[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12806-12847]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
            RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or 
in relation to the Dodd amendment not take place at the conclusion of 
argument; that it be stacked later this afternoon at a time to be 
mutually agreed upon after consulting with the leaders on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is not too much need for me to 
respond to the Senator from Connecticut. I think he has already stated 
my position in toto. I do think this afterschool program, which he has 
proposed to add to, is a worthwhile program. But it is beyond the 
limits with which our subcommittee has to work. He is correct that I 
will make a motion that it exceeds the allocation to our committee at 
the appropriate time.
  Afterschool is very important. It is sort of a twin brother to day 
care. Last year, I agreed with the Senator from Connecticut to scrimp 
and save and use a sharp pencil to find $817 million more to bring day 
care up to $2 billion, which we did. I thought that kind of an 
allocation might have satisfied the Senator from Connecticut for a 
year. But it has not. So we will have to face this when it comes along.
  He said to me: That is day care.
  I said: Day care is very important. Bringing it up by more than $800 
million to $2 billion was a tough job, Senator Dodd.
  I called him Chris at the time.
  We thought that being a twin brother to afterschool, we might have 
avoided an amendment.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DODD. I was as complimentary as I could be. But I will be even 
more complimentary. I am deeply grateful to the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. It is very tough being the manager of a bill that funds 
the Department of Education because there is no priority higher than 
education. The only one on a level with it is health care. And we have 
the funding coming out of the same pool of money.
  We made the allocations as best we could. I know of the devotion of 
the Senator from Connecticut to this cause. He and I were elected at 
the same time. He withstood the Reagan landslide in 1980 to be one of 
two Democrats elected to open seats, when 16 Republicans came in. And 
he and I cochaired the Children's Caucus at that time.
  In 1987, when he proposed family leave, I was his cosponsor, with a 
lot of turmoil just on this side of the aisle. We have worked together 
over the years for education and for children. I commend him for all 
that he has done.

[[Page 12807]]

  We have added to education some $4.6 billion. We are $100 million 
more than the President in education this year.
  We have increased funding tremendously for children and young people 
in America. The Head Start Program comes, curiously enough, under the 
Department of Health and Human Services. There is an increase this year 
of $1 billion to Head Start, coming up to $6.2 billion. We have 
increased special education by $1.3 billion, bringing it up to $7.3 
billion. We have increased innovative State grants by $2.7 billion for 
more teachers, class size, and for school construction, with the 
proviso that it is limited. It is up to the local school district if 
they decide to do something else with it.
  When it comes to the program the Senator from Connecticut is talking 
about, the 21st Century Learning Centers, we have added $146.6 million 
to bring the figure up to $600 million. In fiscal year 1999, it was 
$200 million. So we are moving right along on it to provide the maximum 
amount of money we can.
  It is not an easy matter to allocate $104.5 billion--as much money as 
that is--for the National Institutes of Health and for drug programs 
and for school violence programs. We have done the best job we could. 
It is with reluctance that I raise a point of order.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have made the essential arguments which are relevant. 
In the interest of moving the bill along and saving time, I make a 
point of order under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, as amended, that 
the effect of adopting the Dodd amendment provides budget authority in 
excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 
2001 concurrent resolution on the budget and is not in order.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as previously agreed to by unanimous 
consent, the vote will be delayed to a time agreed upon by the leaders 
later today. I yield back the remainder of my time so we may proceed 
with the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3659

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the technology literacy challenge 
                                 fund)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3659 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3659.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the total amount made available under this title to carry out 
     the technology literacy challenge fund under section 3132 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be 
     $517,000,000.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the 
Kerry amendment be 1 hour equally divided. We have already talked about 
this. I understand there is agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Bingaman and Mikulski be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me pick up, if I may, on the comments 
made by the Senator from Connecticut. There is a relationship between 
these amendments that are proposed by Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Dodd, and myself. They are made with great respect 
for the leadership of the appropriations subcommittee. I share the 
feelings expressed by Senator Dodd that they are working within the 
constraints that have been imposed on them by the Congress in a sense 
through the budgeting process.
  What we are asking of our colleagues is to begin a process by which 
we more accurately reflect the truth of the budgeting process and the 
choices we as Senators face. The fact is, we have the ability to 
provide 60 votes to waive and to proceed to make a statement as the 
Senate that we believe a specific priority is significant enough that 
we ought to depart from the constraints. The constraints under which we 
are operating, that were very properly and articulately listed by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, are restraints imposed by a Budget Act and 
by allocations that do not reflect the reality of the budget choice we 
face as a country because of the level of surplus. Since those 
allocations were made, we have in fact learned that we have a 
significant amount of additional funds available to us to begin to 
choose how we will reflect the priorities of our Nation.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a lot of us on 
this side of the aisle joined with them to put in place the fiscal 
discipline we all laud and believe is appropriate. It was a 1993 vote, 
in fact, that put in place the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of us are 
pleased that we finally were able to set this country on a course where 
we now have the current surpluses. We have to start to be smart about 
what kind of choices we are going to make.
  I keep hearing colleagues on both sides of the aisle come to the 
floor. They lament what is happening to children in America. They 
lament what is happening with respect to young people who are 
increasingly feeding into the juvenile justice system of the Nation. We 
hear the cries of anguish about children having children out of 
wedlock, about the failure of marriage in this country. But we don't 
seem to connect our legislative actions to things that really might 
make a difference in the lives of young people so they will choose a 
more moral, traditional, affirmative course for their own life.
  How do kids make those kinds of choices? Traditionally, in the 
America we always hear Members talking about, we have family, which is 
the best teacher of all, the most important connection of a child to 
their future. We have schools and teachers. History in America is 
replete with great personalities who harken back to a particular 
teacher who affected their life. We hear less and less of those stories 
in modern America. Finally, there is organized religion. Organized 
religion is the other great teaching entity. Not one that we are 
supposed to, in this body, specifically legislate about, but it is 
proper to acknowledge the role that religion plays as one of those 
three great teachers in the lives of children.
  The truth is, in America today we have an awful lot of young children 
who don't have contact with any one of those three teachers, not one. 
Their teachers are the streets. Colin Powell talks about it in his 
America's Promise, which appeals to people to make a voluntary 
commitment to try to intervene in the lives of some of those children 
and replace the absence of those three great teachers.
  What kids learn in the streets is not the real values of America; it 
is what I call ``coping skills.'' They learn how to get by. They learn 
how to survive. They learn the sort of ``law of the jungle,'' as some 
used to call it. The fact is, we are not doing enough, we Senators are 
not doing enough, to leverage those things that make a difference in 
the absence of the three great teachers.
  I ask any one of my colleagues: How do we break the cycle of a kid 
having a kid out of wedlock? How do we break the cycle of a child 
raised in an abusive household, whose role models in life are people 
who beat up on each other, shoot drugs, get into trouble, such as the 
role models for that 6-year-old kid

