 
this bill will finally begin to bring to all the handicapped children 
of our Nation what has always been their right--a free appropriate 
public education.''
  A beginning. Both of these distinguished Senators from the other side 
of the aisle understood where we were, where we had to go, and how we 
had to get there. They knew that we could do better by our children. 
And so do Senators Dodd, Jeffords, Hagel, and Dayton.
  I appreciate their leadership on this issue, and I wish to join them 
in making sure that we do better by our children, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time and I 
urge the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 1572), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager, I ask 
unanimous consent that the previous agreement be modified so that 
following the second Durbin amendment, Senator Ensign be recognized to 
offer an amendment regarding afterschool; further, that there be 10 
minutes equally divided for debate. I further ask unanimous consent 
that following the last amendment on the previous list, Senator 
Landrieu be recognized to offer an amendment relative to mosquitos; 
again with 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form. Finally, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remaining provisions of the agreement be 
applicable to the Ensign and Landrieu amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, in effect, 
following the Durbin amendment under the previous order that has been 
entered, we will have the Ensign amendment and the Landrieu amendment, 
and then the leader will set a time to vote after they debate those.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will send an amendment to the desk. I 
ask if I have 15 minutes to present this amendment. Is that accurate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                Amendment No. 1609 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mrs. BOXER. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 1609.

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

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for afterschool programs under 
          the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       On page 76, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec.  . In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act for afterschool programs carried out by 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers under part B of title IV 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7171 et seq.), there are appropriated an additional 
     $250,000,000 for such programs: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the National Institutes of 
     Health, $44,000,000 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 $7,145,199,000: Provided further, That the 
     amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall 
     be deemed to be $6,533,301,000.

  Mrs. BOXER. I ask if my colleague from Nevada would like to take some 
time now for a consent request.

[[Page S11281]]

  Mr. REID. No, I would just like to be added as cosponsor of the 
Senator's amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be proud to add Senator Reid as a cosponsor. I 
make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as we look at the request for $87 
billion, most of it for Iraq, I hope we will find it in our hearts to 
look at the millions of children in our own country who are waiting to 
get into afterschool programs.
  When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a promise to our 
children. I want to focus on that promise as it pertains to afterschool 
programs.
  This is a blowup of a little of the act itself.
  It is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that President Bush is 
talking about everywhere he goes in the country but unfortunately is 
underfunding.
  It is very clear. It is in black and white. The No Child Left Behind 
Act spelled out exactly what was supposed to be spent on afterschool 
programs for our children. In the year 2002, we were supposed to spend 
$1.250 billion; in 2003, we were supposed to spend $1.5 billion; and in 
2004--the bill we are debating now--we were supposed to spend $1.750 
billion.
  If this were an exam that our children were giving us, we would fail 
and fail miserably.
  Afterschool is a great program. That is why this afterschool act 
which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act was supported by both 
sides of the aisle. It was written by myself and Senator Ensign. But I 
have to say, as the author of this bill, that it saddens me greatly to 
realize we are breaking our promises to children.
  Let me show you how we have broken those promises. It is a sad 
chapter in our history. I told you that the No Child Left Behind Act 
calls for $1.7 billion this year. The Bush budget was $600 million. Not 
only would he not fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act but he cut it 
from the $1 billion level that is in the current bill before us. I 
commend my colleagues for at least adding $400 million and getting it 
up to level funding. The Boxer amendment doesn't even meet the 
commitment of the No Child Left Behind Act. If it did, I would be 
adding $750 million. But in an effort to win the votes of my 
colleagues, I am asking for $2.25 million.
  The No Child Left Behind Act says we should be spending $1.75 
billion. The Bush budget, with only $600 million, throws thousands of 
children out of coverage. The Senate bill comes to us with $1 billion, 
and I am attempting to begin moving this funding to where it would 
reach what the No Child Left Behind Act has promised. We are breaking a 
promise to our kids. I want to translate this money into children so 
that you see how we are not just talking numbers but we are in fact 
talking about children.
  In the Bush budget, if we had not changed the number in the No Child 
Left Behind Act, 1.6 million fewer children than we promised would have 
been covered. Under the Senate bill right now, 1.1 million fewer 
children are covered. Even under my amendment, 800,000 fewer children 
than we promised would be covered.
  To put it another way, the No Child Left Behind Act was supposed to 
cover 2.5 million children--our present children--after school. 
Instead, the Bush budget would cover 850,000 kids; the Senate 
appropriations committee, 1.4 million kids; and the Boxer amendment 
would cover 1.7 million children.
  Even though we are not going to fully cover the 2.5 million children 
the act promised, at least we are moving up from where we are; 300,000 
more children will be covered by the Boxer amendment.
  The demand for afterschool care is great. According to the Department 
of Labor, the parents of more than 28 million school-age children work 
outside the home. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as many as 15 
million latchkey children go home to an empty house.
  Where are our family values? You are a devoted mother, Madam 
President. You know how important it is for the children to have 
someone to be there when they come home from school. Yet we are 
depriving millions of children whose parents can't afford to have a 
babysitter there, who can't afford to enroll them in some private 
afterschool program.
  What does latchkey kids mean? They have a key, they let themselves 
in, and they are on their own. The parents can't afford programs for 
these children.
  Mayors surveyed in six cities reported that only one-third of 
children needing afterschool care were receiving it. And the need for 
Federal help is growing.
  In Minnesota, for example, State budget cuts are forcing schools and 
community partners to scale back or cut after-school enrichment 
programs.
  This means that in Duluth, the Lincoln Park Youth Collaborative, 
which unites the Lincoln Park School with such organizations as 
Lutheran Social Service, the Boys & Girls Club, Duluth Family YMCA and 
Neighborhood Youth Services, will be dissolved. Additionally the Boys & 
Girls Club in Duluth is scaling back hours and activities.
  Currently, more than 80 percent of the 665 students at Lincoln Park 
School participate in one or more of these programs. How are people in 
Duluth reacting? According to the Duluth New Tribune, they are afraid--
afraid that youth crime and violence will increase. And the children 
are devastated, as Tylor, a Lincoln Park seventh grader put it, ``How 
would they feel if they were kids and we were the ones taking the money 
and they wouldn't have anything to do?''
  We know that when our schools close down, their afterschool 
programs--which is what is happening now because they are so short of 
funding. It is very devastating to children. It is very devastating to 
their families. And the teachers suffer because the kids are just not 
what they were before. They are not ready for school. They don't have 
mentors to teach them and to work with them one on one after school. 
Afterschool care is not a luxury; it is a critical investment in our 
children's future.
  I want to show you a chart that shows juvenile crime. You might say 
it is a no-brainer. But I think it is worth looking at an FBI chart. 
What is it showing? Juvenile crime soars to its highest rate between 
the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. It just goes way up as soon as school ends. 
We all know this intuitively. But this is a FBI statistic.
  What is happening is very clear. According to the National Center for 
Juvenile Justice, children are more likely to be involved in crime, 
substance abuse, and teenage pregnancies if they are left on their own 
after school. We know from studies that these afterschool programs 
work. They reduce crime. They reduce drug use. They reduce teenage 
pregnancies.
  We have studies done by Quantum Opportunities. We have researchers 
from Columbia University and the American Health Foundation. They 
compared five housing facilities without Boys & Girls Clubs to five 
similar facilities with Boys & Girls Clubs. By the time the study was 
concluded, housing facilities without the Boys & Girls Clubs had 50 
percent more vandalism and they had 37 percent more drug activity.
  It is no surprise then that law enforcement supports afterschool 
programs. In a poll conducted by George Mason University, 86 percent of 
police chiefs nationwide said that expanding afterschool programs will 
greatly reduce youth crime and violence.
  I will show you a quote from Sheriff Drew Alexander from Summit 
County, OH--right from the heartland. This is what he said:

       We can pay now for afterschool programs and invest in 
     success. Or we can plan to spend far more later on prisons 
     for our failures, and funerals for their victims.

  When I first got into politics and into local government, those of us 
who wanted to invest in things such as afterschool and early childhood 
education had arguments with law enforcement. They didn't agree. They 
said: We will get the criminal after the crime is committed.
  They have changed dramatically. They are now on the front lines. They 
are my best helper in helping to get back-to-school programs, which we 
have enacted here. They have been my best helper in rounding up 
votes. I hope they have been successful today. We are going to find out 
later.

  What is also remarkable is that while the administration cut 
afterschool funding in half, throwing millions of children out of 
afterschool programs,

[[Page S11282]]

another arm of the administration was saying in a paid-for 
advertisement. This is an amazing paid-for advertisement from our 
government: ``It's 3 p.m. Do you know where your kids are?''

       Times have changed. Keeping kids off drugs means knowing 
     what they're up to. Especially after school. There are ways 
     to do it.

  And they talk about various ways to keep your eye on your children. 
This is remarkable. It comes from the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy.
  While the administration is spending money asking parents where their 
kids are after school, on the other hand, with their red pencil they 
are cutting the funding for afterschool. I don't know how this makes 
any sense. I was fortunate enough to spend the month of August in my 
home State. I went to a number of afterschool programs, as I have done 
over the years. As a matter of fact, I have made 23 visits to 
afterschool programs. I will show some of the pictures of the kids I 
have seen in these afterschool programs.
  Here is a picture from Sacramento Start. These kids are thoroughly 
involved in work. They are playing a learning game. They are engrossed, 
instead of being home alone, watching cartoons, or out on the street 
getting into trouble.
  Here is another picture from Sacramento Start. A mentor came in with 
this huge alligator. All the kids are standing around in amazement. 
There is not one disinterested look, not one idle face in the room. It 
is so exciting what can be done and what is happening in California and 
across this country in afterschool programs.
  Here is an afterschool program at Sullivan Middle School in 
Fairfield, CA. We call this program, which I visited, The Place To Be 
After 3. These kids are shining. Walk in there and anyone will see they 
feel proud of who they are and what they are doing. You can see from 
the smiles on their faces. When you ask them why, and I do every time I 
go to one of these programs, they say, ``We are safe. Kids ask us to do 
things after school that are not good and we just say, 'We can't. We 
are in afterschool programs.''' They come home; they have done their 
homework; they can have family time. When mom and dad get home--or if 
it is a single-parent household, they are exhausted. They have to make 
dinner, make sure the child is bathed and ready for the next morning. 
The bottom line is the child comes home, the homework is done, and they 
can then bond with the parent.
  It really works.
  I will read some of what students have told me. One of L.A.'s best 
students said:

       The most important thing I learned was that anything I set 
     my mind to, I can do.

  That is from a fifth grader at Hart Street Elementary School.
  Another from Manchester Avenue Elementary School said when asked what 
he most liked:

       There are no strangers to harm us, because the teachers are 
     around.

  From a fourth grader at Canoga Park Elementary School:

       I know if I'm in trouble, I can turn around and they'll be 
     there for me.

  And then a parent of a student:

       My daughter has gone from the bottom 30% to the top 25% 
     after joining the LA Best afterschool program.

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record other stories 
of other children.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Mauricio's Story, Los Angeles, CA

       Mauricio was a first grader at Langdon Elementary School in 
     North Hills. He faced the strong possibility that he would be 
     involved with gangs, drugs and violence. Instead he became 
     one of the first participants in LA Best. Through LA Best, he 
     came into contact with police officers and tutors, who gave 
     him an alternative to gang life. He was so affected by the 
     program that he worked at LA Best's Langdon site through high 
     school and still volunteers as he works his way through 
     college. Selected to introduce Mayor Richard Riordan for the 
     Mayor's sixth State of the City address, Mauricio said: ``I 
     would never have imagined as a 6-year old that I would be 
     introducing the mayor . . . I saw a lot of young people doing 
     drugs and crime and dying, but today, I am the first member 
     of my family to attend college.'' Mauricio's plans to be a 
     teacher: ``Young people need someone to look up to and 
     someone to help them--I want to give them what people gave to 
     me.''
                                  ____


                     Jerry's Story, Los Angeles, CA

       Although only 10 years old, Jerry was acting out in school, 
     hanging out with gang members and disobeying his parents. His 
     parents began to work with LA Best staff to ensure close 
     supervision of Jerry when he was on the playground. Family 
     counseling and increased emphasis on academics were also part 
     of a carefully developed plan for him. Soon Jerry was 
     involved in computer and geometry classes, the Science Club 
     and sports. He turned his negative behavior into a positive 
     and led his team to victory in several tournaments.
                                  ____


                Kyrus Birckett's Story, Philadelphia, PA

       In 4th grade, Kyrus started in an afterschool program in 
     Philadelphia. He was still in the program through high 
     school. Kyrus's mother was a single parent raising three 
     children and was grateful that her kids were somewhere safe 
     in the afternoons before she got home from work. The 
     afterschool program at Kyrus' school allowed him to work at a 
     day care center and to do peer mediation in school. He said: 
     ``The afterschool program has made a huge impact on my life. 
     It's opened doors for me that have helped me learn, helped me 
     contribute to my community and helped me get into the college 
     of my choice . . .''
                                  ____


                     Vicki's Story, Morgantown, WV

       Vicki's mom is a stay-at-home mom and a Marine Reservist. 
     After 9/11, her mom was called up to active service, leaving 
     Vicki nowhere to go after school but to an empty house. 
     Vicki's father reports that the afterschool program Vicki 
     attends, Kaleidoscope, has made a big difference in not only 
     her life but in the family's life as well.

  Mrs. BOXER. I will wrap up right now by saying, we need to look 
inside our hearts. We represent American children. They need our help. 
These programs work. These programs deserve to be fully funded because 
the President and the Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act. To 
freeze these programs for another year makes 3 years in a row.
  How can I tell my kids that the kids in Iraq are more important than 
them? I am going to do my part to help the kids in Iraq; I am doing my 
part. I will do my part to help the kids in Afghanistan; I am doing my 
part. But I will not walk away from doing my part for the children in 
California and the children all across this country. I urge a ``yea'' 
vote on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 1610 to Amendment No. 1542

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe under the unanimous consent I am in line to 
offer an amendment and I send an amendment to the desk for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, the pending 
amendment is set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1610.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 the promoting safe and stable 
                           families program)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.--
     In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act 
     for the promoting safe and stable families program of the 
     Administration on Children and Families, there are 
     appropriated an additional $100,000,000 for the 
     Administration on Children and Families to fund such program.
       (b) Independent Living Training Vouchers.--In addition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act for independent 
     living training vouchers, there are appropriated an 
     additional $18,000,000 for such vouchers.
       (c) Offset.--Of the funds appropriated under this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health, $70,000,000 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 $6,995,199,000, and the amount $6,783,301,000 in 
     section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be 
     $6,683,301,000.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I inquire of the Chair the time allotments for this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes on this amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me be very brief before the Senator from California 
leaves the floor to say I ask her to add me as a cosponsor to the 
amendment just presented. She made a beautiful presentation, quite 
compelling about why this Congress should step forward

[[Page S11283]]

and live up to the commitments we made in a bipartisan fashion with the 
President of the United States to create and pass a landmark piece of 
legislation. That only works if the funding is attached. The Senator 
from California has been so eloquent, saying because the funding has 
not been attached, it is questionable whether the whole act will work. 
I commend the Senator and add my name as a cosponsor to her amendment.
  I move on to describe my amendment, which is complementary but not on 
the same subject. The amendment I send to the desk is equally as 
important to Louisiana as the amendment presented by Senator Boxer, 
which would have provided in Louisiana the opportunity for our 
Governor, who is Republican--I am a Democrat, he is a Republican--and 
our board of elementary and secondary education, made up of Democrats 
and Republicans, her amendment would make it possible for the reformers 
in our State, made up of members of both parties, to give opportunities 
for children who find themselves in very difficult situations with no 
place to go, both parents required to be working or choosing to work, 
and children needing opportunities after school.
  This amendment I have sent to the desk funds a similar program that 
helps stabilize families but in a different way. It actually builds on 
a bipartisan effort led on this side by the Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Rockefeller, years ago, that recognized a failing in our foster 
care system.
  Let me give a minute of background, although the time is very short. 
We actually have 570,000 children in foster care in the country; about 
6,000 are in foster care in Louisiana. It is very unfortunate that 
children find themselves in foster care at all. We would, of course, 
like to have a child welfare system in this Nation where, first of all, 
every child stays in the family to which they are born. We would love 
for every child to be wanted and nurtured and loved and every family to 
be strong enough to be able to nurture those children and bring them up 
in a family environment, of course, educating them and sending them off 
as we wish for our children whom we raise and for all the children in 
America.
  Unfortunately, that situation does not exist in every family for a 
variety of reasons. Sometimes the parents are simply unable. In some 
awful situations they are unwilling--drugs, alcohol, very dysfunctional 
family situations sometimes cause children to be removed from those 
families, placed into foster care, and then the system is supposed to 
work.
  We spend $8 billion a year on that system. And there are serious 
efforts underway to reform that system.

  This Senator is convinced we could serve families better, serve the 
children better, promote adoption, promote family reunification, 
prevent child abuse actually for less money if we designed this program 
differently. And those efforts are in the works.
  Recognizing this program needed so much reform and support, and 
recognizing the difficulty because it is a very complex, huge Federal 
program that has been developed over the last 30 years in pretty much 
of a hit-and-miss kind of fashion, Senator Rockefeller came up with a 
fabulous, excellent, effective bill several years ago called Promoting 
Safe and Stable Families.
  We passed the bill about 7 years ago. The bill basically says we 
recognize we have this $8 billion Federal program that could work 
better, and we are going to work on reforming it, but while we are 
doing that, let's make sure we are doing everything we can to help 
States and courts prevent children from going into the foster care 
system--in other words, reducing child abuse; in other words, giving 
families support at the front end, so that children do not go into 
foster care, so we do not have almost 600,000 children having to be 
taken away from their families and moved into a system, sometimes to 
languish for years.
  Then Senator Rockefeller and others--this was a bipartisan effort--
said: Let's create a program on the back end so that when these 
children ``age out''--at that time it was 18; now it is 21--we give 
them another step so they can become productive adults. Although they 
have lost their families--many of the parental rights have been 
terminated--because our system has failed them; they were not adopted--
at least let's give them a college education. That is Promoting Safe 
and Stable Families.
  I think the American people, whether they are liberal, conservative, 
Democrat, or Republican, could most certainly understand the benefit of 
spending a small portion of money to make sure the $8 billion we are 
spending is being spent as wisely as possible, to prevent the 
taxpayers, basically, from picking up the tab for a program that is not 
working.
  The fact of the matter is, this bill, even though the President 
requested the program to be at a level of $504 million, for which he 
should be commended--he has been criticized, and a great deal of that 
criticism, actually, I believe, should be leveled in his direction. But 
in this case, it is actually the opposite. The President put $504 
million in his budget. I commend him for doing that. Yet this 
underlying bill is shorting that program by over $100 million.
  My amendment seeks to fully fund Promoting Safe and Stable Families 
to the level President Bush requested. Again, that request was made 
because Democrats and Republicans believe this program is a way, first, 
to make sure the $8 billion taxpayers are spending right now is spent 
in the appropriate ways, and making sure we have the flexibility given 
to our States and local governments to prevent children from coming 
into foster care. And that is done by supporting community-based 
programs, time-limited family reunifications, and, in my opinion, most 
importantly, promoting adoption and the support services that go along 
with adoption.
  Then, at the back end, this money would be given to States. It would 
be very flexible. States can design their own programs. It is given to 
the States in a very flexible way to make sure that if the system is 
failing--and right now it is failing thousands and thousands of our 
children--when the system takes their parents away, and then when the 
system fails to provide another family for them, the least this 
Congress could do, I would argue, for the most vulnerable children in 
America--some of these children are poor, some of them are not, some of 
them came from homes of middle-income families--the least we could do, 
though, for this group of children who have no parents to advocate for 
them, who have no family to advocate for them, is to fully fund the 
education component this Congress wisely put in place that gives 
children an opportunity, when they age out of foster care, to go on and 
try to build a life, despite the difficulties they have, to stay out of 
prison, to stay out of mental health hospitals. That is what this 
amendment does.

  In conclusion, this amendment, which adds about $100 million to the 
underlying bill, would meet the President's request. It would fund the 
authorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. It would attempt 
to help the 1 million children last year in the United States who were 
confirmed as victims of abuse and neglect. It would do it in a way 
without Federal mandates, without Federal regulations, but would give 
the money to the States and to our cities and to our local communities 
to design these programs in the way they see fit.
  In closing, Mr. President, let me just add some words from children 
who have actually received the benefit of this program. Let's listen to 
what they say in their own words about this program.
  The first is written by Belinda J. from Juniata College in 
Pennsylvania. She says:

       There are not enough words to express my gratitude to you 
     for donating money to further my education. When I received 
     the award letter--

which this amendment would fully fund--

       I was speechless and almost started to cry. All those years 
     I worked hard in school because I knew I wanted a career in 
     science. I had a dream and people like you--

speaking to the Members of Congress--

     helped me fulfill that dream. Things still do not come easy 
     to me and I still face the same challenges that I had in 
     foster care, but your belief in me has helped keep me going 
     towards my goal. At this point in my life, I do not know if I 
     am going to be a doctor, a scientist or a forensic 
     investigator, but I do know whom to thank when I become one 
     of these.


[[Page S11284]]


  This is a young woman who has no parents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for one 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. The program I am attempting to fully fund meets the 
President's request. This is unlike some other amendments where the 
President underfunded it and the committee did the same. We just simply 
have not found the will to fund the program. This is a program the 
President put in his budget at a $540 million level, and it is being 
underfunded.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that statements from other 
individuals who have benefited from this program be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       In the three years that I've been involved with the OFA, 
     they have gradually been able to increase my scholarship to 
     help meet my financial needs, Thanks to Scholarship Sponsors 
     this year I received a $10,000 award which was substantially 
     higher than previous years. Last year I did housekeeping in 
     the morning, went to class in the afternoon, and worked at a 
     restaurant at night just to pay my college expenses. Working 
     two jobs and balancing school was really difficult. This 
     year, the scholarship made a huge difference in my life, I 
     only work 15 hours a week at one job. Because I work fewer 
     hours, I have more time to focus on my studies. With the help 
     of the Orphan Foundation and scholarship sponsors, I'll 
     graduate in the class of 2003.
                                                           Amy F.,
     Northwestern University, IL.
                                  ____

       First off, I am very proud of the recognition to receive 
     the OFA scholarship. I know that many applied and only a 
     select few students received the scholarship. The money was 
     used to pay for books, parking and miscellaneous school 
     expenses. I go to a community college and the books can be 
     more than the tuition.
                                                           Sam E.,
     Cuesta Community College, CA.
                                  ____

       My $3,000 scholarship from OFA literally kept me from 
     packing my bags and going home for a semester. I received the 
     news of the scholarship right before the University was going 
     to force me off of the campus. If it was not for your concern 
     and compassion for orphans, a lot of us would not have the 
     opportunity to go to school and expand their academic and 
     even social horizons. Again, I say thank you for supporting 
     orphans all over the country.
                                                       Laverne B.,
     Howard University, DC.
                                  ____

       Today I received a call from the financial aid office 
     telling me to come sign for a scholarship from OFA. I cried. 
     It has been so hard attending college for the past two years, 
     I have been doing 12 credits and working a full time job and 
     struggling to pay my bills too. So many times I have felt 
     like giving up and each year it only gets worse and more 
     expensive. But OFA has given me hope and a reminder that 
     people care. From the bottom of my heart I want to say Thank 
     you.
                                                         Jenny B.,
     Tennessee Temple University.
                                  ____

       It is impossible for me to elaborate on the impact your 
     gift has had in my life. Not only have you invested in my 
     education and future, but most importantly you have invested 
     in me. I can honestly say if it weren't for your financial 
     and emotional support, I would not be here at Gonzaga. By 
     investing in me, you believed in me and that gave me the 
     motivation to continue. There is no greater feeling than to 
     know someone believes in you.
                                                        Robert G.,
     Gonzaga University, WA.
                                  ____

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will ask for a vote on this amendment 
at the appropriate time. I hope the Congress will find a way to fund 
this program, which saves us from foolishly spending the $8 billion we 
are already spending, and to support programs such as this that do so 
much good for the children in our country.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the importance of 
the program responding to a widespread perception of a crisis in the 
Nation's child welfare system, that there has been an increased 
caseload of the foster care system, and the program had no funding at 
all in 2001. In 2002, the funding was slightly under $70 million. It 
was a new program that year which is the reason there is zero under the 
appropriation line for 2001. Starting off as a new program, it was 
funded at slightly under $70 million, $69.986 million. In this fiscal 
year of 2003, there was $29 million plus added, bringing the total to 
$99.350 million. It would be highly desirable if we had the extra 
funding to accommodate more money, but we are at the maximum level of 
the allocation this subcommittee has from the budget resolution.
  When the Senator from Louisiana asks for $18 million additional for 
independent living training vouchers, that, again, is a program that I 
would like to see funded at a higher level. The grave difficulty is 
that the pleas the Senator from Iowa and I made as managers of the bill 
on our allocation were not heeded, and we have made the distribution as 
best we can.
  It is with reluctance that I have to oppose the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Louisiana. That is the essence of the situation.
  How much time remains on the amendment on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to yield that back, Mr. President, and 
move to the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, would the Senator object to giving me 2 
minutes of his time to wrap up?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will reclaim my 5 minutes so I may give the Senator 
from Louisiana 2 minutes. If she is going to speak, I want to reserve 
the remainder of the 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's comments. I 
know how hard he and the Senator from Iowa have worked to keep this 
budget within the limits established. As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I am well aware of the process.
  It seems as though the Republican leadership has allowed spending for 
programs using an advance funding mechanism for the priorities they 
believe are important; yet while saying they think this priority is 
important, they refuse to accept amendments that basically use the same 
offset. I want to make clear for the record that the funding for this 
would come from the exact same provision that the chairman has used for 
other programs in the health, welfare, and education bill. Yet it seems 
when it comes to full funding for Leave No Child Behind or full funding 
for a program the administration says it fully supports, there is all 
of a sudden no money available.
  Again, this has been one of the priorities of this administration. 
Leave No Child Behind is something this administration speaks about on 
a daily basis. Yet there are billions of dollars of shortage in funding 
in that program. That is not just another Federal program. It was a 
very important historic meeting of the minds on how to reform education 
and how to give cities--whether it is Washington, DC, or New Orleans or 
rural areas throughout the country--the resources they need to reform 
public education. Also, upgrading foster care, promoting adoption, 
making sure that every child has a family, a loving and stable home 
because that is the fabric and essence of our society, again, we find 
that the will is simply not there. That is what I wanted to say in 
response.
  I understand this amendment will not be accepted. I wanted to say 
that it seeks the same sort of offset that other programs have in the 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I respect what the Senator from Louisiana 
has offered. They are very important programs. We have funded them to 
the maximum extent that we can, consistent with the allocation which we 
have under the budget resolution. When the comment is made about 
offsets, that is an effort on accounting procedures to put money back 
into fiscal year 2003. But that doesn't address directly the budget 
resolution or the allocation that this subcommittee has.

[[Page S11285]]

We are up to the full expenditure of $137.6 billion.
  We are now prepared to turn to the first amendment by the Senator 
from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                Amendment No. 1611 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for calling on me and 
allowing this unanimous consent request which gives me an opportunity 
to present an amendment.
  Most of us in the Senate joined President Bush in voting for No Child 
Left Behind. When the President took office and said he wanted to make 
a bipartisan commitment to change education in America, many of us took 
him seriously and did our best to join him and passed legislation which 
was historic because it established an obligation of local school 
districts across America to test children to make certain that they 
were making progress. It also included some penalties for those schools 
that were not making progress, for fear that children, after a number 
of years, would fall so far behind they would never have a chance. It 
really created an incentive in one respect and a penalty in another 
respect for those school districts where schools found children falling 
further and further behind.
  There were those who said that this focus on testing was excessive. I 
shared their concerns but believed that it was an important element in 
bringing our schools to a national standard of excellence. And there 
were those who said this is expensive. If you have a child who is 
struggling to keep up with the class, that child needs extra attention 
and help. Tutoring, a helping hand, that child may need an afterschool 
program, a summer program, that child may need a personal mentor or 
teacher to help--all of those things were reasonable, but all of those 
things were expensive.
  The bill also said, we want to make certain the teacher standing in 
front of the classroom is qualified to teach. If you hold yourself out 
as a math or science or foreign language teacher, you need to have a 
background. If you don't, the bill requires that these teachers go back 
to school, pick up the necessary college credits to indicate that they 
deserve a certification in that specialty.
  So overall, this is a bill which has a good goal and one I supported.
  No Child Left Behind was a bargain between the Federal Government and 
the school districts. We were going to provide resources to the school 
districts in exchange for reform, tough accountability provisions. And 
consequences for failure were implemented.
  In return, we pledged new investments of Federal money to pay for the 
needed improvements. The Senate bill we are considering, this 
appropriations bill, is more than $6 billion short of meeting our end 
of the bargain under title I. We had a chance the other day when Robert 
Byrd had an amendment saying let's keep our end of the bargain and 
provide the $6 billion, and it was voted down.
  So we have a mandate on school districts across America that is 
unfunded--unfunded to the tune of $6 billion. I have here a chart, 
which I will share with you, which Senator Byrd brought to the floor. 
It shows, State by State, what each State will lose as a result of our 
failure to fund No Child Left Behind as promised. Let's take one State, 
for example.
  In Nebraska, $24 million will be lost; money that was promised to 
that State will not be coming for No Child Left Behind, but the 
mandates and requirements will be coming. There is a $255 million 
shortfall in my State of illinois. The total is $6 billion.
  The Durbin-Schumer amendment that I am offering here prohibits the 
Department of Education from imposing penalties on schools for failing 
to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind if we fail to fund it 
as promised. Schools should not be penalized for not meeting 
requirements of this unfunded mandate. This amendment does not repeal 
or weaken the standards of No Child Left Behind. It does not affect 
testing or measurement provisions. The tests will continue. So the 
testing of students will continue. It provides schools with a 1-year 
respite from corrective action when we fail to live up to our funding 
commitment for title I. An identical amendment was supported a few 
weeks ago in the House by 195 members.
  When No Child Left Behind was signed into law, we pledged $18.5 
billion to the States for this year to help them meet the tough 
accountability standards. Without the extra funding provided by the 
Byrd amendment, which was defeated, we are going to miss that target by 
$6 billion. It means 6 million kids are being left behind by the Senate 
appropriation--by the failure of the Bush administration and this 
appropriation bill to keep our word.
  In my State of Illinois, we are struggling with problems that many 
States are facing. School districts across Illinois are laying off 
thousands of teachers and support staff. Class sizes of 40 students are 
found in some schools. Salaries are being cut for other school 
employees. The Chicago public schools closed down two schools for teen 
parents. Hamilton County closed two elementary schools. The 
Carpentersville suburban school district cut 140 teaching positions. 
Elgin Unit School District 46, already operating with 600 fewer 
teachers because of cuts, will be forced to leave four recently built 
schools vacant for the entire school year because it cannot afford to 
staff them. Middle-school students in Gurnie must now pay $145 to play 
a team sport and $60 to join the band or choir.
  In Pennsylvania, the Mill Creek school board cut 30 positions, 
including teachers, educational assistants, custodians, and athletic 
staff. Yesterday the Pennsylvania State legislature announced an 
education initiative funded at $610 million below the Governor's 
request. This leaves Pennsylvania's 501 school districts with just $53 
million--roughly $105,000 per district--to help students meet the 
mandates of the Federal Government in No Child Left Behind.
  The Philadelphia school district has had problems for years 
attracting qualified teachers. At the end of last week, there were 109 
vacancies out of 12,000 teaching positions--up from 67 vacancies last 
week. This increase in teacher vacancies in Philadelphia is a result of 
new hires not showing up for class on the day they were due to start.