[[Page 12808]]

who shot a 6-year-old classmate living in a crack house with an uncle, 
a parent in jail, no one responsible?
  What is that child's future, unless adults make the decision to 
somehow provide those positive forces that make a difference? What are 
the positive forces? Well, the positive forces are often some of the 
faith-based interventions, whether it is the Jewish Community Center or 
a Baptist organization or the Catholic Charities; but there are those 
entities out there that have a wonderful, extraordinary capacity to 
bring kids back from the brink. And then there are those organized 
entities that also do it, such as the Boys and Girls Club; Big Brother/
Big Sister; YMCA and YWCA; or a program in Boston called Youth Build, 
or City Year. All of these provide young people with alternatives and 
the ability to have surrogate parenting, fundamentally. That is what is 
really taking place. What is really taking place is those entities is 
providing an alternative.
  Now, we will debate in the Senate whether or not we are going to 
provide 200,000 H-1B visas. I am for it. I think we ought to provide 
that, or more, because we have an immediate need in this country to 
provide skilled people in order to keep the economic boom going and 
provide for critical technologies, to have good working people. But has 
it not occurred to my colleagues what an insult it is to our own system 
that we have to go abroad and import skilled labor to the United 
States, even as we are putting thousands of young kids into prison, 
into the juvenile justice system, and out into the streets, as the 
Senator from Connecticut just said, because we don't have afterschool 
programs? What are we going to do? We are going to import 200,000 
skilled people to make up for the unskilled people whom we leave 
unskilled because we are unwilling to make the adult choices in the 
Senate that would make a difference in their lives.
  How can we boast about the extraordinary surplus we have in this 
country, with the stock market climbing to record levels, the most 
extraordinary amounts of wealth ever created in the history of any 
nation on the planet right here in the United States, but poverty among 
children has increased by 50 percent and the number of kids who are at 
risk has increased.
  I don't believe in the Federal Government taking over these programs. 
I don't believe in Washington dictating the solutions. But I do believe 
in Washington leveraging the capacity of people at the local level to 
be able to do what they know they need to do. So we are reduced to a 
debate where the Senator from Pennsylvania has to say, well, oh, my 
gosh, under our 201(b) allocation--or whatever the appropriate section 
is--we don't have enough money to be able to allocate because we have a 
total cap that has no relationship to the reality of what we must do.
  We keep saying, isn't it terrific that we have raised the amount of 
money--and it is terrific--when the real question is, are we doing what 
we need to do to get the job done? That is the question we ought to be 
asking.
  What is it going to take to guarantee that children in the United 
States of America are safe? What does it take to guarantee that we 
don't dump 5 million kids out into the streets in the afternoons, 
unsafe, and exposed to drug dealers and to all of the vagaries of the 
teenage years and all of the pressures that come with it in a modern 
society that doesn't have parents around to be able to help those kids 
make a better choice? We don't have to do that. We ought to make it the 
goal of the Senate to guarantee that every child in America is going to 
be safe and secure between the hours when teachers stop teaching and 
when those parents are coming home. And we can ask 100,000 questions 
about why it is we are not providing arts and music and sports and 
libraries that are open full-time, and Internet access.
  That is where my amendment comes in, Mr. President. Senator Kennedy 
has an amendment on teacher quality, which is linked to the capacity of 
kids to fill those high tech jobs that we talk about. Senator Dodd has 
an amendment talking about making those kids safe after school. My 
amendment seeks to increase the funding for the technology literacy 
challenge fund, which is a critically important education program that 
helps provide technology access, education, professional development, 
and instruction in elementary and secondary schools.
  All we say is that to qualify for the money, States have to submit a 
statewide technology plan that includes a strategy on how the States 
will include private, State, local, and other entities in the continued 
financing and support of technology in schools.
  There are two points that I can't stress enough. One is the 
importance of providing young people with the opportunity to learn how 
to use technology. I am not one of those people. I don't want to 
celebrate technology to the point of it being put up on a pedestal and 
it becomes an entity unto itself. Technology is not a god; it is not a 
philosophy; it is not a way of life. Technology is a tool, a useful 
tool. It is a critical tool for the modern marketplace and the modern 
world. But we are preordaining that we are going to have to have next 
year's H-1B plan, and the next year's H-1B plan, and another prison, 
and another program to deal with a whole lot of young kids for whom the 
digital divide becomes more and more real, who don't have accessability 
or the capacity to be able to gain the skills necessary to share in 
this new world. The fact is that there are too many teachers who don't 
have the ability to even teach; we have the schools wired; we have the 
e-rate.
  We are beginning to get increased access to the Internet. But what do 
you do with it? How many teachers know how to use the technology to 
really be able to educate kids? How many kids are, in fact, having the 
benefit of the opportunity of having teachers who have those skills so 
that they can ultimately maximize their opportunities?
  All we are suggesting is that we ought to be doing more to empower--
not to mandate, not to dictate, but to empower--those local communities 
that desperately want to do this but don't have the tax base to be able 
to do it. Let's give them that ability. That is the best role the 
Federal Government can play--to leverage things that represent national 
priorities, leverage the things that represent the best goals and 
aspirations of ourselves as a Nation. It is not micromanagement; it is, 
rather, putting in place a mechanism by which we have national 
priorities--to have good, strong families, to have kids who are 
computer literate, and to have more skilled workers. Those are national 
priorities. But if we turn our heads away and say the only priority in 
this country is to sort of sequester this money for the senior 
generation in one form or another, without any regard to the generation 
that is coming along that needs to fund Social Security, that needs to 
have a high value-added job so they can pay into it and adequately 
protect it, that is not Social Security protection.
  We have gone from 13 workers paying in for every 1 that is taking 
out--13 workers paying into the system for every 1 worker taking out--
to three paying in and one taking out. Now there are two paying in and 
one taking out.
  We have a vested interest as a nation in making sure those two paying 
in are capable of paying in; that they have a high value-added job that 
empowers them to pay in; when they pay in, it doesn't take so much of 
their income that they feel so oppressed by the system that they are 
not able to invest in their own children and in their own future.
  That is in our interest. That is a national priority.
  If we don't begin in the Senate tomorrow to adequately reflect the 
needs of our children in the money that we allocate, we will be 
seriously missing one of the greatest priorities the country faces.
  All of us understand the degree to which there is an increase in the 
digital divide of the country. The technology literacy challenge fund 
is a critical effort to try to provide those kids with an opportunity 
to close that gap.
  Last year, my home State of Massachusetts received $8.1 million. Some 
of

[[Page 12809]]