  In Tennessee, Montgomery County schools are laying off 30 bus 
drivers. Rhea County teachers, administrators, and parents pleaded with 
the local board of education to rehire two school nurses. A Nashville 
elementary school principal, frustrated with the condition of 49 aging 
windows at her school, smashed them herself in an attempt to force the 
district to replace them.
  In Massachusetts, the State is planning to eliminate tutorial 
assistance to students who fail its MCAS test--which is required for 
graduation--on the first try. More than 100 districts are charging 
students a fee for school bus transportation, ranging from $25 to $850.
  The list goes on. Of the most recent news reports of what school 
districts are facing and the reality across America, one that just came 
across my desk I think is particularly troubling. It comes from 
Florida. The headline is, ``Law Lets Students Forego Senior Year.'' It 
says:

       Of all the ways attempted to free up space in Florida's 
     crowded classrooms, this one could be a dream come true for 
     high schoolers in a hurry: a diploma without a senior year.
       Supporters of a law granting a high school diploma in just 
     three years said it will help curb crowding in Florida's 
     schools.

  This is the reality of the state of funding for education across 
America.
  For us to impose a mandate on school districts in Illinois, 
Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and New York and not 
provide the funding is, frankly, to put additional financial burdens on 
these school districts, which we are not paying for.
  Frankly, I think there is a way to address this in a sensible 
fashion. If we are not going to provide 95 percent of the money we 
promised for No Child Left Behind, then we should suspend the penalties 
that will be imposed on school districts under No Child Left Behind. 
The testing goes on, and the accountability goes on. But to say to 
school districts that they have to assume the responsibilities of 
paying the consequences of our failure to fund No Child Left Behind is 
fundamentally unfair.
  No Child Left Behind provisions that would be suspended under this 
amendment include mandatory transportation to other schools in the 
district

[[Page S11286]]

for students who wish to transfer--a very expensive undertaking, 
particularly in large cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago; 
supplemental tutoring, paid for by the district for students not 
meeting State proficiency standards. We would like to see that, but we 
should fund the bill as promised.
  My colleagues should remember that Senator Dodd came to the floor, 
and his concern was that No Child Left Behind would not be adequately 
funded. He offered a bipartisan amendment, which we adopted as a final 
part of the bill, which promised each and every year the exact amount 
of money we would appropriate for No Child Left Behind. This year we 
missed that target by $6 billion.
  My amendment would also suspend corrective action which could include 
one or more of the following: replacing school staff, implementing new 
curriculum, appointing an outside consultant, or extending the school 
day or year. Every one of these is a good idea. I voted for them. But 
why in the world would we impose that corrective action on a school 
district and not provide them the resources to take care of it, to 
provide the tutors and outside consultants?

  We also would suspend the mandated restructuring or alternative 
governance, to reopen a school as a charter school, and replacing all 
or a majority of the school staff.
  I am asking my colleagues to listen to the families, the parents, the 
schoolteachers, and administrators in their home States. You know what 
you have heard. I have heard it as well. In school districts large and 
small, they believe in reform. They will accept accountability. But 
they ask us for the resources to help. At a time when school districts 
across America are struggling to keep the doors open, struggling to 
hire the teachers, crowding into classrooms because of State deficits 
and local property tax problems, how can we in Washington, in our 
infinite wisdom, decide we are going to impose new standards and costs 
on these school districts and not pay for them? That is what we are 
doing.
  This is clearly an unfunded mandate. Frankly, I think the Bush 
administration and this Congress made a promise. Unfortunately, the 
President has not worked as ferociously for No Child Left Behind 
funding as he has for other things, such as his tax-cut program. He has 
not shown the same passion for providing school resources as he has for 
many other elements of this budget.
  Many of the people who now criticize this amendment claim the 
authorized amounts for title I are not promises; they are just 
suggestions. In many cases that is true, but it is not true on this 
bill.
  The Dodd amendment puts specific authorization levels into place for 
each and every year--authorization levels we failed to meet with this 
bill's appropriation. We have never done that before in education 
bills. Traditionally, Congress only said we would appropriate such 
amounts as may be necessary. The Dodd amendment locked in authorization 
levels. In other words, we put those amounts in for a reason.
  Not funding title I at the level we set is breaking our promise to 
schools and families and children across the country. The difference 
between what Congress agreed in 2001 it would cost to implement the 
reforms in No Child Left Behind and what has actually been delivered to 
schools is widening each year. If this bill passes, we are 
shortchanging schools across America by $6 billion, but we are sending 
them the full cost of the mandate--unfunded mandates on local schools 
at the worst possible moment--in the midst of a national recession, 
when State budgets are unable to provide the resources they need. It is 
an unfunded mandate we should not be party to.
  Many people have raised the question about the IDEA special education 
funding. Well, would you suspend that mandate? I, frankly, hope we will 
vote--and I think the amendment will be offered shortly--to fully fund 
IDEA. That is a responsibility we should take on our shoulders. Many of 
us said we believe in it. This bill doesn't fund it properly. I think 
we can.
  The administration's approach to funding IDEA, incidentally, for 
school districts across America is totally unrealistic.
  We just are not going to be able to fund it if we follow the 
President's lead.
  Since we cannot seem to find the money to pay for the reforms of No 
Child Left Behind, I am offering this amendment that will alleviate 
some of the pressures for schools until we live up to our promises.
  The amendment prevents the Department of Education from penalizing a 
school for failing to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind 
unless the authorized level of funding is provided. The mandate is yes 
if the funding is yes. No mandate, no funding.
  I voted for this law. I want it to work. But just as funneling money 
into failing schools without accountability is unacceptable, so is 
imposing new mandates without fully funding them.
  The amendment does not repeal or weaken the standards contained in No 
Child Left Behind. It is not a retreat in the face of reform. Schools 
are serious about meeting their challenges, but they need the resources 
to make it work.
  When I talk with these teachers working hard to prepare children for 
this test, they tell me: Senator, I can do well with a lot of kids in 
my class, but some of them need extra special attention. These are kids 
who have been transferred just recently into our schools, kids with 
serious family problems, and kids who have had problems in their 
classes last year.
  These are situations which reflect the real world of classrooms 
today. Yet by not funding title I in State after State, we fall $6 
billion short of giving that teacher the resources he or she needs to 
bring that child up to the appropriate level of testing competence.
  My amendment does not affect the testing or measurement provisions of 
No Child Left Behind. It does not change the requirement that all 
teachers be highly qualified. My amendment would give schools a 1-year 
respite from corrective action when we fail to live up to our funding. 
The Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, 
spoke on the floor when they considered a similar amendment, which had 
198 votes in favor. She said:

       This amendment presents the Chamber with a moment of truth 
     as to whether Congress is honest about its commitment to 
     education; whether or not it will honor its promise to 
     America's children contained in the No Child Left Behind Act.

  We need to keep our word and demonstrate our commitment to reform not 
just by talking tough and imposing new standards, but by giving our 
schools and teachers the resources we promised, the resources we 
authorized specifically for this year. When we fail to provide these 
school districts those resources at this critical time, we are 
shortchanging education across America. We are saying our Federal 
brilliance, when it comes to education, that led to these mandates, is 
much more compelling than the personal and local challenges which these 
school districts are meeting every single day.
  Whether I go to the rural areas of Illinois or the big city of 
Chicago, I hear the same thing: Senator, it is a good idea. We will do 
our best to make it work. We are prepared to face the challenge of No 
Child Left Behind. But send us the resources you promised. Don't 
mandate this No Child Left Behind Program without the resources to make 
it work.
  Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be stated 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. 
     Schumer, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1611 
     to amendment No. 1542.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 prohibit funds appropriated in this Act from being used by 
 the Department of Education to enforce any requirement under section 
   1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or to 
 implement penalties or sanctions under part A of title I of such Act, 
  if the amount appropriated to carry out such part A for fiscal year 
                   2004 is less than $18,500,000,000)

       At the end of title III (relating to the Department of 
     Education), insert after the last section (preceding the 
     short title) the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department

[[Page S11287]]

     of Education to enforce any requirement under section 1116 of 
     part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6316), or to implement any penalty or 
     sanction applicable to a State, a State educational agency, a 
     local educational agency, or a school under such part A, if 
     the amount appropriated in this Act for the purpose of 
     carrying out such part A for fiscal year 2004 is less than 
     $18,500,000,000, as authorized to be appropriated for such 
     purpose in section 1002(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(a)). Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to prohibit a State, a State 
     educational agency, a local educational agency, or a school 
     from implementing the requirements of section 1116 of such 
     Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do we have a time agreement on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Illinois yield to the 
Senator from Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am not asking the Senator to yield. When the Senator 
from Illinois finishes, I would like to get recognition in my own 
right.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I retain the reminder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is 20 minutes under the control of 
the Senator from New Hampshire; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts such time as he 
needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no one in this body who believes 
more deeply than I do in necessity of full funding of the No Child Left 
Behind Act. I remember at the beginning of the debate on the No Child 
Left Behind Act there were those who believed we were putting money 
into communities without any direction and without accountability and, 
therefore, we were not seeing results. And, there were those who 
believed strongly that we ought to have reform. The No Child Left 
Behind Act brought together both the reform and the resources.
  I will continue to fight for increases in education resources, but 
this amendment, I believe, moves this whole debate in the wrong 
direction. Let me explain my view to the Members.
  This amendment says:

       None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by 
     the Department of Education to enforce any requirement under 
     section 1116 of part A. . . .

  With what does section 1116(A) deal? It deals with new curriculum. It 
deals with professional development. It deals with supplementary 
services.
  Let's just take those as an example. They would be emasculated by the 
Durbin amendment. If we read further back in the Durbin amendment on 
page 2, it says:

       Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a 
     State, a State educational agency, a local educational 
     agency, or a school from implementing the requirements of 
     section 1116 [of the No Child Left Behind Act].

  This amendment makes education reform optional. It is not optional 
today. There is $12 billion in funding for the title I education 
program. What is not optional is that 10 percent of that will be used 
for professional development; for training in struggling schools. The 
Durbin amendment eliminates that as a requirement, $1.2 billion out of 
the $12 billion eliminated in teacher training. $12 billion overall is 
not adequate for title I, but the Durbin amendment eliminates $1.2 
billion of that that is dedicated for better teachers. This amendment 
makes that optional, means that it will just be there as a slush fund.
  No. 2, the No Child Left Behind Act requires between 5 and 15 percent 
of title I funding be spent on supplementary services, afterschool 
instruction. That is $600 million to $1.8 billion that is being spent 
today in supplementary services for the neediest children in this 
country. That is wiped out by the Durbin amendment--eliminated.
  The Durbin amendment eliminates any requirement that we are going to 
have teacher training under title I--not the other teacher training in 
the other titles but teacher training under title I--which many believe 
is the most important training, because it is taking the title I 
teachers who are in the classrooms and providing the neediest children 
with the instruction to upgrade their skills.
  We talk about afterschool programs and the President failing to 
provide for afterschool. The Durbin amendment is eliminating more of 
that kind of protection. It is unbelievable to me--unbelievable to me.
  Third, we have under title I, 5 to 15 percent--again, $600 million to 
$1.8 billion--that has to be used for upgrading curriculum and public 
school choice. That was the essential part of the No Child Left Behind 
Act. Let States and local communities develop the curriculum, let well-
trained teachers teach the curriculum, provide new examinations to find 
out whether those children were being uplifted, and provide 
supplementary services, which is extra tutoring for children who are 
behind. Under the Durbin amendment, there is no assurance title I will 
be used for these kinds of vital functions: Upgrading teacher 
capability, upgrading the curriculum, and supplementary services. That 
is $2 billion or $3 billion out of the $12 billion. That, to me, is a 
slush fund.
  I happen to be opposed to block grants. We have tried them, and they 
did not work. Nonetheless, that is going to be the effect of this 
amendment. Beyond that, it takes away the funding that exists in a 
similar way for public school choice that will be available even today.
  Mr. President, I yield myself another 2 minutes.
  That is why the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights opposes the 
Durbin amendment. That is why the Harvard Civil Rights Project, Chris 
Edley, is opposed to the Durbin amendment. That is why the Education 
Trust, which is a grassroots organization made up of minority parents, 
is strongly opposed to the Durbin amendment. We need to have this 
battle and struggle. I differ with my friend and colleague, the Senator 
from New Hampshire, on the amounts and needs in the local schools and 
the local community. I differ with him in terms of the national 
priorities in getting additional funds. Even though we differ in those 
areas, I agree with him that we cannot take a step backward now when we 
are beginning to see progress made in these areas.
  The final point I would like to make is, I am proud that in my State 
of Massachusetts we have made very significant progress in the areas of 
academic achievement and accomplishment. We basically started in a 
bipartisan way almost 10 years ago. We are tested now with what they 
call the MCAS. It is a very strenuous kind of test, similar to the 
National Assesment of Education Progress test, which is a very rigorous 
kind of test. After almost a 10-year period, what we have are the 
results in Massachusetts. According to this recent Boston Globe 
article, ``Scores show broad gains on MCAS. More Massachusetts high 
school students passed the MCAS graduation test on their first attempt 
and scores climbed in every grade, every subject, and every racial 
group in statewide results released. About 75 percent of the class of 
2005, or 52,000 students, passed both English and math portions of the 
10th grade test. That was significantly better than the 69 percent of 
students in the class of 2004 and 68 percent of the students in 2003.''
  I will not take the time of the Senate to go into every kind of 
subgroup by ethnicity, but Black, Latino, White, with disabilities, 
limited English proficiency, regular education--the whole group has 
moved up. That is because the State has effectively embraced the 
identical kinds of requirements that are in the No Child Left Behind 
Act.
  The Durbin amendment steps us back from that kind of a commitment. We 
ought to commit ourselves to the long road. We ought to get the 
resources that are necessary. I believe the Durbin amendment is an 
abdication of this institution to meet our responsibilities to ensure 
that there is going to be an investment, even with the money we have, 
in a way that makes a difference in terms of children's lives.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S11288]]

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the status of the remaining time 
between the parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 11 minutes, 
50 seconds remaining. The Senator from Illinois has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I begin by congratulating the Senator from 
Massachusetts for an excellent statement. I agree with 90 percent of 
what he has said. He is absolutely on the mark relative to what is 
happening in No Child Left Behind. Progress is occurring.
  We still have a debate, obviously, as to what the proper level of 
funding is, but this bill was passed not as an issue of money but as an 
issue of looking at the low-income child and recognizing that for 
generation after generation we have left this child behind in our 
school systems. We said enough is enough.
  Under Senator Kennedy's leadership, and under President Bush's 
leadership, we said it is time to say to the low-income child that when 
they finish their education, when they step out of that classroom that 
final day when they graduate, they are going to be able to compete for 
the American dream because they are going to learn what they are 
supposed to learn, they are going to learn what they need to learn. It 
was a commitment we made as a Congress and as a country, and it was the 
right commitment.
  Now we have this type of amendment come forward, which is essentially 
an attempt to put a stake through the heart of the essence of how 
parents can figure out how to help their low-income children who are in 
these school systems.
  This amendment would have the practical effect of basically 
eliminating the options which parents get under the No Child Left 
Behind Act to give their child a better shot at the American dream. We 
are talking about parents of low-income kids, by the way.
  Supplemental services, what is that? Well, it is one of those terms 
that is a big word. It is a confusing word. What it means is if someone 
is a parent of a low-income child and their child is in a school that 
is not working, that has not worked year after year, that has turned 
out kids who have not been able to compete year after year, we are 
going to give them the chance, as a parent, to take their child after 
school, or maybe even during the schoolday if the school decides to 
structure it that way, to get some remedial support in reading, 
remedial support in math, things which will catch that child up so they 
are no longer left behind.
  The only way they are going to get some of these third and fourth 
graders, who come into the school system undernourished, up to speed is 
to give them this tutorial support. That is what this amendment would 
kill. It would kill the opportunity of a parent who has a child in a 
public school system, who knows that the public school next door or 
down the road is doing a better job with kids like her kids, who knows 
that if her child stays in the school in which they are presently 
enrolled, that child is simply never going to catch up, but knows if 
they can take them down the road a little way to another public school, 
that child will have a chance at the American dream because they will 
be taught what they need to know. It would kill the opportunity of that 
parent to accomplish that. That is an inexcusable act, in my opinion, 
of denying parents of low-income kids the opportunity to do something 
about their children's right to a decent education.

  The No Child Left Behind Act has, unfortunately, gotten caught up in 
a lot of crosscurrents that deal mostly with the funding fight. There 
is also an undercurrent of resistance from some of our professional 
community that just does not want to be held accountable.
  Unfortunately, what has happened over the years is that we have never 
had a system where parents really could find out what was happening to 
their children, especially low-income kids. They knew something was 
wrong because there was produced child after child who could not 
compete in our society, but they could never find out what was wrong.
  Well, No Child Left Behind creates an atmosphere and a system which, 
remember, is designed by the local school system--this is not a top-
down system. The Federal Government does not set the testing standards. 
The Federal Government does not set the hurdles. It is set by the local 
school systems. When those local school systems set their standards for 
testing as to what a child in the third or fourth grade should know, at 
that point that information becomes public. The parent gets an 
opportunity to see it and find out what is happening to their child in 
that school, and if they discover that their child is in a school that 
year after year has failed to get their children to the level of 
ability that has been set as the level by that school system, by that 
community, of ability that a child should have at that grade level, 
then the parent has the right to do something to correct it.
  Under this bill, we have empowered the parent with tutorial support, 
with public school choice, both of which would be killed under this 
proposal, as would, as the Senator from Massachusetts so appropriately 
pointed out, the funding for those programmatic initiatives which are 
directed right at the low-income teaching community. Those teachers who 
have a high number of low-income kids in their school systems need some 
special skills in many cases to deal with those kids, especially 
language skills. This amendment would eliminate the ability to fund 
those programs.
  I will touch base also on this whole question of, is there adequate 
funding? Let me point out that this amendment is justified on the 
grounds that Illinois is not getting enough money under No Child Left 
Behind. That can be debated. But the fact is, Illinois is getting 36 
percent more in dollars under No Child Left Behind for title I funding, 
as a result of No Child Left Behind, than it would have gotten if we 
had continued under the old law. They have received $813 million in 
2003. They received $813 million. This was $213 million more than what 
they would have received under the old law.

  In fact, they have received so much money under No Child Left Behind, 
it is really a prefunded event. It is not an unfunded mandate. They 
have been receiving so much money that has been flowing into Illinois. 
Under No Child Left Behind, there is presently $312 million of title I 
funds which is unspent as of the end of the year 2002. It has not been 
drawn down by the school systems yet in Illinois.
  But that gets into the funding debate, which is really another 
debate, not this debate. Debate about this amendment is about whether 
or not you are going to eviscerate the basic purpose of the No Child 
Left Behind law, which was to give low-income kids an opportunity to 
learn at the level of their peers; and if they were not learning at the 
level of their peers because their school systems were not delivering 
the educational standards they needed, then to give their parents some 
options to try to get them up to speed through tutorial choice or 
public school choice.
  So I join my colleague from Massachusetts in strongly opposing this 
amendment and hope other Members will join us. I reserve the remainder 
of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has 3 minutes 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. And the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 4 minutes 
45 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just listened to the passionate 
commitment of the Senator from New Hampshire to No Child Left Behind, 
and it is no surprise. When he made the same speech on the floor on 
behalf of the legislation, it was so compelling, I joined him and voted 
for it. But I wonder, where was that passionate commitment to No Child 
Left Behind when Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia offered an amendment 
yesterday to pay for it?
  Here is the rollcall. With the exception of my friend and colleague 
from Massachusetts, those who were giving these passionate speeches 
about No Child Left Behind had a chance yesterday to pay for it and 
refused to do so. They refused to put the money down to pay for this 
great, new idea, this new Federal mandate.
  Lest you believe this is just an issue in Chicago, IL, in a place 
called Concord, NH, on August 18 they released the State budget. They 
have a problem.

[[Page S11289]]

The budget contains $1 in each--$1 in each--of the next 2 years for 
State assessment tests. If the money is not found, and soon, to pay for 
the next round of tests, the schools that are on the failing schools 
list cannot get off it.
  It tells me that New Hampshire and Nebraska, like Illinois, like 
Massachusetts, and every State, are struggling to come up with 
resources for education.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, I will not. You have your own time.
  If we had voted for the Byrd amendment, $19 million would have gone 
to the State of New Hampshire. If we had joined Senator Kennedy voting 
for it, the Massachusetts allocation would have been $129, and $250 
million from my own State. So let me say to those passionately 
committed to No Child Left Behind today, where were you yesterday? 
Where were you on the Byrd amendment when you could have put the money 
we promised into the bill?

  To my friend Senator Kennedy, it is indeed painful. It was 
unthinkable, when I ran for the Senate, that I would be in this 
position of debating him on an education issue, but we do disagree.
  What I am eliminating is the mandate. Each and every school district 
in his State and my State can use the Federal funds for tutoring, for 
teacher quality, for afterschool. The funds that are available can be 
used. But the mandate is removed until we put an adequate amount of 
money on the table.
  Regarding his State of Massachusetts, he speaks about the MCAS score, 
and he is proud of it. Yet the most recent report is this out of 
Massachusetts. The State is planning to eliminate tutorial assistance 
to students who fail the MCAS test, which is required for graduation, 
on their first try. Massachusetts, as good a story as there is to be 
told, is struggling, like the State of Louisiana and the State of 
Nebraska and the State of New Hampshire and the State of Illinois. Yet 
our mandates continue.
  When I asked the head of the Chicago Public Schools System, his 
position on it, he said:

       I am prepared to implement No Child Left Behind. I am happy 
     to do it. But send me the resources to get it done.

  And let me quote from a speech he recently gave in Chicago--Arne 
Duncan, head of Chicago Public Schools:

       I would much rather invest Federal dollars in tutoring 
     struggling students than transporting students outside their 
     neighborhood. I would much rather invest Federal dollars for 
     new schools and buy more buildings and help our teachers and 
     our principals become better educators.

  What this professional educator is saying to us is: For goodness' 
sake, if you are not going to fund the Federal mandate, don't impose it 
on us. Let us respond to the emergencies we face every single day.
  I urge our colleagues to listen to their educators at home and 
support the amendment today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I have difficulty in following the logic of the Senator from Illinois 
saying, look, Massachusetts is eliminating the supplementary services 
and, therefore, this is a crisis situation.
  I want to get additional funds. But make no mistake about it. We have 
section 1116 here. This is what his amendment does; it effectively 
suspends 1116. That is taking, out of the $12 billion we have in title 
I, $1.2 billion out of required teacher training.
  You can say the States might still do it or local communities. We say 
it is important enough that, of the $12 billion, at least 10 percent 
has to be provided for that. We are saying between 5 percent and 15 
percent is going to have to be spent in supplementary services--
required.
  Not under the Durbin amendment. We require that. You vote for the 
Durbin amendment and you are eliminating the requirement of $1.2 
billion of required services today, that is required under that act, 
under the Durbin amendment.
  Under the existing 1116, there are requirements for the development 
of new curriculum. That is eliminated. Under the Durbin amendment, you 
are going to get $3 billion, what I call a slush fund. Senator Durbin 
says local people can make up their minds and do a good job. We had 
that battle. We know what works. We know you need well-trained 
teachers. That is what 1116 provides. We know you need supplementary 
services. That is what 1116 provides. We know you need the new 
curriculum reform, and that is what 1116 provides.

  At the end of his amendment, he says: Look, at the end of the day, if 
the State wants to, they can--nothing in this section is to be 
construed to prohibit a State.
  As one who is committed to this, I don't want to see less money 
committed to training teachers in struggling schools; I want to see 
more. The Durbin amendment will mean less. I don't want to see less 
assistance for supplementary services; I want to see more. Under the 
Durbin amendment, you will get less.
  The list goes on. Could I have 20 seconds?
  Section 1116 is the heart and soul, in terms of the educational 
reforms. That is why there is such strong support from the civil rights 
community. I have listed the organizations in the civil rights 
community that take strong exception, who agree with the Senator from 
New Hampshire and myself and believe it is better to have these 
resources committed to the neediest and poorest children, rather than 
just giving a slush fund to the community.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, again, I join with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, agreeing with his comments. I want to go beyond that 
because the Senator from Illinois has unfortunately misrepresented the 
facts in New Hampshire. I hoped he would take a question on his time 
since he used his time to misrepresent the facts, but since he did not, 
I will try to correct the Senator from Illinois as to the facts in New 
Hampshire.
  Yes, the State budget did zero out the assessment money, but that has 
nothing to do with this amendment. In fact, just the opposite. Under 
the No Child Left Behind bill, the average cost of developing tests in 
New Hampshire is $300,000. Under No Child Left Behind, the State of New 
Hampshire receives $500,000 for every test it develops, at the various 
grade levels. So the State actually makes $200,000, and the legislature 
figured this out. That is why they zeroed it out, because they 
realized, instead of an unfunded mandate, what they were getting was 
more money than they needed to fund the test, and they intended to use 
that money to fund other parts of the State budget, and right now that 
is what the fight is about in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with 
unfunded mandates.
  The Senator from Illinois, in his desire to bring New Hampshire into 
the debate, appears to have misunderstood the position in New 
Hampshire, and he misunderstood the entire issue also, because if his 
position is that he is going to help the children of low-income parents 
in this country with his amendment, he is absolutely wrong, because he 
is taking away with his amendment the tools that the parents of those 
children need, tools such as tutorial services, tools such as public 
school choice, tools such as having teachers of title I students who 
understand the special needs of title I students be trained properly. 
He is taking away those tools with this amendment.
  I certainly hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me and Senator 
Kennedy, who has spent so many years on this issue, in voting down this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we are ready to proceed with the 
amendment by the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may we go to the Senator from Illinois 
for his amendment now?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: My understanding 
was the order would be that the Senator from Illinois would proceed, 
then myself, and then the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is correct.

[[Page S11290]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  Mr. President, what is the time allocation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes equally divided.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.


                Amendment No. 1613 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering, with 
Senator Kennedy now having joined forces with me as well as Senator 
Edwards and others in support, is an effort to provide money for 
teacher quality in the No Child Left Behind Act; that is; to fund the 
Federal mandate.
  This bill cuts teacher quality grants by $84 million, eliminating 
training for 20,000 teachers nationwide. The No Child Left Behind Act 
raises the standard for students and requires school districts to close 
the achievement gap between minority and nonminority students. It also 
raises standards for teachers, mandating that all teachers are highly 
qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
  Research shows that teacher effectiveness is the single most 
important factor that influences student achievement. It is more 
important than the income of the student's family, for cumulative 
expenditures or any other investment in the classroom.
  Students assigned to high-quality teachers can gain a full grade 
level of achievement of students over students in ineffective classes. 
Nine out of 10 Americans believe that improving teaching is the most 
important strategy for improving schools. Recent research links student 
learning to having licensed teachers.
  Researchers in Arizona State found that students with certified 
teachers perform 20 percent better than assessments of those with 
noncertified.
  A study at Stanford found that States such as North Carolina, 
Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Maine that have 
complement student achievement standards and investment in teacher 
quality have higher achievement in reading and math.
  The list goes on and on.
  What we are saying with this amendment is that we need to find the 
resources that we promised under the No Child Left Behind Act.
  This amendment is going to provide greater teacher quality and 
training that will help these students across America reach their 
potential because they have competent and qualified teachers in the 
classroom.
  I hope my colleagues here who have had second thoughts about whether 
they want to fund the No Child Left Behind Act will not have second 
thoughts when it comes to teacher quality. Let us provide the resources 
that are necessary to make the No Child Left Behind Act work and allow 
teachers to have the competence in the classroom to succeed.
  I withhold the remainder of my time and yield to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the desirability 
of teacher quality programs and training. We currently have in 
education professional development $3.378 billion. This is 
substantially more than the President's request.
  Again, I would like to have more funds available from the budget 
resolution and the allocation, but we simply do not have it.
  Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from Illinois have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes thirty-eight seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am prepared to yield back my time. We are running on a 
very tough time schedule trying to finish this bill today. If the 
Senator from Illinois has nothing further to say--
  Mr. DURBIN. I have very brief remarks and then I will conclude.
  Let me make sure we understand exactly what this amendment does. I 
have spoken to the issue of teacher quality. There is $325 million in 
State grants for that purpose. I think this shows an increase in the 
teacher quality commitment which is important for us to make sure the 
No Child Left Behind Act succeeds. There is another $2 million for 
training teachers in technology.
  How many times have we visited the classroom as Senators and found 
older teachers such as myself in age struggling to understand the new 
technology? The bill before us zeros that out. There is no money for 
preparing our teachers to use technology. This amendment adds $62 
million, and $50 million for training teachers in math and science. It 
increases the investment by $50 million to a total of $150 million.
  I think this is an extremely high priority when you consider the 
technical challenges facing us in this century. Finally, there is $12.1 
million for school leadership which helps to recruit, train, and retain 
principals and assistant principals. These are the people who have the 
responsibility to make the school work.
  I think this $450 million is money well spent--money that lets the No 
Child Left Behind Act have a chance to succeed. To shortchange it, 
unfortunately, will cause us to fall short of our promise and fall 
short of the mark in improving education across America.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Does the Senator offer his 
amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Of course. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
     Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 1613 to amendment No. 
     1542.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam 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 teacher quality programs 
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 and for the Mathematics and Science Partnerships 
 and the school leadership program under the Elementary and Secondary 
                         Education Act of 1965)

       On page 36, line 16, strike the period at the end and 
     insert ``: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated 
     in this Act for the National Institutes of Health, 
     $85,000,000 shall not be available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2004: Provided further, That in addition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act for grants to 
     States under part A of title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), 
     there are appropriated an additional $325,000,000 for such 
     grants: Provided further, That in addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated under this Act for the Preparing 
     Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology Program under part B of 
     title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1041 
     et seq.), there are appropriated an additional $62,094,000 
     for such program: Provided further, That in addition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated under this Act for the 
     Mathematics and Science Partnerships program under part B of 
     title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6661 et seq.), there are appropriated an 
     additional $50,000,000 for such program: Provided further, 
     That in addition to amounts otherwise appropriated under this 
     Act for the school leadership program under section 2151(b) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 6651(b)), there are appropriated an additional 
     $12,500,000 for such program: Provided further, That the 
     amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this Act shall 
     be deemed to be $7,344,793,000: Provided further, That the 
     amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall 
     be deemed to be $6,333,707,000.''.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there is no doubt about the quality or 
priority of what the Senator from Illinois has offered. We have $3.378 
in funding for educational professional development. I submit that this 
is adequate, and is certainly all we can do within the budget 
resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S11291]]



                                     LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION APPROPRIATION BILL
                      [Resources Available Primarily for Educator Professional Development]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               FY03
                    Programs                     FY04 Senate      FY04      conference      FY02         FY01
                                                                request       rept.      comparable   comparable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Grants for Improving Teacher Quality.....   $2,850,000   $2,850,000   $2,930,825   $2,850,000   $2,108,000
Advanced Credentialing.........................        9,935  ...........        9,935       10,000        18500
Early Childhood Educator Professional                 14,902       15,000       14,902       15,000       10,000
 Development...................................
Math and Science Partnerships..................      100,344       12,500      100,344       12,500  ...........
Troops to Teachers.............................  ...........       25,000       28,812       18,000  ...........
Transition to Teaching.........................       41,727       49,400       41,727       35,000       31,000
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology  ...........  ...........       62,094       62,500      125,000
National Writing Project.......................       18,890  ...........       16,890       14,000       10,000
Civic Education................................       28,812       27,000       28,812       27,000       21,000
Teaching of Traditional American History.......      120,000      100,000       99,350      100,000       50,000
Special Education Personnel Preparation........       91,899       90,000       91,899       90,000       81,952
Teacher Quality Enhancement....................       89,415       90,000       89,415       90,000       98,000
School Leadership..............................       12,419  ...........       12,419       10,000            0
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................    3,378,343    3,258,900    3,527,424    3,334,000    2,553,452
        Percent................................         32.3  ...........           38  ...........  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Programs listed above specifically support professional development activities for educators. States and
  school districts also use funding under the Title I Grants to LEAs program, Education Technology state Grant
  program and English Language Acquisition State Grant program for professional development, but these funds
  also support a range of other activities. According to the U.S. Department of Education at the President's
  proposed funding levels for these programs, $814 million will be used under these state grant authorities on
  educator professional development.