the programs it put in place are quite extraordinary. Let me share with 
my colleagues one of the examples of this program that works so 
effectively. It is called the Lighthouse Technology Grant.
  The Lighthouse Technology Grant incorporates new technologies into 
the State curriculum framework so that it better motivates children to 
be able to learn.
  One of the schools in my State--the Lynn Woods Elementary School in 
Lynn--is integrating technology into the classroom by virtue of this 
grant. Fifth grade students at the Lynn Woods school are studying 
Australia. They have been able to videoconference directly with 
Australian students who are studying the Boston area.
  You have students engaging in a very personal and direct way, all of 
which encourages their learning and enhances their interest in the 
topic. They have also developed writing skills through special e-mail 
pen pal programs with Australian students.
  In addition, they have been able to connect more directly with the 
experience of life, thereby asking very direct questions and engaging 
in a personal exchange that they never could have experienced before 
because of telephone rates and because of the difficulties of 
communication under any kind of telephone circumstance.
  The Lighthouse Technology Grant is only one of eight programs funded 
by this challenge grant in Massachusetts. It also provides grants to a 
virtual high school program which enables school districts to offer 
students Internet courses ranging from advanced academic courses to 
technical and specialized courses. Let me emphasize the importance of 
that to my colleagues.
  A few weeks ago, I visited a high school in Boston, an inner-city 
high school, Dorchester High. I found that in this high school of 
almost 1,000 students in the inner city they are not able to provide 
advanced placement courses. I ask everybody here to imagine a high 
school that is supposed to be state of the art that doesn't have 
advanced placement courses.
  Yet, because of the virtual high school and because of the access to 
the Internet, if we close the digital divide, we can in fact make it 
affordable and accessible for schools that today have difficulty 
finding the teachers, affording the teachers, and providing the 
curriculum--and be able to do so immediately.
  That is the difference between somebody being able to go to college 
or being college ready or being able to go to college and advance 
rapidly in the kinds of curriculum and courses that will make even a 
greater difference in their earning capacity and in their citizen-
contributing capacity at a later time. We need to recognize that unless 
we encourage this to happen, the transformation could take a lot longer 
than we want it to take.
  For example, it has taken only 7 years for the Internet to be adopted 
by 30 percent of Americans. That is compared to 17 years for television 
to be adopted by 38 percent, and for the telephone, 38 percent during 
the same amount of time.
  The world of work is obviously so much different and at a faster 
rate. But if we leave kids behind for a longer period of time, we will 
greatly restrain their learning capacity as well as our growth capacity 
as a country.
  The technology literacy challenge fund has been funded under the 
committee's mark at about $425 million. The administration actually 
asked for $450 million. The House has set a figure of $517 million. I 
think that is more reflective of the level of funding that is necessary 
in order to achieve the kind of transition that we wish for in this 
country. Some might argue we could even do more. But it is clear to me 
that by measuring the priorities as expressed by other colleagues we 
can, in fact, do more if we will challenge the system a little bit, if 
we will push the limits a little bit, and if we will look at the 
reality of the budget choices that the Congress faces.
  I think nothing could be more important for all of us as Senators and 
as Congress this year. I hope my colleagues will embrace the notion 
that we can in fact do an appropriate waiver of the budget and set this 
as a priority of the Senate.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, here again, there is little doubt that 
technology literacy is a very important matter for America. There is no 
doubt about that at all. Here again, it is a matter of how our 
allocations are going to run.
  We debated the Dodd amendment earlier today about afterschool 
programs--again, a good program. There is a question about the amount 
of money and where the priorities are.
  We debated the Kennedy amendment about teacher recruitment--another 
good program.
  We had to turn down amendments yesterday by Senator Wellstone who 
wanted more money for title I; Senator Bingaman, also more money for 
title I; Senator Murray asked for an additional $325 million on top of 
$1.4 billion which was supplied for class size. There is no doubt that 
so many of these programs are excellent programs.
  The Senator from Massachusetts in offering this amendment noted the 
constraints we are operating under with respect to how much money we 
have in our allocation. We have established priorities. We have greatly 
increased the education account by some $4.6 billion. That is a 
tremendous increase, coming to a total of $40.2 billion. In our 
education account, we have $100 million more than the President asked 
for.
  I have already today gone over a long list of items where we have 
increased funding on education on very important items. It is a matter 
of making the appropriate allocation and the setting of priorities.
  I say to my colleague from Massachusetts that the House of 
Representatives has established a mark of $517 million in this account. 
It is entirely plausible that the figure that is in the Senate bill 
will be substantially increased.
  We will certainly keep in mind the eloquence of Senator Kerry's 
arguments. There is no doubt about technology and about the need for 
more funding in technology.
  I believe that a country with an $8 trillion gross national product 
can do better on education. I said earlier today and have said many 
times on this floor that I am committed to education, coming from a 
family which emphasizes education so heavily, my parents having very 
little education and my siblings and I being able to succeed--I guess 
you would call it success to come to the Senate--because of our 
educational opportunities.
  That is the essence of our position. We have substantially more time.
  I inquire of the Chair: How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 26 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could direct a question to the manager 
of the bill, it is my understanding Senator Wellstone will offer one of 
his amendments next.
  Mr. SPECTER. That is fine.
  Mr. REID. I will also have Senator Wellstone agree to a time limit.
  Mr. SPECTER. Speaking of the time limit with Senator Wellstone on the 
floor, may we agree to 30 minutes equally divided, 20 minutes equally 
divided, 15 minutes equally divided? How much time does Senator 
Wellstone desire?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I did not hear the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggested a time agreement of 30 
minutes equally divided, perhaps 20 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, my guess is 
it will take me about 40 minutes on my side. I prefer not to agree to a 
time limit. I don't think I will go more than that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from Minnesota be willing to enter a 
time agreement of an hour, 40 minutes

[[Page 12810]]

for the Senator from Minnesota, and 20 minutes for our side?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to do so.
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent the time be set on the Wellstone 
amendment at 1 hour, with the Senator from Minnesota having 40 minutes 
and our side having 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that no 
second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. If the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to yield back time, 
I am prepared to do the same. I want to reserve one comment.
  I appreciate everything the Senator has said. I appreciate his 
comments. I know he wants to do more. Unless we in the Senate tackle 
this beast called the allocation process, and unless we begin to 
challenge the constraints within which we are now dealing, we are not 
doing our job.
  These votes are an opportunity to try to do that. My plea is to the 
Senator, the Appropriations Committee, and others, that we begin to try 
to change these shackles that are keeping us from responding to the 
real needs of the country. The measurement should not be what we are 
doing against a baseline set by us. The measurement should be, what 
will it take to guarantee we can turn to Americans and say we are 
addressing the problem, we are getting the job done.
  We need to close that gap.
  I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote on the 
Kerry amendment be deferred, to be stacked later today at a time to be 
mutually agreed upon by our respective leaders.
  I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as 
amended, that the effect of adopting the Kerry amendment provides 
budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocations 
under the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget, and is 
not in order.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of 
that act for consideration 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3644

  (Purpose: To provide funds for the loan forgiveness for child care 
                   providers program, with an offset)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment 3644.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3644.

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

       On page 71, after line 25, add the following:
       Sec. __. (a) In addition to any amounts appropriated under 
     this title for the loan forgiveness for child care providers 
     program under section 428K of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-11), an additional $10,000,000 is 
     appropriated to carry out such program.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     amounts made available under titles I and II, and this title, 
     for salaries and expenses at the Departments of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, respectively, shall be 
     reduced on a pro rata basis by $10,000,000.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer a very 
simple amendment. This amendment asks only that we appropriate an 
additional $10 million to fund the loan forgiveness program which was 
authorized under the Higher Education Act. This is a loan forgiveness 
program for women and men who go into child care work. This would be 
taken from administrative expenses in the overall budget.
  Despite the fact that we know that child care workers struggle to pay 
back their student loans, and that all too many of them earn poverty-
level wages without benefits, which means in turn that many of them are 
forced to leave their work for higher paid work, we have yet to 
appropriate one penny for this forgiveness program.
  I originally offered this amendment calling for loan forgiveness for 
those men and women who go into the child care field with Senator 
DeWine. My thought was this is sacred work. This is important work. 
This is work with small children. If people are going to be paid 
miserably low wages--many having no health care benefits at all, and we 
understand the importance of early childhood development--then let's at 
least have a loan forgiveness that will encourage men and women to go 
into this area.
  Right now the child care situation in the United States is critical. 
We have a system in place where child care is prohibitively high for 
working families. It is not uncommon for a family to be paying $6,000 
per child, $12,000 per year, $10,000 per year. Maybe the family's 
overall income is $35,000 or $40,000.
  At the same time, we have child care workers who are taking care of 
children during the most critical years of development and they don't 
even make poverty wages.
  It seems counterintuitive. How can it be that on the one hand child 
care is so expensive, but on the other hand those men and women who 
work in this field are so underpaid?
  The problems of the high costs and the low wages are inevitable under 
the current system of child care delivery in the United States. 
Colleagues, this amendment is just one vote, but this is a central 
issue of American politics. Talk to working families in this country 
and they will list child care as one of their top concerns. They are 
not just talking about the cost of child care, but they are also saying 
when both parents work, or as a single parent working, they worry most 
of all that their child is receiving the best care--not custodial, not 
in front of a television for 8 hours, but developmental care.
  On a personal note, I can remember as a student at the University of 
North Carolina, barely age 20, Sheila and I had our first child. I will 
never forget, 6 weeks after David was born, Sheila had to go back to 
work. That is all the time she could take off. Six weeks is not enough 
time to bond with a child. We had hardly any money. We asked around and 
we heard about a woman who took care of children. We took David over. 
After about 3 days of picking him up, every day he was listless. Before 
he had gone to this child care, this home child care setting, he was 
engaged and lively. It was wonderful.
  I was at school, I was working; Sheila was working. At 5 o'clock or 
5:30 we would come to pick him up and he was listless. Finally, after 3 
days I got concerned and I showed up at her home in the middle of the 
day. The problem was she had about 20 children she was trying to take 
care of. Most of them were in playpens and she had stuck a pacifier in 
their mouth and they were receiving no real care. There was no real 
interaction. Parents worry about this.
  I argue today on the floor of the Senate, one of the keys to making 
sure there is decent developmental child care--not custodial child 
care--is to have men and women working in this field being paid a 
decent wage. Right now, we have a 40-percent turnover in this field. 
Who pays the price? The children.
  I have said on the Senate floor before, when I was teaching at 
Carleton College as a college teacher for 20 years, I had conversations 
with students who came to me and said: Look, don't take it personally. 
We think you are a good teacher, Paul, and we really appreciate your 
work as a teacher. But we would like to go into early childhood 
development. The problem is, when you make $8 an hour, with no health 
care benefits, and you have a