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time so we 
can proceed to the amendment by the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                Amendment No. 1585 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment which 
is currently before the Senate be temporarily set aside, and I call up 
amendment No. 1585.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1585 to amendment No. 1542.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam 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 an additional $100,000,000 to carry out the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers Program under part B of title IV of 
          the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) The total amount appropriated, out of any 
     money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2004, to carry out the 21st Century Community Learning 
     Centers Program under part B of title IV of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965, shall be $1,100,000,000.
       (b) Each amount appropriated under this Act (other than 
     amounts appropriated for the Department of Education) that is 
     not required to be appropriated by a provision of law is 
     reduced by the uniform percentage necessary to reduce the 
     total amounts appropriated under this Act (other than amounts 
     appropriated for the Department of Education) by 
     $100,000,000.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, this amendment would increase funding 
for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by $100 
million.
  This amendment does not bust the budget or cut any other education 
program in the budget. Rather, the amendment requires an across the 
board cut in every other title of this appropriations bill. This 
calculates to a point zero-zero-one-two-percent across the board cut.
  I am committed to ensuring that our schools have the assistance they 
need to make certain that our children leave the education systems as 
well-rounded individuals.
  The 21st Century Community Learning Centers in Nevada, and across the 
country, work to create well-rounded individuals by partnering with 
groups such as local YMCAs, local children's museums, the Girl Scouts, 
Boys and Girls Clubs, and in Nevada, the City of Las Vegas, the 
University of Nevada, the Clark County Health District, the Nevada 
Youth Alliance, and America's Promise, just to name a few.
  Last year 2,780 new applicants requested over $1.9 billion from this 
program. Only 308 applications received approval and funding totaling 
$206 million.
  Currently in Nevada there are 6,750 children receiving services from 
a 21st Century Community Learning Center in their neighborhood. 
However, there are currently over 75,000 students eligible for this 
program in Nevada alone.
  The benefits of this program should go without saying. Not only do 
children enrolled in these programs improve academically, but are also 
less likely to become caught up in the juvenile justice system.
  Accordinig to the Department of Education, children who regularly 
attend high quality after-school programs have better peer relations 
and emotional adjustment, better grades and conduct in school, more 
academic and enrichment opportunities, spend less time watching 
television, and have lower incidences of drug use, violence, and 
pregnancy.
  This makes sense considering that studies by the FBI have found that 
the peak hours for juvenile crime and victimization are the hours after 
school and before parents get home from work.
  These important programs not only give students a place to go after 
school, but use that time to give students assistance with their 
homework, provide additional English lessons to students who do not use 
English has their first language, and give these kids a safe place to 
interact with their peers.
  I ask my colleagues to not give up on the thousands of children 
across America who may need a little extra help to succeed in school 
and support this amendment.
  Senator Boxer offered an amendment earlier on the very program on 
which I am offering an amendment. Her amendment was for a larger 
increase in the afterschool program but her amendment was not offset. I 
totally support what she is trying to do. I believe very strongly in 
afterschool programs.
  I am offering a $100 million increase in the afterschool programs 
compared to what is currently in the bill. I know that the chairman has 
worked hard and has tried to get as much funding as he can. But as 
somebody who grew up in a situation as a latchkey kid, afterschool 
programs would have been very helpful to me. There are many, many 
children out there today who need afterschool programs to keep them out 
of the improper type of behavior that kids can engage in these days. It 
is cheaper to invest in these children in these afterschool programs 
than it is to spend the money when they get into trouble in the 
juvenile halls and some of them end up going to prison. These are 
wonderful programs.
  I ask our colleagues to consider this amendment. I know we are trying 
to stay within the budget. Ours does. It shifts some funding from one 
place to another so we can provide this extra funding to get more kids 
into the afterschool programs.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there is no doubt about the value of 
the afterschool programs. That has been recognized by the subcommittee 
and we have put $1 billion in the program. This is $400 million more 
than the President's request. Would we like to have additional funds? 
Certainly we would, but we simply don't have it within our allocation.

[[Page S11292]]

  The amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada with an across-the-
board cut would cut into many very important programs. There will be 
fewer youth employment training centers, fewer NIH grants, fewer 
dislocated worker trainees, fewer kids in Head Start, and fewer kids in 
child care.
  In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent that this chart be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       The Ensign amendment has an across-the-board cut of 
     $100,000,000 (.0012%) to all programs except Education. This 
     would mean a cut of: -$1,201,000 (470 fewer youth Employment 
     Training jobs); -$1,080,000 (600 fewer Adult Training jobs); 
     -$1,718,000 (1,000 fewer Dislocated Worker trainees); 
     -$33,579,000 (100 fewer NIH grants); -$2,165,000 (1,000 fewer 
     people receive substance abuse treatment); -$526,000 (300 
     fewer people receiving mental health services); -$8,179,000 
     (1,200 fewer kids in Head Start); -$2,520,000 (600 fewer kids 
     in child care); -$685,000 (400,000 fewer meals served to 
     seniors); and -$10,236,000 (6,500 fewer Social Security 
     disability claims processed).

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, we have structured this bill very 
carefully and crafted it very carefully. While I appreciate the 
interest of the Senator from Nevada, if we restructure it with these 
across-the-board cuts, we will be digging into a lot of vital programs 
which the subcommittee and the committee have carefully considered and 
crafted on what we think is balanced.

  I yield back the remainder of my time so we can move to the amendment 
of the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 1614 to Amendment No. 1542

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

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1614 to amendment No. 1542.

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

  (Purpose: To provide additional funds for programs relating to West 
  Nile Virus and to fund the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health 
                                  Act)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act for programs relating to West 
     Nile Virus, there are appropriated an additional $25,000,000 
     for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to fund 
     such programs, of which $1,250,000 shall be set aside for 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and there are 
     appropriated an additional $100,000,000 for the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention to fund programs under the 
     Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act (Public Law 108-
     75), of which $5,000,000 shall be set aside for Indian tribes 
     and tribal organizations.
       (b) Offset.--Of the funds appropriated under this Act for 
     the National Institutes of Health, $145,000,000 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 $7,020,199,000, and the amount $6,783,301,000 in 
     section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be deemed to be 
     $6,658,301,000.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we have had a series of very important 
amendments. The priorities of Members and their States are reflected in 
each amendment that has been offered, and the amendments of Senator 
Breaux, one of the cosponsors, Senator Daschle, Senator Johnson, and 
others, is the same. This is a very important issue to our State and an 
issue we hope we can find some redress to in this appropriations bill.
  My amendment seeks to fund a new piece of legislation passed last 
year with a great deal of fanfare because the situation is so obvious 
relating to the West Nile virus sweeping the United States.
  Because of this very frightening situation, the Congress acted 
appropriately last year. Several Members joined together with States 
that had been very hard hit to pass a new piece of Federal legislation 
saying yes, the Federal Government should step to the plate and help 
our States with treatment, with education for the population, with 
prevention, and also with methods in place to basically kill the 
mosquitoes and kill the dangerous larvae that create the situation.
  There are a lot of serious issues. I don't mean to compare this in 
any way with the degree of the heartbreak in which we engage in the war 
in Iraq because that is such an international and extremely important 
issue. Just to let the taxpayers know, to date we had 286 people die in 
a war; we have had 246 people die in the United States of West Nile 
virus. The small, modest amendment I am offering, which is only $100 
million, to fully fund this program makes small grants available to the 
States. This would help save lives, would help the country become more 
aware of what individuals and communities can do to protect themselves. 
Hopefully, with just a little bit of help from the Federal Government, 
our States will step to the plate.
  In 2002, we had 884 cases reported in Illinois. In that State alone, 
64 people have died. In Michigan, we have had 614 positive cases of 
West Nile and 51 people died as a result. My State has been hard hit. 
In Louisiana we had 329 cases in 2002 and 25 deaths. Other States that 
have registered high numbers of cases are Colorado, South Dakota, and 
Louisiana for 2003. Mosquitos are not a new enemy in Louisiana. As a 
low-lying swampy place, we have been battling this for literally 
hundreds of years. However, they are more than a nuisance; they are 
deadly. This is a very serious public health issue in the United 
States.
  The bill last year was passed with great fanfare, authorizing a very 
simple, modest, but important Federal program to help give moneys to 
local counties--in our State that would be parishes--to help with 
mosquito abatement programs. It requires a local government match. 
Without this money there will be no assistance for the State and local 
governments to help with the West Nile virus and mosquito control. This 
funding will make it possible for State and local jurisdictions to 
develop and implement effective programs. I am proud to say Louisiana 
has been a leader. Of course, for 300 years we have been fighting 
mosquitos. We have a lot of experience. Many of the coastal States, 
including North Carolina, have experienced difficulties, as well as 
Alaska, I understand. It is interesting to note that it is not limited 
to just the coastal States.
  Again, the highest incidence is in Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. 
People are dying. This can be a fatal condition.
  Madam President, my amendment seeks to fund the new but very 
important program to help local governments deal with the West Nile 
virus. I hope we find the resources in this budget to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use a couple of minutes of 
leader time to compliment the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for 
her amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This is a particularly 
difficult problem for many in the Upper Midwest. We now have more than 
500 South Dakotans infected by West Nile and seven people have died. 
Last week 41 cases were reported in 1 day in our State. That we had 
only 37 cases last year versus over 500 is a sign of the dramatic 
increase in the problem we are now experiencing. This is a very serious 
health issue. Tribal populations, in particular, in South Dakota are 
concerned about accessing the West Nile funding that is available. This 
amendment contains a tribal set-aside which will help them to access 
the funds directly from the CDC.
  While the problem is particularly acute in South Dakota right now, 
West Nile virus, as the Senator from Louisiana has pointed out, is a 
national problem. Over 4,150 cases across the country have now been 
identified, and nationwide more than 280 people have already died.
  This situation is a national issue that deserves far more national 
attention than the CDC has been able to give it so far. That is why the 
amendment is so critical and that is why I am hopeful that, on a 
bipartisan basis, we can support it this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I join my colleagues Senators 
Landrieu and Daschle in offering this West Nile Virus amendment to the 
Labor-HHS appropriations bill. As many of you know, West Nile Virus has 
returned

[[Page S11293]]

this mosquito season and has already impacted numerous states. 
Particularly hard hit this year have been Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming 
and my home State of South Dakota. Last year, South Dakota only 
experienced 37 human cases of West Nile, and this year that number has 
already risen to 583 cases and 7 deaths, representing the highest per 
capita rate in the Nation.
  It is hard to believe that just a few short years ago West Nile Virus 
had never even been heard of in this country, and this year the total 
case count has climbed to almost 3000 and took the lives of many. In 
just one year we learned that this illness could be transmitted not 
only by mosquitoes, but through blood, tissues and even breast milk. 
Our recent experiences with this illness and Severe Acute Respiratory 
Syndrome are just two examples that should make us aware of how 
critical it is that we be prepared to respond swiftly and effectively 
to newly emerging infectious disease threats that now face our country 
and our friends across the globe.
  Over the last month, I have met with experts on this issue in South 
Dakota, as well as CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding to try and get a 
better handle on what is happening in my State and across the Nation 
regarding this virus. What I have heard from the experts in South 
Dakota is that our cities and counties are woefully underfunded and 
ill-equipped to handle the pressing needs to get information to the 
public and protect the public health from this threat. Community 
understanding of the virus and how to combat it at the local level is 
minimal, and State and Federal support is sorely needed.
  I have also heard from people in Indian Country who have said that 
fear is rampant on the reservations and that there is virtually no 
money for public education and even less for mosquito abatement. Our 
State lab capacity is fairly good, but turnaround time on tests takes 
several days and the lab is not open 24 hours, 7 days a week. The 
medical community has indicated that less than optimal lab testing 
capabilities for West Nile has resulted in doctors ordering unnecessary 
and costly tests and treatments.
  For these reasons, it is important that we fund not only the newly 
enacted Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health or MASH Act, which 
will provide local communities with funds for mosquito abatement, but 
also provide CDC with additional funding under its existing authorities 
for other public health activities in 2004. In South Dakota and I 
imagine in other States, health departments, public health 
professionals and the provider community are doing everything they can 
to prevent and control this illness with resources available. However, 
we can do better to help them improve public health infrastructure, 
public education and increased lab capacities, which all mean better 
West Nile prevention, surveillance and detection of an illness that has 
challenged South Dakota's public health system and others around the 
Nation.
  Investing in these types of activities will allow us to prepare for 
next year, when States like mine may experience an even worse outbreak 
of the virus in South Dakota. In my discussions with Dr. Gerberding 
last week, she indicated that experts believe that the virus will move 
West, and has the potential to hit larger communities in California and 
across the coast, which could present an even greater public health 
challenge than what we have experienced in South Dakota this year.
  I thank Senators Landrieu and Daschle for their work on this 
amendment which will provide $100 million to fund the MASH Act, which 
did not receive any funding in the President's budget nor in the 
current bill on the floor. This amendment will also provide $25 million 
for other West Nile public health-related grants to States through the 
CDC to provide public education, information dissemination and basic 
public health infrastructure. We have also included funding for tribal 
set asides through these two appropriations which is so important to 
our reservations that have been hit hard by West Nile this year with 
little financial assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there is no doubt about the seriousness 
of the problem of West Nile. I made a trip to the Centers for Disease 
Control on Saturday and took a look at their operation, took a look at 
their charts, took a look at their projections as to where West Nile 
had struck, the number of illnesses, the number of fatalities. However, 
we are funding the Centers for Disease Control now at $5.760 billion. 
It is true $1.100 billion is directed additionally for bioterrorism, 
but that agency is extensively funded.
  With respect to the allocation directly for West Nile, they have 
$36.760 million in this bill. We have in NIH at least $40 million more, 
for a total of $76 million. Here again, I would like to see additional 
funding if we had the money.
  When we talk about the funding for the mosquitos of $100,000, I went 
over, in a lengthy visit at the Centers for Disease Control, their 
priorities and their needs. That is a program just recently authorized. 
There was no request by the administration. With the tremendous 
constraints on the rest of the bill we did not fund it. However, I 
believe we have adequately funded West Nile. And certainly we have 
funded the Centers for Disease Control. So they are in a position to 
allocate additional funds if they think it is necessary. But on this 
phase of the record, I think our appropriations bill is adequate.

  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the manager of the bill is soon going to 
offer a unanimous consent request to start a series of votes forthwith: 
is that right?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say, while the Democratic leader is on 
the floor, we on the minority side have said we are going to do 
everything we can to finish this bill today. But we have just been 
informed that starting at 3:15, there will be no votes for probably 2 
hours. That is going to make it very difficult.
  So I hope during this first vote, the two leaders can visit to see if 
there is some way we can condense that time. Otherwise, it is going to 
be very difficult to finish this bill at a decent hour tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I support what the assistant Democratic 
leader has had to say. We have six votes stacked now. We are going to 
have quite a number of additional votes. There is a tempo around the 
Senate of completing the bill. If we are to finish this bill tonight, 
we are going to have to work through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator yields, I, as chairman of the committee, 
understand fully the necessity to have these votes and this momentum 
continue. But in my time here in some 35 years, I have never seen the 
unveiling of a statue for Statuary Hall be interrupted by a vote.
  I suggest if we are going to have votes, we could stack a vote. It 
only means stacking one vote to do that. But from the hour of 4:30 to 
5:30, I believe the honor we are bestowing on the former Vice 
President, by putting his bust in the Hall, should be respected. I hope 
the managers of the bill will comply with tradition and allow that to 
continue. It just merely means stacking a vote. If one, by chance, is 
to be scheduled between 4:30 and 5:30, I urge that it be stacked beyond 
the hour of 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, we will work any way we can. I served with 
Senator Quayle, Vice President Quayle, and want to make sure he 
receives the honor to which he is entitled.
  We also have a briefing upstairs, so it is not an hour we are 
concerned about; it is 2 hours. We have an obligation on this side, 
having told the manager of the bill and the majority leader we would 
finish this bill tonight. I am just saying, it is going to be really 
tough when we have 2 hours of basically doing nothing.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I suggest we move to the next vote.


                           Amendment No. 1609

  Madam President, the first vote is on the amendment offered by the 
Senator

[[Page S11294]]

from California, Mrs. Boxer, on afterschool programs. This account has 
$1 billion in it. It has an increase of some $400 million over and 
above what the administration has requested.
  Here again, if we had a larger allocation under the budget resolution 
for this subcommittee, we could do more. But I think the appropriation 
of $1 billion is realistic and reasonable within the constraints of the 
subcommittee.
  Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution that the pending amendment is in violation of the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator talking about the Boxer amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the applicable statutes, I move to 
waive the budget point of order and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on the 
subsequent votes, as we proceed through as many votes as we can 
complete before 3:15, the votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and call for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that 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 ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     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 46, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from California from leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask a minute of my colleagues' time to 
call attention to this vote we just cast because I think sometimes we 
go through the motions and we do not connect the dollar amounts to the 
children.
  We have just deprived 300,000 children in every one of our States of 
afterschool care, after being told by law enforcement that it helps 
solve crime problems, after being told by parents that it makes their 
children happy, after learning from study after study that the kids do 
better.
  I think it is very sad, indeed, for the children of America to know 
they will not have this afterschool opportunity that will keep them on 
the right track when we are giving billions of dollars to the children 
of Iraq and billions of dollars to the children of Afghanistan. Lord 
knows, I want to help them, too. But how about the children of America 
who were promised in No Child Left Behind that they would get 
afterschool care?
  This program has been flat-lined for 3 years in a row. It is a sad 
day, and I hope we will reverse ourselves at a future date.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Now we go to the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 1610

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, there are fewer issues that bring 
consensus to the table than the issue of adoption. We in this Congress 
have worked in a bipartisan manner to help our families be stronger and 
safer and to help children in foster care.
  There are 570,000 children in foster care. This amendment allows us 
to help them with $118 million to live up to the commitments we have 
made to these children.
  Madam President, 100,000 of them are orphans. We promised to help 
25,000 who age out of foster care get a chance to go to college. These 
children have no parents. We are their parents. If we do not help them 
get to school, they are not going. That is what this amendment does.
  We agree on adoption. We agree on improvements to foster care. Let us 
vote to increase the funding. It is minuscule and inconsequential to 
this budget, but it is of enormous importance to this group of people 
and to these children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, there is no doubt about the 
desirability of the program encompassed in the amendment by the Senator 
from Louisiana. We already have in the account $100 million. I wish we 
had more money, but that is the maximum we can do with the budget 
resolution within the allocation. Therefore, with reluctance, I raise a 
point of order under the Budget Act and the resolution and say that the 
amendment by the Senator from Louisiana is not in order.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the list 
of States and the amounts of money that will be lost be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   PROMOTING SAFE AND STABLE FAMILIES PROGRAM ESTIMATED ALLOTMENTS AT
     FY2003 ENACTED LEVEL AND FY2004 ADMINISTRATION-REQUESTED LEVELS
                         [Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY2003        FY2004
                                                 enacted      requested
                                              appropriation    funding
                                                  level         level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................        $8,126       $10,112
Alaska......................................           803           999
Arizona.....................................         6,129         7,626
Arkansas....................................         4,792         5,963
California..................................        54,345        67,621
Colorado....................................         3,230         4,019
Connecticut.................................         3,452         4,295
Delaware....................................           751           935
District of Columbia........................         1,664         2,070
Florida.....................................        16,973        21,119
Georgia.....................................        12,613        15,695
Hawaii......................................         2,264         2,818
Idaho.......................................         1,179         1,467
Illinois....................................        16,215        20,176
Indiana.....................................         6,033         7,507
Iowa........................................         2,375         2,955
Kansas......................................         2,084         2,593
Kentucky....................................         6,721         8,363
Louisiana...................................        10,753        13,380
Maine.......................................         1,523         1,895
Maryland....................................         5,360         6,669
Massachusetts...............................         5,479         6,818
Michigan....................................        13,664        17,002
Minnesota...................................         3,947         4,911
Mississippi.................................         6,044         7,521
Missouri....................................         7,793         9,696
Montana.....................................         1,114         1,387
Nebraska....................................         1,676         2,086
Nevada......................................         1,277         1,589
New Hampshire...............................           745           926
New Jersey..................................         7,353         9,149
New Mexico..................................         3,575         4,448
New York....................................        27,804        34,596
North Carolina..............................         9,721        12,096
North Dakota................................           605           752
Ohio........................................        12,148        15,115
Oklahoma....................................         5,157         6,417
Oregon......................................         3,952         4,918
Pennsylvania................................        15,057        18,735
Rhode Island................................         1,608         2,000
South Carolina..............................         6,176         7,685
South Dakota................................           908         1,130
Tennessee...................................         9,126        11,356

[[Page S11295]]

 
Texas.......................................        31,891        39,682
Utah........................................         1,896         2,359
Vermont.....................................           725           902
Virginia....................................         6,748         8,397
Washington..................................         5,995         7,460
West Virginia...............................         3,836         4,773
Wisconsin...................................         3,976         4,947
Wyoming.....................................           488           607
Territories:
  American Samoa............................           214           250
  Guam......................................           401           483
  Northern Mariana Islands..................           154           175
  Puerto Rico...............................         7,799         9,706
  Virgin Islands............................           317           378
Set-Asides:
  Tribes....................................         5,037         7,050
  State Court Improvement...................        13,279        16,599
  Evaluation, Research and T&TA.............         9,279        12,599
                                             ---------------------------
      Total.................................       404,350       504,978
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research from information provided
  by the Department of Health and Human Services (FY2003 allocations)
  and published in HHS budget justifications (FY2004 proposed
  allocations).
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of H. 
Con. Res. 95, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution 
for the purposes of the pending amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the managers would like to have one 
additional vote before people go to the meeting with Secretary Powell. 
So I ask Senators to stay in the Chamber. If we are to finish this bill 
today, we are going to have to move along with dispatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from 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 ``aye.''
  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. 341 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     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
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     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.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, may we proceed with the Durbin 
amendment?


                           Amendment No. 1611

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like many Members of the Senate, I voted 
in favor of No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan effort to bring 
accountability to education, mandates on local school districts to test 
kids, and if the test scores did not meet certain levels they would be 
mandated to make necessary changes in the way they taught the children. 
The understanding was we would provide resources to the school 
districts to help them meet this challenge. This bill fails by $6 
billion to provide the resources for the school districts.
  My amendment says this: We will suspend the mandates. We require the 
testing to continue so we know the progress being made by the students. 
But unless and until we are ready to fund this bill as we promised, we 
are suspending the mandates on the school districts to move children 
within the school districts, and the other mandated requirements.
  I say to my friends, when you go home and speak to the leaders in 
school districts, they will tell you, as good an idea as this was, 
Senator, you are not providing the funds. It is an unfunded Federal 
mandate.
  I hope if you have heard the same story from your local school 
districts that are ready to work with us, ready to comply with No Child 
Left Behind, you will join me in suspending these mandates until we 
reach the funding level we promised under No Child Left Behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will take 30 seconds and the Senator 
from New Hampshire 30 seconds.
  Madam President, I ask the membership just to read the amendment:

       None of the funds made available may be used by the 
     Department to enforce section 1116.

  Section 1116 requires, out of the $12 billion, 10 percent to be used 
for training teachers for struggling schools. It requires 10 percent or 
more to be used for supplementary services for children. It provides 
flexibility for children in the poorest areas to have some choice for 
public school choice.
  It provides also about $800 million for new curriculum. Why in the 
world do we want to have $3 billion of the $12 billion in a slush fund? 
We know what works--good teachers, good curriculum, good supplementary 
services. That was the bill that came out of our committee. That is 
what this will undermine. Just read the last three sentences. It says 
nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State or local 
agency from implementing. That is an option. It isn't a requirement.
  I hope the amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I want to associate myself with Senator 
Kennedy on this amendment. It is unfortunately ill conceived because 
its practical effect would be to deny parents the empowerment tools 
which we give them under the No Child Left Behind Act--specifically, 
the tools to get tutorial services for their children if the school 
they are in isn't working, and to get the opportunity to send their 
children to other public schools if the school they are in isn't 
working.
  The No Child Left Behind Act was aimed at low-income children and 
giving parents of low-income children the tools to educate those 
children so they are not left behind.
  The Durbin amendment would put a stake through the heart of the 
essence of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is allocated under this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes?
  Mr. REID. No. Madam President, it is 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that there is an 
agreement for 1 minute on each side.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much has been consumed on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am happy to hear everybody speak. But 
this whole system is flawed. If we are going to have 1 minute, I would 
ask the Chair to hold to 1 minute. I went to the Republican side today: 
Please have the

[[Page S11296]]

Chair stick to what the rules are. We want to try to finish this bill. 
But these speeches are unending on both sides.
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Graham (FL)
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Smith
  The amendment (No. 1611) was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Amendments Nos. 1544, 1560, 1578, 1558, And 1552, As Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have at the desk a series of 
amendments that have been modified. I ask that these amendments be 
modified and adopted. They are amendment No. 1544 by Senator Akaka; 
amendment No. 1560 by Senator DeWine; amendment No. 1578 by Senator 
DeWine; amendment No. 1558 by Senator Kohl; and amendment No. 1552 by 
Senator Mikulski.
  I ask unanimous consent they be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the amendments be considered en bloc and 
agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments, 
as modified.
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to, as follows:


                    Amendment No. 1544, as modified

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. In addition to any amounts that may be made 
     available under this Act to carry out the Excellence in 
     Economic Education Act of 2001 under subpart 13 of part D of 
     title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, there are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000 to carry out 
     the Excellence in Economic Education Act of 2001.


                    Amendment No. 1560, as modified

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec._. To provide funding for poison control centers under 
     the Poison Control Enhancement and Awareness Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14801 et seq.), there are appropriated a total of 
     $23,854,000, including amounts otherwise made available in 
     this Act for such centers.


                    Amendment No. 1578, as modified

       On page 76, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       Sec._. For necessary expenses for the Underground Railroad 
     Education and Cultural Program, there are appropriated 
     $2,235,000.


                    Amendment No. 1558, as modified

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       Sec._. In addition to any amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this Act under the heading of ADMINISTRATION ON AGING, 
     there are appropriated an additional $1,000,000: Provided, 
     That in addition to the amounts already made available to 
     carry out the ombudsman program under chapter 2 of title VII 
     of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3058 et seq.), 
     there are made available an additional $1,000,000.


                    Amendment No. 1552, as modified

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC.__. STUDIES CONCERNING MAMMOGRAPHY STANDARDS.

       (a) Study by GAO.--
       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the program established under 
     the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (section 354 of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b)) (referred to 
     in this section as the ``MQSA'') to--
       (A) evaluate the demonstration program regarding frequency 
     of inspections authorized under section 354(g) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b(g)), including the effect 
     of the program on compliance with the MQSA;
       (B) evaluate the factors that contributed to the closing of 
     the approximately 700 mammography facilities nationwide since 
     2001, whether those closings were due to consolidation or 
     were a true reduction in mammography availability, explore 
     the relationship between certified units and facility 
     capacity, and evaluate capacity issues, and determine the 
     effect these and other closings have had on the accessibility 
     of mammography services, including for underserved 
     populations, since the April 2002 General Accounting Office 
     report on access to mammography; and
       (C) evaluate the role of States in acting as accreditation 
     bodies or certification bodies, or both, in addition to 
     inspection agents under the MQSA, and in acting as 
     accreditation bodies for facilities in other States and 
     determine whether and how these roles affect the system of 
     checks and balances within the MQSA.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 16 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a 
     report on the study described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Study by the Institute of Medicine.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall enter into an agreement with the Institute of 
     Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences for the conduct 
     of a study and the making of recommendations regarding the 
     following:
       (A) Ways to improve physicians' interpretations of 
     mammograms, including approaches that could be taken under 
     the MQSA without negatively impacting access to quality 
     mammography.
       (B) What changes could be made in the MQSA to improve 
     mammography quality, including additional regulatory 
     requirements that would improve quality, as well as the 
     reduction or modification of regulatory requirements that do 
     not contribute to quality mammography, or are no longer 
     necessary to ensure quality mammography. Such reduction or 
     modification of regulatory requirements and improvements in 
     the efficiency of the program are important to help eliminate 
     disincentives to enter or remain in the field of mammography.
       (C) Ways, including incentives, to ensure that sufficient 
     numbers of adequately trained personnel at all levels are 
     recruited and retained to provide quality mammography 
     services.
       (D)(i) How data currently collected under the MQSA could be 
     used to improve the quality, interpretation of, and access to 
     mammography.
       (ii) Identification of new data points that could be 
     collected to aid in the monitoring and assessment of 
     mammography quality and access.
       (E) Other approaches that would improve the quality of and 
     access to mammography services, including approaches to 
     improving provisions under the MQSA.
       (F) Steps that should be taken to help make available safe 
     and effective new screening and diagnostic devices and tests 
     for breast cancer.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 15 months after the date on 
     which the agreement is entered into under paragraph (1), the 
     Institute of Medicine shall complete the study described 
     under such subsection and submit a report to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate, and the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (3) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated under this title 
     to the Office of the Secretary

[[Page S11297]]

     of Health and Human Services for general departmental 
     management, $500,000 shall be made available to carry out the 
     study under this subsection.

  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1616 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I offer an amendment on behalf of 
Senators Collins and Feingold regarding funding for dental health and 
ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Ms. Collins, for 
     herself and Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1616.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam 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 grants for innovative 
programs to address dental workforce needs of designated dental health 
                      professional shortage areas)

       On page 49, line 21, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That of this amount, 
     $3,000,000 shall be made available to carry out section 340G 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256g) (in 
     addition to other amounts appropriated under this title for 
     such purpose)''.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1616) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1617 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Inhofe regarding impact aid and ask unanimous consent 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Inhofe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1617.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide additional funding for Impact Aid programs)

       On page 63, line 2, strike ``$1,188,226,000, of which 
     $1,025,292,000'' and insert ``$1,193,226,000, of which 
     $1,030,292,000''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1617) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1618 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Wyden regarding an NIH report and ask unanimous 
consent for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Wyden, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1618.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a report on the availability and affordability 
               of products developed with public funding)

       On page 61, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     a report that shall--
       (1) contain the recommendations of the Director concerning 
     the role of the National Institutes of Health in promoting 
     the affordability of inventions and products developed with 
     Federal funds; and
       (2) specify whether any circumstances exist to prevent the 
     Director from promoting the affordability of inventions and 
     products developed with Federal funds.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1618) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1619 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Ensign regarding census data and ask unanimous 
consent for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Ensign, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1619.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for annually updated educational agency level 
                          census poverty data)

       On page 62, line 6, insert ``annually'' after ``obtain''.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1619) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1620 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment on 
behalf of Senator Specter and ask unanimous consent for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1620.