[[Page 12811]]

huge student loan to pay off, especially at a college like Carleton, 
you can't afford to do it. Some of the people want to go into this 
field, which we say is so important, but they can't afford to do it.
  The least we could do is have a small loan forgiveness program.
  The result of the system we have right now is poverty-level earnings 
for the workforce.
  By the way, who are the child care providers in the country today? 
Mr. President, 98 percent of them are women, and one-third of them are 
women of color. We can do a lot better. We pay parking lot attendants 
and men and women who work at the zoos in America twice as much as we 
pay those men and women who take care of our small children. Something 
is profoundly wrong when we pay people who care for our cars and our 
pets more money than we do for those who care for our children.
  Let me go over the facts. The average teacher based at a child care 
center earns roughly $7 an hour. Despite above average levels of 
education, roughly one-third of the child care workers earn the minimum 
wage. Even those at the highest end of the pay scale, who are likely to 
have a college degree and several years of experience, make about $10 
an hour. Family child care providers--a lot of child care is in homes--
make even less money. People who care for small groups of children in 
their home make on average about $9,000 per year after all expenses are 
figured in.
  A recent study by the Center For The Childcare Workforce finds that 
family child care providers earn on the average, when you take into 
account their costs, $3.84 an hour, given their typical 55-hour week. 
Not only that, but the majority of child care workers in our country 
receive no health benefits, despite high exposure to illness. A lot of 
kids, when they come, have the flu and they pass it around. Fewer than 
one-third of the child care providers in this country today have health 
insurance, and an even smaller percentage of child care workers have 
any pension plan whatsoever. A recent study in my State of Minnesota 
found that only 31 percent of child care centers offered full-time 
employees fully paid health care.
  The consequences of these dismal conditions are clear. Let me just 
put it into perspective for colleagues. In the White House Conference 
on the Development of the Brain, they talked about how important it is 
that we get it right for children in the very early years of their 
lives. The medical evidence is irrefutable and irreducible that these 
are the most critical years. We all want to have our pictures taken 
next to children --the smaller the children are, the better. Yet at the 
same time we have done so precious little to make a commitment to this 
area. We have child care workers, men and women who work in these 
centers, who do not even make half of what people make who work in our 
zoos. I think work in the zoo is important, but I also think work with 
small children is important.
  We have the vast majority of child care workers barely making minimum 
wage or a little bit above, only about a third at best having any 
health care coverage whatsoever.
  Senator DeWine and I, several years ago, help pass a bill that 
authorized some loan forgiveness so you would have men and women who 
could go to college, with the idea they would go into this critically 
important field and their loans would be forgiven. What I am trying to 
do, taking it out of administrative expenses, is just finally to get a 
little bit of appropriation; start out with $10 million so we finally 
set the precedent that we are willing to fund this. We have not put one 
penny into this program so far.
  What happens is that we have this high turnover. As I said before, 
probably about 40 percent or thereabouts of child care workers in any 
given year go from one job to another. That figure may be a little 
high, but it is a huge turnover. Who pays the price? The children pay 
the price. As I look at my own figures, I guess it is about a third, a 
third of this country's child care workforce leaves the job each year 
because they are looking for better work. This leads to a dangerous 
decline in the quality of child care for our families. The most 
dangerous decline in quality is the care for toddlers, for infants. 
They are exposed to the poorest care of all.
  We have not appropriated one cent for the loan forgiveness program we 
authorized 2 years ago, and at the same time you have 33 percent of 
child care workers every year leaving, and you don't have the 
continuity of care for our children, for families in this country. At 
the same time, it is the infants and the toddlers who are the ones who 
are most in jeopardy. At the same time, we have not made any commitment 
whatsoever to at least--at least, this doesn't change everything in the 
equation--make sure we have a loan forgiveness program.
  Another thing that is happening is that as we begin to see a severe 
teacher shortage, a lot of child care workers are saying that they 
can't make it on $8 an hour with no health care benefits. A lot of 
younger people say they can't make it on $8 an hour with no health care 
benefits and a big loan to pay off. They now become our elementary 
school teachers or middle school teachers.
  As a result, what you have is, at the same time the number of child 
care providers is decreasing, the number of families who need good 
child care for their children is dramatically increasing. That is not 
just because of the welfare bill, but because the reality of American 
families today, for better or for worse--sometimes I wonder--is that 
you just don't have one parent staying at home. In most families, both 
parents are working full time. This is a huge concern to families in 
this country. We could help by passing this amendment.
  I want to talk about one study in particular that I think, in a 
dramatic way, puts into focus what I am talking about. It was a recent 
study by the University of California at Berkeley and Yale University. 
They found that a million more toddlers and preschoolers are now in 
child care because of the welfare law. That wouldn't surprise anyone, 
given the emphasis on people going to work. So far, so good.
  But they also found that many of these children are in low-quality 
care, where they lag behind other children in developmental measures. 
This was a study of 1,000 single mothers moving from welfare to work. 
They wanted to know where were their children. What they found out was 
their children were, by and large, placed in child care settings where 
they watched TV all the time, wandered aimlessly, and there was little 
interaction with caregivers. Here is the tragedy of it. Many of these 
toddlers from these families showed developmental delays.
  Would anybody be surprised? Anyone who has spent any time with small 
children would not be surprised. When asked to point to a picture of a 
book from among three different pictures, fewer than two in five of the 
toddlers in the study pointed to the right picture compared to a 
national norm of four out of five children.
  One of the study's authors is quoted as saying:

       We know that high quality child care can help children and 
     that poor children can benefit the most. So we hope that this 
     will be a wake-up call to do something about the quality of 
     child care in this country. The quality of daycare centers is 
     not great for middle class families, but it is surprising and 
     distressing to see the extent to which welfare families' 
     quality was even lower.

  I simply want to point out that just because a family is a welfare 
family or just because a family is a poor family does not mean these 
small children are not as deserving of good child care. That is not the 
situation today in the country.
  Ironically, as we see the child care system deteriorating, we are now 
putting more and more emphasis on the importance of developmental child 
care. We are saying at the same time that we want to make sure single 
parents work and families move from welfare to work. We are putting the 
emphasis on work, and more families have to work to make it.
  The median income in our country today is about $40,000 a year. The 
income profile is not that high. We know investment in early childhood 
development pays for itself many times over.

[[Page 12812]]

We know good child care programs dramatically increase the chances for 
children to do well in school, for children to go on beyond K-12 and go 
to college and do well in their lives, and we know the lives of low-
income families, in particular, quite often lack some of the advantages 
other families in this country have. Children from low-income families 
do not always have the same vocabulary; there is not always the 
opportunity for a parent or parents to read to them. Therefore, the 
learning gap by kindergarten is wide. Some children start way behind, 
and then they fall further behind.
  I cite one study which began in the seventies on the effects of early 
childhood intervention. Children who received comprehensive, quality, 
early education did better on cognitive, reading and math tests than 
children who did not. This positive effect continues through age 21 and 
beyond. Parents benefit as well. I do not understand where our 
priorities are. We should want to make a commitment to working families 
in this country and make a commitment to children.
  I want to give some evidence from the State of Minnesota, and then I 
will finish up at least with my first comments. This loan forgiveness 
program works. First, it gives people an opportunity to go to college 
who want to become child care workers. Second, the turnover is reduced. 
Third, this means we get better people.
  My own State of Minnesota has experimented. We have a State level 
loan forgiveness program. In 1998, we offered child care providers up 
to $1,500 in forgivable student loans for the first time. Fifty percent 
of the money was set aside for what we call the metro area, and 50 
percent of the money was set aside for greater Minnesota, outside the 
metro area. The money was awarded on a first come, first served basis. 
People began lining up on the first day. In the metro area, all the 
money was gone by 5 p.m. on the second day, and all of the money for 
rural Minnesota was awarded within 2 weeks.
  This year, Minnesota has made over $900,000 available through their 
loan forgiveness program. They started accepting applications in March, 
and they have committed nearly half the money to family care providers 
and 50 percent to center-based providers. A lot of it goes to rural 
Minnesota and a lot of it goes to urban Minnesota.
  I am saying to my colleagues, I am hoping I can win on this 
amendment. I take it out of administrative expenses. We know the budget 
is going to be better for this Health and Human Services bill. We know 
we do not have a good budget with which to work right now. We know the 
cap is going to go up. We know we are going to have more resources with 
which to work.
  We all say we are committed to developmental child care.
  It is one of the top issues of working families. It seems to me 
several years ago--I did this with Senator DeWine--we authorized 
legislation that called for loan forgiveness to men and women who want 
to go into this critical area, and we have not appropriated one penny. 
We can at least find it in our hearts and find our way to put some 
appropriations into this legislation. I am calling for $10 million as a 
start.
  I am saying to Senators today--and I do not think anybody can argue 
with me--there is not one Senator who can dispute the clear set of 
facts that we have to get it right for children. We have to get it 
right for them before age 3, much less before age 5. Nobody can argue 
with that.
  Nobody can argue these are not critical developmental years. Look at 
the spark in their eyes. They are experiencing all the unnamed magic in 
the world before them, as long as we encourage them. No one can argue 
that for working families this is not a huge issue, both the expense of 
child care, which I cannot deal with in this amendment, and the quality 
of the care for their children. If both parents are working or a single 
parent is working, there is nothing more important to them than making 
sure their child is receiving the best care. They do not want their 
child warehoused. They do not want their child in front of a television 
8 hours a day. They want to make sure their child is stimulated. They 
want to make sure there is nurturing for their child. They want to make 
sure there is interaction with their child.
  I do not know how some of the people who work in the child care field 
do it. They are saints; they do it out of love for children; but they 
should not be the ones who subsidize this system. We are not going to 
have good people in the child care field if they are making $8 an hour. 
We are not going to have good people if they do not have any health 
care benefits. I cannot deal with that in this amendment, but I can 
deal with one thing. I can call on my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, who say they are committed to good child care, who say 
they are committed to family values. If they are committed to family 
values, what better way to value families than to make sure that when 
people are working, their children are receiving good care? What better 
way to make sure that happens than to do something about the one-third 
turnover every year?
  How can we best deal with the one-third turnover? We need to do a lot 
of things, but this amendment in its own small way helps. I am simply 
saying we ought to at least put $10 million into this loan forgiveness 
program so we can encourage men and women--frankly, I would like to see 
more men in this field; it is almost all women in this field. At least 
they know their loan will be forgiven. That will make a huge 
difference. That is all this amendment is about.
  I also say to my colleagues, I offer this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senator DeWine. I am so pleased Senator DeWine is a 
cosponsor. I have done a number of different bills and legislation with 
Senator DeWine. We did the Workforce Investment Act together, and we 
did this authorization together. I do not think we are asking too much.
  This is actually a crisis. The fact is, the studies that have come 
out about the quality of child care in this country are pretty 
frightening. Sometimes it is downright dangerous, but almost always it 
is barely adequate, and we have to do something about it. One of the 
best ways we can show we care is to at least begin putting some funding 
into this loan forgiveness program.
  I reserve the remainder of my time if, in fact, there is substantive 
debate on this issue. Otherwise, I will make a few other points. I 
reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the committee, we are 
prepared to accept this Wellstone amendment which provides $10 million 
for loan forgiveness for child care providers. The program was 
authorized by the Higher Education Amendment of 1998 and has never been 
funded.
  The administration did not request funding, I might add. A $10 
million offset in administrative expenses will pay for this amendment.
  If the Senator is agreeable, I will accept the amendment to forgive 
loans for child care providers who complete a degree in early childhood 
education and obtain employment in a child care facility located in 
low-income communities. That is acceptable to us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska. And 
if this is not presumptuous of me to say, normally I like to call for a 
recorded vote, but I would be pleased to have a voice vote, if that is 
what my colleague wants. And there is one reason why. I can't get an 
ironclad commitment from the Senator from Alaska, but I make a plea to 
him to please try to help me keep it in conference. It would be a small 
step toward getting funding for this. I know the Senator is very 
effective. I don't need to have a recorded vote if he can at least tell 
me he will certainly try.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator does not need a recorded vote. This 
amendment probably applies to my State more than any other State in the 
Union. I assure him I will be asserting his position in conference.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am very glad to hear that. I think I

[[Page 12813]]

would be pleased to go forward with a voice vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we ask for the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do both Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back our time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3644) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are awaiting clearance--I understand 
there is a Kennedy amendment on job training. We would like to get a 
time agreement on that. I would urge that we consider that at this 
time.
  Does the Senator wish the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the manager, the chairman of the 
full committee, Senator Stevens, we would like to have Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island offer the next amendment. He is on his way over to do 
that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is it possible to get a time agreement on that?
  Mr. REID. Yes, it is.
  Mr. STEVENS. We would like to get time agreements so it would be 
possible to stack votes later, if that is possible. Is the Senator 
prepared to indicate how long it might be?
  Mr. REID. We will wait until he gets here, but I don't think he will 
take a lot of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleagues, there is 
some order here. There is going to be a Reed amendment--is that 
correct?--next, and then a Kennedy amendment. I have an amendment with 
Senator Reid that deals with mental health and suicide prevention. 
Might I add that I follow Senator Kennedy? I am ready to keep rolling.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am not prepared to agree to that yet. We are not sure 
Senator Kennedy wants to offer his amendment yet. We are prepared to 
enter into a time agreement on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I might state for the information of the 
Senate, we are trying to arrange amendments from each side of the 
aisle. We urge Members on the Republican side of the aisle to come 
forward with amendments if they wish to call them up today.
  For the time being, I ask unanimous consent that on the amendment 
offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island there be a time limit of 30 
minutes equally divided, with no second-degree amendments prior to a 
vote on or in relation to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. We presume that there may be a Republican amendment 
offered after the Reed amendment. But in any event, the next Democratic 
amendment to be offered would be that of Senator Kennedy, his job 
training amendment, and prior to that vote, there would be--let's put 
it this way, that time on that amendment be limited to 60 minutes 
equally divided, with no second-degree amendments prior to a vote.
  It is my understanding there would be 2 minutes on each side. Is that 
the procedure now prior to the vote? Is that correct, may I inquire? Is 
that your desire?
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that on each of these consents 
there be a 4-minute period prior to the vote to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask my colleague in that sequence, that 
following Senator Kennedy there be a Republican and then I be allowed--
--
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding the third Democratic amendment to 
be offered would be the amendment from Senator Wellstone. We are 
awaiting the Republican amendments to see. But it will be the Reed 
amendment, then a Republican amendment, then the Kennedy amendment, 
then a Republican amendment, and then the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Senator Wellstone has agreed to 1 hour evenly divided.
  Mr. STEVENS. I don't know what the subject matter is.
  Mr. REID. Mental health.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Suicides.
  Mr. REID. It deals with suicides.
  Mr. STEVENS. We haven't seen it, but we will be pleased to consider 
an hour on that amendment and get back to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. If you need more time, we don't care. If you decide you do, 
we will add it on to ours.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let's decide the time on that amendment once we have 
seen it.
  Mr. President, while we are awaiting the next amendment, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3638

          (Purpose: To provide funds for the GEAR UP Program)

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3638, 
and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3638.

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . GEAR UP PROGRAM.