  The amendment is as follows:

        (Purpose: To provide an offset for additional spending)

       At the end of title V, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--Amounts made available under this 
     Act for the administrative and related expenses for 
     departmental management for the Department of Labor, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
     of Education shall be reduced on a pro rata basis by 
     $14,735,000.
       (b) Limitation.--The reduction required by subsection (a) 
     shall not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the 
     Indian Health Service.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1620) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I state for the record, all of those 
amendments were cleared by both Senator Specter and Senator Harkin as 
managers of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                Amendment No. 1588 To Amendment No. 1542

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 1588 for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
     Levin, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Pryor, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1588.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam 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 the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
                                Program)

       On page 42, line 25, strike ``$2,000,000,000.'' and insert 
     ``$3,000,000,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this Act for the National Institutes of Health, 
     $3,000,000,000 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 $7,895,199,000: Provided further, That the 
     amount $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall 
     be deemed to be $5,783,301,000.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment is offered by myself 
and Senators Lautenberg, Cantwell, Baucus, Stabenow, Levin, Durbin, 
Pryor, Lincoln, Kennedy, Kerry, and Feinstein.
  This is an issue that I think deserves a little more attention before 
we complete action on this appropriations bill.

[[Page S11298]]

This an amendment that relates to LIHEAP, which is an acronym we use in 
the Congress and in Washington to talk about the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the American Gas 
Association, the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance, and the Southern 
States Energy Board endorsing this amendment be printed in the Record 
following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment, as I have proposed it, 
would increase funding in the bill for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program by $1 billion for this next fiscal year. The 
amendment would bring the total funding for the LIHEAP State grants up 
to $3 billion rather than the $2 billion that is provided in the bill.
  These grants are allocated at the beginning of each fiscal year to 
each of the 50 States and to the territories and Indian tribes on the 
basis of a statutory formula.
  Let me begin by saying, Senator Specter, the manager of this bill, 
and Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the subcommittee, have 
consistently championed the LIHEAP program in the appropriations 
process. But it is clear they do not have room in this budget 
resolution that was presented to adequately fund this program.
  Obviously, the question is, Why did we adopt a budget resolution that 
did not provide room? I certainly think that is where the mistake was 
made and where I disagreed with many of my colleagues.
  The amount of funding for LIHEAP that has been appropriated in the 
past has been enough to help 15 percent of the households that are 
eligible for that assistance. And as to those 15 percent, for the 
families who are covered and actually have received that help, the 
average grant they have received has covered about 10 to 25 percent of 
their home energy costs.
  We had an amendment earlier today by Senator Reed of Rhode Island and 
Senator Collins of Maine on this very same issue--not on this exact 
issue but on adding funds. They proposed to add $300 million to the 
emergency funding available under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program. Now my proposal is to add $1 billion to the core program--not 
the emergency part of it but the core program.
  I point out to my colleagues that 49 Senators voted for that 
amendment as compared to 46 who voted against it, but the amendment 
failed. And just for those who have not followed our procedure that 
closely, why would an amendment fail when more Senators supported it 
than opposed it? It failed because those Senators were not able to get 
a full 60 votes which were needed to waive the Budget Act.
  Well, the question is, Why did they need to waive the Budget Act for 
that amendment? The amendment contained an offset so that it was not, 
on a net basis, going to cost more, but we are advised that the offset 
was not adequate to meet the Budget Act requirements. In fact, the 
very underlying bill we are going to vote on, presumably later this 
evening, violates the Budget Act as well.

  So we have a situation where the majority of Senators present and 
voting cannot prevail on an issue they believe is important because of 
the Budget Act provisions we imposed on ourselves and with which I 
strongly disagree.
  LIHEAP funding has remained essentially level without adjustment for 
inflation over the last 20 years. We all know the cost of energy to our 
households around the country has increased very substantially. Now 60 
percent of our homes are, in fact, heated by natural gas and, in fact, 
cooled by that same energy source.
  The Department of Energy predicts an average price delivered to the 
consumer this year of $9.42 per thousand cubic feet for the cost of 
natural gas. That $9.42 compares to $6.69 that the average consumer had 
to pay in 1999.
  Compared to last winter, which was a very tough winter for gas 
consumers, the Energy Information Agency predicts costs will be at 
least 10 to 15 percent higher this year.
  The reason I am raising this issue and talking about it is that I 
believe we will regret our decision to not provide additional funds for 
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program when we get further into 
this winter.
  Forty-three of my colleagues in the Senate joined me in a bipartisan 
letter to Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin requesting that 
this core Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program be funded at the 
level of $3 billion for this next year. They have not been able to do 
that.
  We are faced with another winter heating season in which there is a 
great potential for very high natural gas costs, very high heating oil 
prices for consumers. There will be many low-income Americans who will 
have great difficulty dealing with those increased prices.
  The obvious question that will be asked of us and should be asked of 
us is what is our plan to deal with the expected high costs of energy 
this winter? Unfortunately, our answer is, we are going to maintain 
level funding for LIHEAP. That is not an adequate answer. It is not an 
adequate answer for this administration or for this Congress. For us to 
say we are sorry, we couldn't do any better because the budget 
resolution wouldn't let us, the budget resolution was voted on by a 
majority of Senators, was approved by a majority of the Senators. 
Clearly, the Senate shares the responsibility to find a solution to the 
problem.

                               Exhibit 1


                                     American Gas Association,

                                                September 8, 2003.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the 191 members of the American 
     Gas Association who serve over 53 million consumers of 
     natural gas, I am writing in strong support of the Bingaman 
     and Reed-Collins amendments to increase funding for the Low 
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) during 
     consideration of the FY04 Labor, HHS and Education spending 
     bill.
       The winter heating season is approaching and it is 
     imperative that funding for LIHEAP is increased. The LIHEAP 
     program is woefully under-funded, providing assistance to 
     approximately 4 million households, or only 15 percent of the 
     30 million households eligible for assistance. Yet demand for 
     energy assistance continues to grow due to high unemployment 
     levels, high energy prices and unpredictable weather 
     conditions.
       According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 
     unemployment rate in August remained extremely high at 6.1 
     percent. A total of 8.9 million people currently are 
     unemployed across the country. Job losses were seen in the 
     manufacturing sector, some travel-related industries, and in 
     the retail industry.
       At the same time, according to the Energy Information 
     Agency (EIA), compared to last year, this year's energy 
     prices are 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent 
     higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane and 11 
     percent higher for electricity. The high energy prices are 
     due in large part to the unusually cold winter experienced in 
     various regions of the country this year, which increased 
     demand for home heating. Natural gas commodity prices 
     continue to bounce between $5.00 and $5.25 per mmbtu, and 
     natural gas storage inventories are 7.5 percent below the 
     five-year average.
       The amendment proposed by Senator Bingaman would increase 
     LIHEAP funding to $3.0 billion, representing a $1 billion 
     increase over the $2.0 billion currently proposed in the FY04 
     Labor, HHS and Education spending bill. The Reed-Collins 
     amendment would provide an additional $300 million in 
     emergency LIHEAP assistance. Both of these amendments will be 
     extremely helpful in protecting low and fixed-income 
     individuals during the winter heating season, and also will 
     make available much needed cooling assistance next summer.
       We urge you to recognize the impact the weak economy and 
     the high price of energy is having on low and fixed-income 
     energy consumers. Low-income energy assistance must be 
     increased dramatically before we find ourselves in a crisis. 
     We strongly urge you to support the Bingaman and Reed-Collins 
     amendments. If you have any questions, suggestions or 
     concerns, please contact me personally at (202) 824-7111.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  David N. Parker,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                      Campaign for


                                       Home Energy Assistance,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2003.
       Dear Senator: I am writing on behalf of the Campaign for 
     Home Energy Assistance to urge you to support the Bingaman 
     and Reed/Collins amendments to increase funding for the Low 
     Income Home Energy Assistance Program during consideration of 
     the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 2004.
       Senator Bingaman's amendment would increase baseline 
     funding LIHEAP (the ``regular'' allocations provided to the 
     states) from $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion. The Reed/Collins 
     amendment would add $300 million in

[[Page S11299]]

     LIHEAP emergency funds that could be released at the 
     President's discretion.
       Both amendments will be extremely helpful in protecting 
     low- and fixed-income individuals during the winter heating 
     season and also make available sorely needed cooling 
     assistance next summer.
       Price volatility, temperature extremes and an unstable 
     economy have combined to create a ``perfect storm'' that has 
     hammered our nation's most vulnerable citizens.
       Seniors, people with disabilities and the working poor have 
     been particularly hard hit. They generally carry a higher 
     energy burden than most American households, and, for those 
     people, the price tag has become dangerously unaffordable.
       In testimony before a congressional committee this past 
     summer, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he was 
     worried about the runup in natural gas prices, which have 
     doubled over the past year, and the impact higher prices 
     could have on the economy. Secretary of Energy Spencer 
     Abraham, meanwhile, has warned that the average residential 
     winter heating bill for a typical Midwest consumer could be 
     $915 next winter--a 19 percent increase over last year--if 
     prices continue to rise.
       If the warnings of the Fed Chairman and Energy Secretary 
     are to be taken seriously, and we believe they must, an 
     increase in LIHEAP funding is absolutely essential to protect 
     millions of people living in or on the edge of poverty.
       According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8.9 million 
     Americans are currently unemployed. The August unemployment 
     rate was at 6.1 percent, as high as it has been in many 
     years. The Energy Information Agency, meanwhile, has reported 
     that energy prices are 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 
     percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane 
     and 11 percent higher for electricity compared with last 
     year.
       We urge you to recognize the impact of this ``perfect 
     storm'' on those least able to cope with a higher energy 
     burden.
       Even if energy prices were to decline and the economy were 
     to improve, LIHEAP would still be underfunded. Currently, 
     only about one out of every five households eligible for 
     benefits actually receives assistance. Many states regularly 
     run out of LIHEAP funds and are forced to limit benefits, 
     serve fewer eligible recipients or discontinue their programs 
     before the end of the heating season. In states where cooling 
     assistance is essential, programs also fall far short of the 
     need.
       Please support the Bingaman and Reed/Collins LIHEAP 
     amendments to the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Bill. 
     Your leadership will help many low- and fixed-income 
     consumers through these difficult times. Thank you in advance 
     for your consideration. If you have any questions, please 
     contact me directly at 202-331-2962.
           Respectfully,
                                                     David L. Fox,
     Communications Director.
                                  ____

         Southern Legislative Conference, The Council of State 
           Governments,
                                   Atlanta, GA, September 5, 2003.
     To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
     Re: LIHEAP Amendment to Labor/HHS Appropriations.
     From: Colleen Cousineau, Executive Director.

       As the Fiscal Year 2004 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill is 
     brought to the floor of the Senate, the Southern Legislative 
     Conference of the Council of State Governments (SLC), a 
     bipartisan legislative organization representing the 
     interests of more than 1,200 state legislators, urges you to 
     support Senator Jeff Bingaman's amendment designed to 
     increase LIHEAP funding by $1 billion.
       As you are aware, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program (LIHEAP) is a federally-funded state administered 
     program that helps qualified needy Americans heat and cool 
     their homes. In light of unprecedented costs for natural gas, 
     and for other reasons, LIHEAP is being stretched beyond its 
     capacity to meet this challenge. Today, only 15 percent of 
     eligible Americans can be served by LIHEAP. In the face of 
     escalating energy costs, it seems certain even fewer 
     Americans will be helped--unless the Senate votes to increase 
     LIHEAP funding.
       In its present form, LIHEAP is ill-equipped to respond to 
     the needs of our citizens unless Congress appropriates 
     additional funds for this critical program. Mr. Bingaman's 
     amendment does this, and closely conforms to the SLC's 
     recently unanimously-adopted LIHEAP policy position.
       The SLC is pleased to endorse the Bingaman LIHEAP Amendment 
     to the 2004 Labor/HHS appropriations bill and urges each 
     Senator to vote for it.


                      Amendment No. 1588 Withdrawn

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in light of the fact that a 60-vote 
majority would be required for me to prevail on my amendment and in 
light of the fact that earlier amendment on a related issue by Senators 
Reed and Collins could not gain more than 49 votes, I will not push for 
a rollcall vote on my amendment at this time. I do call it to the 
attention of my colleagues. I hope at some stage before we adjourn this 
fall we are able to find a way to put additional funds into this very 
important program so as to head off the very real hardship that is 
going to be visited upon many of our citizens this winter.
  Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Chambliss are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to each of the next three 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1603

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is pending. Would 
you give me the number of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is No. 1603.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I don't think anyone would disagree that children are 
the hope of every culture. They certainly are the hope of this culture 
in our great country of America.
  We look to our children and imagine a bright future for their sake. 
This is true for every group in America and every subgroup in America. 
It could not be more true for Latino Americans. Latinos are the 
youngest demographic group in the entire country. They are the fastest 
growing.
  More than one-third of Latino Americans are under 18 years of age. 
Many came here with nothing to their name. Many of them had no 
education and some couldn't speak English. For these people, life is 
what it is and sometimes there is no hope of improving. But one thing 
that the Hispanic community does is work hard. They work hard in many 
instances to make a simple living. Some of them clean our houses, 
landscape our yards, wait on tables, park cars, make beds, and in other 
places they harvest the food for our tables.
  They don't complain about their lot in life, but they dream of better 
opportunities for their children--our children--because children are 
the hope of the future.
  The great aspiration of Latino Americans, as all immigrants who come 
to our country, is their children getting a good education.
  We recognize that there is an unacceptable gap between the 
achievement of Latino students and the overall student population. In 
the State of Nevada, we have the fifth or sixth largest school district 
in all of America, approaching 300,000 students. Thirty percent of the 
kids in that school district are Hispanic. Large numbers of those 
children in comparison to other ethnic groups don't graduate from high 
school.
  Some have asked why. All the reasons are not in but some of the 
reasons are they are such hard-working people, the business community 
recognizes that and, in many instances, entices them to work and not to 
school by offering them jobs. They are young and impressionable, and a 
job offers what appears to them to be a lot of money; as they proceed 
through life, they continue to earn the same money as adults as they 
earned when they were teenagers. They drop out of school for that 
reason.