       In addition to any other funds appropriated under this Act 
     to carry out chapter 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965, there are appropriated 
     $100,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would increase funding for 
GEAR UP by $100 million. GEAR UP is a critical component of our efforts 
to provide disadvantaged young people a chance to go on to college. 
GEAR UP reaches out very early in their educational careers, giving 
them the mentoring, the support, and the information necessary to 
succeed, not only in high school but to go beyond, to enter and 
complete college.
  I offer this amendment along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray. 
We are offering it because we believe--as I am sure everyone in the 
Chamber believes--that the opportunity to go on to postsecondary 
education is central to our country and central to our aspirations in 
the Senate.
  This opportunity is particularly difficult to achieve if one is a 
low-income student in the United States. The GEAR UP program is 
specifically designed to reach out early in the career of a child, the 
sixth or seventh grade, and give them not only the skills but the 
confidence and the expectation that they can succeed and can go on to 
college. Both these skills and information, together with the 
confidence that

[[Page 12814]]

they can succeed, are essential to their progress and to our progress 
as a Nation.
  GEAR UP is based upon proven early intervention models such as the I 
Have a Dream Program and Project GRAD. These programs have succeeded in 
improving low-income student achievement, high school graduation rates, 
and college enrollment rates. We are building on a successful set of 
models.
  GEAR UP provides students with very specific services tailored to 
help them prepare for college. These services include tutoring, 
mentoring, and counseling. They are critical to ensure that students 
are equipped both academically and emotionally to succeed in college. 
We often hear about the lack of opportunities available to low-income 
families. This is particularly the case when we talk about entering and 
succeeding in college. Low-income children are the least likely 
individuals in the United States to attend college. In fact, if we look 
at high-achieving students from low-income schools and backgrounds, 
they are five times less likely to attend college as comparable 
students in higher-income schools across this country. By focusing on 
college preparation for these needy students, GEAR UP is directly 
targeted at eliminating this disparity.
  There is something else that is important about GEAR UP. There are 
many talented young people who, if they are the first child in their 
family to seriously contemplate college, do not have the advantage of 
parents who are knowledgeable about the system. Their parents often do 
not have the information and the incentives to provide the kind of 
support and assistance these young people need. That, too, must be 
addressed, and GEAR UP does that.
  In fact, GEAR UP addresses the needs not only of students but also of 
parents. In a recent survey, 70 percent of parents indicated they have 
very little information or they want more information about which 
courses their child should take to prepare for college. Eighty-nine 
percent of parents wanted more information about how to pay for 
college. This information disparity is particularly acute in low-income 
areas. Again, GEAR UP provides that type of information and assistance.
  It is well documented that continuous programs that are integrated 
into the daily school life of a child are the best types of programs to 
provide for successful outcomes. That is exactly what GEAR UP does. It 
starts early in a career, sixth and seventh grade, follows the child 
through their middle school years and into high school, and is 
integrated with other subjects so there is both continuous support and 
an integrated approach to preparing a child for college.
  GEAR UP does this through partnerships and collaborations among State 
departments of education, high-poverty school districts, institutions 
of higher education, businesses, and other private or non-profit 
community organizations. GEAR UP is a college preparatory program, a 
Federal program that focuses on children in early grades. As such, the 
existence of other programs such as TRIO does not eliminate the need to 
fully fund GEAR UP. We have to recognize that we have not only the 
responsibility but also an opportunity to fully fund the GEAR UP 
program.
  I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Specter. They have dealt with a 
variety of educational issues in a budget that constrains their 
choices--indeed, their desires--significantly. They have done 
remarkable work, including funding for the LEAP program, which provides 
low-income students with funds to go to college. But if you don't have 
the first piece, if you don't have a GEAR UP program that gives 
students the skills, the confidence, the insights to get into college, 
Pell grants and LEAP grants are irrelevant because these deserving 
young students won't even be in the mix.
  GEAR UP is important. It is fundamental. The budget that Senators 
Specter and Harkin were dealing with did not give them the full range 
of choices they needed to ensure they could fund these important 
priorities. That is why we are here today, to provide a total of $325 
million for GEAR UP, an increase of $100 million over what is in this 
current appropriations bill. If we do this, it will allow every State 
to have a GEAR UP program. As a result of the additional $100 million, 
GEAR UP would serve over 1.4 million low-income students across the 
country. That would be a significant and commendable increase in our 
efforts.
  If we don't provide this full $325 million, we will see over 400,000 
needy students denied essential academic services which are provided 
through GEAR UP. Without this amendment, the need for these types of 
skills and support systems will not be met.
  Furthermore, the demand for GEAR UP is not being met. In 1999, GEAR 
UP received 678 partnership and State grant applications covering all 
50 States. However, due to limited resources, only one out of four 
partnerships and half of the State applications could be funded. 
Clearly, the need is there. The demand is there. We must meet it with 
sufficient resources.
  Today GEAR UP's reach is limited because of the constraints on our 
appropriations. We need to provide sufficient resources so we can do 
our best to reach all the needy students in the United States.
  My home State of Rhode Island was fortunate to be one of the States 
to receive GEAR UP funding. The current Rhode Island GEAR UP program is 
comprised of a partnership of 21 nonprofit organizations known as the 
College Access Alliance of Rhode Island. They reach out to schools. 
They reach out to homes. They provide community support, a network 
which helps these young students understand their potential and tells 
them: Yes, you can go on to college; yes, you can succeed; yes, you can 
be part of this great American economy and this great American country.
  Providing these resources has helped countless young Rhode Islanders 
to reach their full academic potential. In just one year, Rhode Island 
GEAR UP has provided invaluable services. It has helped 1,300 students 
enroll and participate in summer academic programs. It has tracked the 
academic progress of over 8,000 highly mobile, disadvantaged students. 
They move many times from school to school, city to city. Rhode Island 
GEAR UP has been able to track these youngsters, keep in contact with 
them, keep encouraging them, keep getting them ready to go on to 
college. It has also identified 1,000 low-income students in need of 
extra support. It has linked these students to academic tutoring and 
mentoring, the kind of help they need to succeed.
  Although these are impressive numbers, because of limited resources 
we currently cannot duplicate this type of effort in every State, in 
every community across the country. I believe we should.
  My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Kennedy and Murray. It is 
also supported by a broad coalition of interested groups: the United 
States Student Association, the California State University; the 
College Board, the National Association for College Admission 
Counseling, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the 
American Association of Community Colleges, the National Association of 
State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the American Association of 
University Women, the American Counseling Association, the National 
Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of 
State Boards of Education, and the National PTA.
  I have a letter representing their support. At this time, I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                            United States Student Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2000.
     Hon. Jack Reed,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reed: On behalf of the undersigned, I wish to 
     express my strong support and appreciation for your amendment 
     to provide $325 million for GEAR UP in FY 2001.
       As you know, early intervention and mentoring programs 
     drastically increase the chances that low-income students 
     will attend and graduate from college. GEAR UP

[[Page 12815]]

     takes a unique approach to early intervention. First, GEAR UP 
     involves whole cohorts of students, beginning in middle 
     school and extending throughout high school. Research clearly 
     demonstrates that we must help students to begin preparing 
     for college no later than the middle school grades.
       Second, GEAR UP is sparking the development of university/
     K-12 partnerships that often include businesses and 
     community-based organizations. In fact, more than 4,500 big 
     and small businesses, community-based organizations, 
     religious and civic organizations, chambers of commerce, and 
     others joined the states, universities, and middle schools 
     that submitted applications for the first round of GEAR UP 
     awards in 1999. Clearly, our nation's business and community 
     leaders recognize that the quality of tomorrow's workforce 
     depends, in large part, upon what we do today to prepare 
     middle and high school students for the rigors of college-
     level work.
       Because such programs are crucial to increasing access to 
     higher education, we believe that it is important to point 
     out that the undersigned strongly support all efforts to 
     increase access through early intervention programs, 
     including TRIO. Although the objectives of these programs are 
     similar, the approaches that TRIO and GEAR UP employ are 
     quite different. In view of the tremendous challenges we face 
     in breaking down the barriers to college attendance for 
     students from low-income families, we also support funding 
     the TRIO program at the highest possible level.
       Some $231 million in FY01 funding is needed just to keep 
     year-one and year-two GEAR UP grantees on their current 
     trajectory. Should the Senate fail to adopt your amendment, 
     needy students in communities that have not yet received GEAR 
     UP grants will be denied the opportunity to gain the skills 
     and information essential for going to college.
       Senator Reed, we thank you for all you are doing to ensure 
     that the door to higher education is opened wide to low-
     income students in Rhode Island and throughout our nation.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely,

                                             Kendra Fox-Davis,

                                                        President,
                            The United States Student Association.