[[Page S11300]]

  Also, most of the Hispanics in the State of Nevada come from Mexico. 
Mexico does not have the tradition of public education we have, which 
is another reason there are dropouts. Of course they do not have the 
parental involvement as a result of their parents not being educated.
  So there are a number of reasons. All the reasons are not in. I have 
named a couple of the reasons these young boys and girls drop out of 
high school much more quickly than other ethnic groups. We agree it 
should be this Nation's policy to leave no child behind. This does not 
say we leave no Caucasian child behind. This act does not say we leave 
no Asian American behind. This act does not say we leave no African 
American behind. No, this act says we leave no child behind no matter 
their race, creed, or culture.
  Now it is time to live up to those words and keep our promise. That 
is why I offer this amendment, amendment No. 1603, the Hispanic 
educational opportunity amendment to help Latino students achieve their 
dreams. This amendment invests an additional $190 million in our 
Nation's future by strengthening these programs.
  I told my good friend, the Democrat manager, the amendment was $210 
million--and it was, earlier--and we changed it for a number of 
reasons. This is for Hispanic-serving institutions, migrant education, 
high school equivalency programs, college assistance migrant programs, 
local family information centers, bilingual education and Head Start 
for children of migrant workers. These programs give Latino students a 
step up the ladder of education so they can realize their aspirations.
  The 252 Hispanic-serving institutions, which have at least 25 percent 
Latino enrollment, are the main bridge between Hispanic opportunities 
and higher education. Despite appropriations under title V, these 
institutions still have not reached Federal funding parity with other 
degree-granting institutions. This amendment adds $6.4 million to help 
address this inequity.
  The high school equivalency programs provide academic instruction, 
counseling, computer-assisted teaching, and career awareness to migrant 
students for the GED. The Senate's fiscal year 2004 Labor, HHS, and 
Education appropriations bill slashes funding for these programs by 43 
percent and eliminates 23 programs that achieved a combined GED 
completion rate of 73 percent.
  The proposed budget also cuts the College Assistance Migrant Program 
by $400,000. CAMP, or the College Assistance Migrant Program, recruits 
are talented migrant high school graduates, GED recipients, and they 
mentor them through their first year of college. Before CAMP was 
created, there was no record of a migrant child having completed 
college. Since its inception, nearly 75 percent of all CAMP students 
receive a college baccalaureate degree.
  The existing HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 
students. Remember, for every one of these students we keep in school 
or put through college, we save our country much money. It is estimated 
that for every $1 we spend on the programs, we save the Government 
upwards of $10 in justice costs, insurance costs, welfare costs. For 
every child we keep in one of these programs, our country makes money. 
Over the next 5 years, 170,000 migrant children will become eligible 
for this program while 140,000 will qualify for CAMP. Funding for these 
programs should be increased, not cut. That is why my amendment adds 
$11 million for HEP programs and $1 million for CAMP.

  We also need to make the Head Start Program available to more 
children of migrant workers so they have a fighting chance to do well 
in school. In the relatively small State of Nevada, we have hundreds of 
migrant students. In Amargossa, in Nye County, they make up more than 
half of the students. These children, many times, have very hard lives. 
If any child ever deserved a head start in school, they do. Yet we have 
not a single migrant Head Start Program in all of the State of Nevada.
  About 20 percent of the State of Nevada is Hispanic. Nationally, only 
19 percent of the eligible migrant children are served by Head Start. 
The rest are left behind, even before they begin school, even though we 
have a program that says Leave No Child Behind. We need to offer Head 
Start to at least 10,000 migrant children. This amendment moves us 
toward that goal.
  We know that parental involvement is crucial to a child's success. 
That is why the local family information centers were created by the No 
Child Left Behind Act. These are community-based centers that provide 
parents of title I students with information about their children's 
schools so they can get involved in their education. It does much more. 
An additional investment here of $13 million strengthens ties between 
Latino families and the children's schools. We know parental 
involvement is a success for the teachers and for the students. This 
might seem like a lot of money, but it will save much more, as I have 
stated, in the long run--almost 10 to 1. You do not have to be from 
Nevada to bet on these odds.
  One way this investment will pay dividends down the road is by 
building a stronger labor force. Already, one-third of new workers who 
join our labor force are Latino. In 20 years, it will be one-half. 
These are the workers who will pay our taxes, build our roads, keep our 
military strong, educate our grandchildren, protect our environment.
  It is important we educate our grandchildren and our great 
grandchildren and provide for our Social Security. Our own future will 
depend upon the hopes, the aspirations, and the dreams of our Latino 
neighbors. These programs might not seem that important to some, but to 
the individuals involved, they provide greater opportunities for these 
children. They give Latino Americans, their parents, but also all 
Americans, a better chance for having a better society. They give these 
boys and girls a chance for realizing their dreams and aspirations.
  We had a vote similar to this earlier this week. We had the usual 
performances on both sides of the aisle: Vote with me; vote with me; do 
not vote with the minority; the vote might pass. We had three very 
courageous Republicans crossing over the line and voting for these 
young boys and girls: Senator Smith of Oregon, Senator Hutchison of 
Texas, and Senator Domenici of New Mexico. I appreciate the courage and 
their individualism, their independence, in voting for these young 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from 
Arizona, who I understand has a legitimate concern about the way this 
bill is proceeding, and I appreciate his indulgence in allowing me to 
talk about an amendment.
  Mr. REID. Could I ask my friend a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We have a vote scheduled for 5:20. We may not be able to 
have it now. You are going to speak probably until that time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Maybe not until that time, but no longer than that 
time. I will certainly stop whenever we are ready to move forward with 
any pending business.
  Madam President, a couple months ago we had a very good debate, late 
at night on the floor of the Senate, on the issue of AIDS in Africa. We 
made a commitment in that authorization bill to follow through with the 
President's plan, his announcement earlier this year to put forward $15 
billion over the next 5 years to meet this scourge that is ravaging so 
many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the scourge of AIDS.
  The President had the moral courage and provided leadership to the 
world prior to the G-8 summit to come forth with a big commitment of 
American dollars, of $15 billion over the next 5 years, to combat AIDS, 
in terms of education, prevention, treatment, transmission--all of the 
areas that are so important and were, frankly, being neglected by the 
world community.
  America had done a reasonable job in providing some funds--roughly $1 
billion a year--toward this problem. The

[[Page S11301]]

President stepped up and said: No, that is not sufficient. We need to 
do $15 billion over the next 5 years. The President made a budget 
request that put us on the road to that. It was not $3 billion a year 
for 5 years, but it was an aggressive increase in the amount of funding 
the United States would provide.
  Subsequent to his budget request, we passed an authorization bill 
which said the following: that this country would come up with $10 
billion in bilateral aid, through our agencies of the Federal 
Government. We would be contributing money either directly to other 
countries or to nonprofit, sometimes faith-based, organizations for 
prevention, education, treatment, and other means of dealing with this 
problem.
  Unfortunately, in this bill, and in the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, the combined amount of money for the accounts for 
the President's AIDS initiative comes not to $3 billion but to a little 
over $2 billion, $2.050 billion.
  Now having said that, this is a tight budget year. And it is a 
significant increase over the amount of money that was provided for 
last year, which was an increase in last year's appropriations. So I do 
not want to cast any aspersions on any of the appropriators for the 
work they have done. They have provided a significant amount of 
increase appropriate with the President's--close to, not exactly but 
close to what the President originally suggested prior to his big AIDS 
initiative.
  I would suggest that what we need to do in the Senate is, to the best 
of our ability, meet the expectations we set with respect to the 
passage of the authorization bill a couple months ago--the expectations 
of the world community, which in the G-8 summit responded generously 
with contributions they were told would be matched by Federal dollars 
to the tune of for every $2 of international contribution to the Global 
Fund there would be a $1 contribution from the U.S. Government for up 
to 1 billion of U.S. dollars going into the Global Fund.
  To date, we have received roughly $700 million in commitments from 
the international community, which means that to fund our match in this 
bill we would need roughly $350 million. So for $700 million of 
international commitment, $350 million--$1 for every $2 pledged--would 
be necessary in either this bill or the foreign operations 
appropriations bill.
  I am happy to say in the two bills combined, there is $400 million 
for the global fund earmarked for matching, and that is in anticipation 
of some additional dollars being pledged by some other countries. There 
are a couple of other very significant countries yet that have not 
pledged, and I think with great foresight the members of the 
Appropriations Committee put forward roughly $400 million to match the 
anticipated contributions from the rest of the world.
  So on that score, I would make the argument that the authorization 
levels we had committed have been fulfilled. Some have suggested--in 
fact, others who have offered an amendment on this subject suggested--
we need to appropriate $3 billion to meet our commitment of $3 billion 
a year for 5 years. The commitment was $2 billion a year plus whatever 
was necessary to match up to $1 billion.
  It seems fairly obvious the match necessary is only going to be no 
more than $400 million. So I would argue the $400 million that is in 
these bills is sufficient to meet the commitment this country made, 
this Senate made, and this President made in matching dollars from the 
international community, which leaves us with the bilateral commitment.
  The bilateral commitment was $2 billion in the authorization bill. 
The President has said from the start that he was not going to start 
out at $2 billion. He was going to start out at a lesser number and 
ramp up as capacity was going to grow. I respect that. I know the 
President is trying to stay within a very tight budget with respect to 
both foreign and domestic programs, other than what would be considered 
war-related expenditures. He came forward with a proposal for about 
$1.6 billion.
  The two bills dealing with AIDS funding come up to the level of $1.65 
billion. So the combined amount, the 400 and 1.65 is $2.50 billion, 
which is short of the authorization level by $350 million.
  That $350 million would allow us to fully fund our $2 billion 
commitment under the authorization. Again, I understand that the House 
level is lower than that. I think it is important for us in the Senate 
to come forth with a number that is closer to what the expectation was 
when we put forward this authorizing legislation a couple months ago.
  I am going to be offering an amendment a little later--because I told 
Senator McCain that I would not be conducting any formal business, that 
I would just be talking about my amendment--to transfer $350 million to 
provide treatment and prevention programs to combat global HIV/AIDS. I 
underscore this: I am trying to do this so we can win this with 50 
votes, in case of so many Members missing, maybe 46 or 47 votes. I 
would like to see this pass. I would like to see us make that 
commitment. Two point four billion dollars does meet the commitment 
that this Congress was put on the record for a couple months ago.
  This is a rather big bill, almost a half-trillion-dollar piece of 
legislation before us. What I am requesting my colleagues to do is to 
support an across-the-board reduction of .0741, seven hundred forty-one 
thousandths of a percent reduction in all other funding so we could 
meet our commitment to the millions of people suffering in Africa and 
the Caribbean from this scourge of AIDS. I know there are a lot of 
people in the Chamber who don't like across-the-board cuts, thinking 
they are a gimmick. I assure you, those agencies that have experienced 
across-the-board cuts do not believe they are a gimmick. They are real. 
They reduce the amount of money in their appropriated account, and they 
have to deal with the consequences.
  There are lots of programs that have received substantial increases 
in funding that surely a seven-hundredths-of-a-percent reduction is not 
going to have any kind of dramatic impact on them. But I assure you, a 
$350 million commitment to providing treatment and prevention--one of 
the programs that is underfunded in this legislation that Senator 
DeWine has an amendment on is mother-to-child transmission. The money 
provided in this bill is actually lower than what the President 
requested.
  We are doing a lot for people in America. I know there is a lot of 
need in America. But I think when you compare the need in America to 
the abject poverty and horrific health conditions in this area of the 
world, I cannot imagine that any one of these organizations that are 
providing help to those who are struggling here in this country, 
through health problems or whether it is improving the quality of 
education, that they wouldn't be willing to give seven-hundredths of a 
percent of their dollars up to save hundreds of thousands of lives 
across Africa.
  That is what we are asking. I know it is not a popular thing to do. 
It is probably easier to say we will just borrow the money or we will 
advance fund or we will forward fund or backward fund or sideways fund, 
do some other gimmick to get around the budget rules so we don't have 
to count. It is important to put your money where your mouth is.
  I don't think asking for a seven-hundredths of 1 percent across-the-
board reduction to provide the money for those in the most need of the 
brother and sisters that we have in this world is too much to ask. I 
ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, those of you who voted for 
the President's plan on HIV/AIDS, those of you who have just come back 
from Africa--I know there are many Members who were in Africa over the 
break who saw firsthand the tremendous human suffering that is going on 
there as a result of this pandemic. Seven-hundredths of a percent to 
provide the much needed medicine to treat those mothers suffering from 
HIV/AIDS, to prevent the next orphan from occurring in Africa, to 
prevent mother-to-child transmissions so we don't have children born 
who will be orphans if the mothers don't get treatment and then they 
themselves will contract AIDS--we can do something that is real, 
tangible, that saves lives and improves the quality of the life of the 
people and gives, more importantly, some hope to those who have no

[[Page S11302]]

hope. To a world that has in many respects turned their backs to this 
problem, we will show here in the U.S. Senate that we are willing to 
give up a little bit, a little bit across the board from programs that 
may get us votes back home, seven-hundredths of a percent to provide 
for those who have no voice in the Senate.
  I know at 5:20 we were hoping to try to get some votes. We are 
reaching that time, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask an inquiry of Senator Reid of 
Nevada. If he could tell me, I was going under the impression that we 
would move to a vote at 5:20 and I would speak to the amendment which I 
have pending, but if there is other information I should be aware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona was concerned. He 
had some questions. I have checked with the people on the majority. He 
has no problem with our going ahead with the first vote. So I say to my 
friend from Illinois, within a minute, the Chair will call the vote in 
compliance with the order previously entered.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I inquire of the Chair, is there a unanimous consent 
agreement as to the time allocated to myself as sponsor of the 
amendment and anyone in opposition to speak before the roll is called?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an agreement for 2 minutes equally 
divided before the vote on the amendment.
  Mr. REID. I would say to the Chair, it is my understanding, also, we 
are going to do a better job of enforcing the 1-minute rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be so advised.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I further inquire at this point if the amendment has 
not been called, may I be recognized to speak, or is it time?


                           Amendment No. 1613

  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Durbin Amendment be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There are now 2 minutes equally divided. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, for those tortured souls who are 
following this debate, understand what we have said about the 
centerpiece of education reform in America, No Child Left Behind. 
Yesterday, we said we were unwilling to provide the funds that we 
promised to make No Child Left Behind work--unwilling to provide the 
title I funds. We are going to undercut that funding by some $6 billion 
so money will not be available to help tutor children who are not doing 
well on tests.
  In the previous amendment, I said if we are not going to provide the 
funds, we should not mandate the school districts to comply with No 
Child Left Behind, and that was defeated. So the Members of the Senate 
said, despite the fact we have not funded No Child Left Behind, we are 
going to enforce mandates on the school districts in America.
  Now I give colleagues another chance. This says that when it comes to 
teacher quality and mandates in No Child Left Behind, we will provide 
the money we promised so that the teacher in the classroom is qualified 
to teach. It is a $450 million amendment. I commend it to my 
colleagues.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the chairman of the committee has worked 
hard to resolve this issue in the current legislation. We have $3.378 
billion as it relates to teacher quality programs and the enhancement 
thereof. This is a substantial increase. There is probably never 
enough, but because of the caps and the allocations necessary, there is 
more now than there ever has been.
  I hope our colleagues will stand with the committee and chairman in 
opposing the Durbin Amendment.
  With that, I raise a point of order under section 504 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 2004 that the amendment 
exceeds the discretionary spending limits in this specified section and 
is not in order.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pursuant to section 504(b)(2) of H. Con. 
Res. 95, I move to waive section 504 of that concurrent resolution for 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I 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 clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Coleman) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are 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. 343 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     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
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Coleman
     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.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1585

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 minutes 
evenly divided before the vote in respect to the Ensign amendment. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will be very brief. This amendment is adding $100 
million for the afterschool programs. It is offset. We do a small 
across-the-board cut; it will only be .012 percent for the programs. I 
think any of the programs can take that. But in the process, we are 
going to be helping a lot of kids who otherwise are going to be 
becoming juvenile delinquents. We know the statistics. If you don't 
have kids in the right activities, they get into trouble. If they are 
sitting around with nothing to do, they get into trouble. Afterschool 
programs are perhaps one of the best anticrime measures we can take. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, be prepared. 
This is the first of the across-the-board cut amendments. As good as it 
sounds, afterschool programs, this is what this little cut will cost. 
It will deny 92 grants for research at the National Institutes of 
Health, it will take 1,134 kids out of the Head Start Program, it

[[Page S11303]]

will mean 6,494 households will not be served by LIHEAP, and 403,000 
meals for seniors will not be served.
  This is a get-well amendment for many of our colleagues who have 
consistently voted against these education programs. Please, as good as 
it sounds, don't cut these valuable resources for NIH and other 
education programs to fund the afterschool programs as suggested by the 
Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. May I say for the record I thought it was my prerogative 
to oppose the amendment, but I would like to incorporate by reference 
everything the Senator from Illinois said as if I had said it. He did a 
good job.

                          ____________________