       This letter is sent on behalf of the following entities:
     American Association of University Women
     American Counseling Association
     The California Community Colleges
     The California State University
     Chicago Education Alliance
     Chicago Teachers' Center
     Cincinnati Public Schools
     Cincinnati State Technical and Community Colleges
     Cincinnati Youth Collaborative
     The College Board
     Council of the Great City Schools
     DePaul University
     Gadsden State Community College
     Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
     Loyola University
     National Alliance of Black School Educators
     National Association for College Admission Counseling
     The National Association for Migrant Education
     National Association of School Psychologists
     National Association of Secondary School Principals
     National Association of State Boards of Education
     National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs
     National Education Association
     The National HEP-CAMP Association
     National PTA
     New York State Education Department
     Northeastern Illinois University
     Ohio Appalachian Center for Higher Education
     Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
     Pennsylvania State System for Higher Education
     Roosevelt University
     Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
     Saint Olaf College
     State Higher Education Executive Officers
     State University System of Florida
     United States Student Association
     University of Cincinnati
     University of North Carolina
     University of Washington
     Vermont Student Assistance Corporation

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, one of our primary educational goals should 
be to ensure that all students with the skill, talent, and ambition to 
go to college can go to college. In order to accomplish that goal, we 
have to fund, of course, Pell grants; we have to fund the LEAP program. 
We have to do many of the things Senators Specter and Harkin have 
insisted upon in this bill. But we also have to do something which 
helps students early on through the GEAR UP program, and give these 
young students the skills, the confidence, and the expectation that 
they can and should go on to college. That is why I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the GEAR UP 
program is a very fine program. It has been in existence for a fairly 
short period of time. It originated with Congressman Chaka Fattah from 
Philadelphia, who had the initial idea and took it to the President, 
who agreed with it. It was put into effect just a few years ago. It 
started out at a funding level of $120 million. Last year, the 
President requested an increase, and we came up to some $200 million, 
and our Senate bill has $225 million in the program.
  Coincidentally, I happened to attend the President's program where he 
did one of his Saturday speeches on it. So I know the program 
thoroughly. In fact, with Congressman Chaka Fattah, I visited a school 
in west Philadelphia where this program was being used. Regrettably, 
there is simply not enough money to accommodate all of the programs, 
which are good programs, which we would like to have. It is not 
possible to accommodate the program Senator Kerry of Massachusetts 
offered about technical training, or the Bingaman amendment on an extra 
$250 million for title I, or the Wellstone amendment of $1.7 billion.
  We have put substantial money into job training programs. Job Corps 
is up to more than $650 million, with almost a $20 million increase. We 
have structured a program on school safety as to violence and a program 
as to drugs. These are programs we have structured to do the best we 
can.
  The Senator from Rhode Island has commented about what Senator Harkin 
and I have attempted to do in this bill, which is the maximum stretch, 
as I had said earlier, that can be accommodated on this side of the 
aisle at $104.5 billion. Regrettably, the money is simply not present. 
I wish it were.
  The House has $200 million, which is less than the $225 million we 
have on the Senate side. We will do our best to maintain that kind of 
an increase, which would be $25 million, which is as far as we can 
realistically go.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 and a half minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have 12 and a half minutes out of the 15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have said what I had to say. I will not use all of my 
time. How much time does the Senator from Rhode Island have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has 4 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I intend to raise a point of order under section 302(f) 
of the Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the Reed 
amendment would provide budget authority in excess of the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and therefore it is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that the Senator from Rhode 
Island still has time pending and the motion would not be in order.
  Mr. SPECTER. As I said, I intend to raise that point of order after 
he has completed his statement.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I recognize Senator Specter's dilemma with 
the budget resolution, as it fairly constrains his ability and the 
ability of his colleagues on the committee to fund programs that are 
worthwhile. In fact, I note that GEAR UP is a program that evolved from 
a model that was very popular in Pennsylvania, the I Have a Dream 
Program, and others. The Senator is familiar with it and is supportive 
of it. My point is that this is one of those critical programs, and we 
have to reach beyond this budget resolution and budget constraints and 
try to find the resources.
  It is particularly appropriate at this moment, as we are looking 
ahead at significant surpluses that are growing--dividends from tough 
fiscal decisions we have made over several years--that we begin to 
develop a strategy to invest more and more into education. GEAR UP is a 
worthwhile program--eminently worthwhile. One

[[Page 12816]]

could argue it is the first step in so much of what is included in this 
legislation, such as Pell grants, LEAP, and all of those programs that 
actually give these youngsters the money to go to college. But if they 
don't have the skill, motivation, and the confidence to try, those 
grants won't be useful to them.
  So I once again urge that we move forward with this amendment. I 
understand that the Senator from Pennsylvania will make a budget point 
of order. At that time, I will make a request to waive that applicable 
section. If the Senator is ready to make the motion, I am happy to 
yield back all my time and then be recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will just add one thing. I appreciate 
the sincerity of the comments of the Senator from Rhode Island that 
this is a more important program. That is what the proponents of all of 
the amendments have had to say. If the Senator from Rhode Island could 
find offsets within the budget resolution and tell me and Senator 
Harkin what programs are less important and have offsets, I would be 
pleased to entertain that consideration. To add to the budget, it is 
the same point that has been made repeatedly--that everybody's program 
is special. And I happen to agree with them; they are all special 
programs. But if you made it more special than something already in the 
program and have an offset, we would not raise the rule.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Reed amendment be 
stacked to occur later today at a time to be agreed upon by the 
leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield back all time if the Senator from 
Rhode Island is prepared to do the same.
  Mr. REED. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is now relevant to raise the point of 
order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act that the amendment would 
exceed the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and therefore it is not in 
order.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act 
for the consideration 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, sequencing now comes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. Parliamentary inquiry: It is my 
understanding that there is a time agreement for 1 hour equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 3678

(Purpose: To adjust appropriations for workforce investment activities 
                        and related activities)

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Robb, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
     Reed, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
     Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 3678.

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

       On page 2, line 12, strike ``$2,990,141,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,889,387,000''.
       On page 2, line 13, strike ``$1,718,801,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,239,547,000''.
       On page 2, line 15, strike ``$1,250,965,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,629,465,000''.
       On page 2, line 17, strike ``$1,000,965,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,254,465,000''.
       On page 2, line 18, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$375,000,000''.
       On page 5, line 6, strike ``$153,452,000'' and insert 
     ``$197,452,000''.
       On page 5, line 7, strike ``$3,095,978,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,196,746,000''.
       On page 5, line 26, strike ``$153,452,000'' and insert 
     ``$197,452,000''.
       On page 6, line 1, strike ``$763,283,000'' and insert 
     ``$788,283,000''.
       On page 20, line 1, strike ``$19,800,000'' and insert 
     ``$22,300,000''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is based upon a rather 
basic and fundamental concept; that is, every worker who enters the job 
market is going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of his or 
her lifetime.
  A number of years ago when I first entered the Senate many of the 
workers in my own State got a job at the Fall River Shipyard, and their 
father or mother had a job there, and many times their grandfather had 
a job there, as well. They knew early in their lives that they would 
enter the same career as their family before them. They acquired their 
skills through training. They lived their lives more often than not 
with only a high school diploma. They acquired their skills and 
upgraded their skills at the place of employment, but usually their job 
changed very little. They were able to have a very useful and 
constructive and satisfying life.
  The job market has changed dramatically in recent years. It is 
changing more every single day with the obvious globalization and the 
move towards the information economy. New technologies are creating new 
careers and new businesses, and many people are in jobs that didn't 
exist a generation ago. These new businesses are an important part of 
our new economy, and they also create many new jobs. But they have also 
created new challenges for our workers. Education has become 
increasingly important to move up the ladder in the job market. And the 
idea of continuous skill development has become a critical part of 
workplace success.
  We have learned that continuing ongoing training has to be a lifetime 
experience. We know that some companies are providing training 
programs. More often than not, those training programs are directed to 
those in the upper levels of the management of those companies. For too 
long we have left behind those who have been the real backbone of so 
many of these companies--the workers who often lack basic academic and 
technical skills.
  These programs which have been included in the amendment that I have 
offered are basically to try to make sure we are going to offer more 
workers the skills necessary in order to continue to be the world 
leader in terms of our economy.
  I don't know how many others in this body go back home over the 
weekends and meet with various groups, including various business 
groups. I find in my State of Massachusetts and generally throughout 
New England that the first issue people raise is: When are we going to 
do something about the H-1B issue? People who listen to talk about H-1B 
wonder what in the world it is. H-1B is a visa program. It permits 
importation of highly skilled foreign nationals to work in our plants 
and corporations. That is a key question on the minds of those involved 
in so many of the expanding economies in this country.
  I always say: Yes. We ought to move ahead. I hope we can move ahead 
and expand that program before we leave this Congress.
  H-1B visa provides a temporary solution to a labor market shortage of 
highly skilled workers. I think the answer to this is not only in the 
temporary way to have an expansion of the highly skilled workers coming 
to the United States, but to develop the skills for American workers so 
they can have those jobs in the future. Those are good jobs. They are 
well-paying jobs. Americans ought to be qualified for those. The only 
thing that is between Americans gaining those jobs are the training 
programs for upgrading their skills. We need to strengthen our 
secondary

[[Page 12817]]

education and provide better access to post-secondary education for 
more students. And we have to improve the access to on-the-job training 
for current workers, and provide the resources to support dislocated 
workers with training and re-employment services.
  What happened in the Senate? It is almost as if this appropriations 
bill just fell off the ceiling. It has lacked, with all due respect, 
the focus and attention to what we have tried to do in some of the 
authorizing committees.
  This fall, for the first time, we will put in place the Workforce 
Investment Act, which I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Jeffords, 
DeWine and Wellstone, to consolidate the 126 different workforce 
programs in 12 different agencies that too often are tied up with a 
good deal of bureaucracy. We started working on that legislation with 
Senator Kassebaum and it took three years before we passed that 
program.
  I had the opportunity on Monday of this last week to go out to 
Worcester, MA. There were 800 people gathered there interested in the 
work training programs from all over New England. They are eager to 
know how they are going to get the resources to try to put together 
this consolidation of training programs in order to get the skills for 
people in our region of the country. Workers know that they have to 
increase their skills, especially in the area of computer technology, 
and they want to know how to access those programs. Those discussions 
are taking place in cities and towns all over the country.
  Part of that consolidation was what we call one-stop shopping where a 
worker, for example, who has been dislocated or has lost their job, 
maybe because of the merging of various industries, would be able to 
come to one place to learn about all the options that they have for 
training. They would be able to have their skills assessed. They could 
get information on jobs that are available in their areas and the 
skills that they would need to compete for those jobs. And they would 
get an accurate assessment of their current skills.
  They could see how long each training program takes, and a look at 
the employment prospects. They also get information about how many 
former participants in those programs did in the job market. How many 
of them got jobs right away, and at what salary? They also get a look 
at how many of those workers were still employed after a year, and how 
many were able to move up in those jobs to better paying jobs with 
their companies.
  The person can make up their mind. They can say: OK. I want to take 
that particular program, and they are going to be able to go to that 
program and acquire the skills. It could be at a community college, a 
four year college or at a private center. Wherever they choose, they 
are aware of how participants of that program performed in the 
workplace.
  That is what we attempted to do in a bipartisan way 3 years ago. 
Those programs are ready to go. What happens? The appropriations bill 
pulls the rug out from under those programs.
  Our amendment is trying to restore the funding at the President's 
request to make sure we are going to have the training programs that 
are necessary so American workers can get the skills to be able to 
compete in the modern economy.
  That is what this is all about. It may not be a ``front-page issue.'' 
It may not be a ``first-10-pages issue.'' But as workers can tell you 
all over this country, skills are the defining issue as to what your 
future is going to be and what you are going to be able to provide for 
your family.
  This provides additional resources out of the surplus to be able to 
fund these programs in the way that the President has recommended.
  There has been a lack of serious attention to the various programs 
which we mentioned. Tragically, I think the most dramatic has been in 
the Summer Jobs Program.
  Here is the story in the Wall Street Journal: ``Fewer youths get a 
shot at the Summer Jobs Program. This summer the Workforce Investment 
Act replaces the Nation's previous federally supported summer jobs.''
  We tried to upgrade it and tighten it to eliminate some of the 
bureaucracy. We know that there needs to be a year-round connection to 
the job experiences that young people have in the summer. What happens? 
The minute we expand the mission of the Summer Jobs program, they cut 
out all of the funds for the Summer Jobs Programs for youth. We mandate 
a year-round approach to getting some of the neediest youth equipped 
for the world of work and we critically under-fund that effort. In 
doing that we doom those young people to fail.
  While local groups agree that the expansion will make the program 
more effective, it will be more expensive. Washington hasn't provided 
the funds. The Labor Department estimates participation will drop 25 
percent to 50 percent from last year's 500,000 young people.
  Dropping over 500,000 young people--most of them in the cities of 
this country--and cutting them loose is probably about as shortsighted 
of a decision as could be made by this Congress.
  At a time where we just had the announcement yesterday of surpluses 
going up through the roof, we are talking about today cutting out 
effectively the Summer Jobs Program for the most economically 
challenged urban and rural areas of our country.
  You can't talk to a mayor in any city of this country, large or 
small, who won't tell you that is the most shortsighted decision that 
could possibly be made by the Congress today.
  I know in my own city of Boston where they have anywhere from 10,000 
to 12,000 Summer Jobs Programs, what happens? The private sector comes 
in and provides maybe 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. They try to build upon the 
jobs program that existed in previous summers. High school students get 
a chance to improve their academic skills and learn important workplace 
skills that enable them to get higher paying jobs in future summers. 
Many of them make business connections that give them employment 
opportunities throughout high school and college.
  They will find children who have completed 1 year in the Summer Jobs 
Program, a second year in the Summer Jobs Program, and the third year 
the private sector picks them up, and more often than not they get the 
job. If the young person is interested enough to continue the Summer 
Jobs Program and acquire some skills, more often than not in my city of 
Boston they will be picked up and given a job to move ahead.
  I wonder how many Members of this body have ever been with a young 
person in the summer youth program the day they get their first 
paycheck and see the pride and satisfaction and joy of those young 
people? They have a paycheck, many of them for the first time. They 
have a sense of involvement, a sense of participation, a 
responsibility, a willingness to stay the course.
  We are saying to those young people: No way, we are cutting back. We 
have record surpluses, but not for you, young America. Then we wonder 
around this body about violence in school, we wonder why young people 
are upset, disoriented, or out of touch with what is going on. We send 
them back into the confusion of the inner city, send them out there 
without any supervision, send them out there without any sense of 
training or pride. That is what we are doing. We are basically 
abdicating our essential and important responsibility to the children 
of this country and abandoning our commitment to give workers help and 
assistance.
  Soon the Senate will discuss the issue of expanded trade with China. 
The votes are there to pass it. Many have pointed out that some are 
concerned because some will benefit, and benefit considerably, while 
others are going to sacrifice, and sacrifice considerably. We have 
heard those arguments about this providing new opportunities for many 
aspects of our American economy. Many have said yes. But what about 
others who will be laid off? They ought to get a little training to 
find a future for themselves and their family.

[[Page 12818]]

  What is happening now? We are closing the door for them. We are 
denying them the right to have that kind of job training. We are 
denying young people their first job experience and we are denying 
older workers the training programs to give them job security. It is 
fine for those who will make the big fortunes. Increase the number of 
billionaires in our society. What about those men and women who are 
laid off? The only way they can survive is to get training in a 
different job. That training will not be there with this budget.
  Our amendment provides $1 billion additional dollars to the various 
training programs and the summer job programs. This is a tangible way 
to show Americans that we are going to provide the tools for them to 
fully participate in this growing, expanding, and global society. We 
need to send a clear message that workers are the backbone of this 
country, the backbone of our economy, and every hard-working American 
is going to be able to gain skills to be useful and productive workers 
in the future in our society. This amendment ought to pass.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to each Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kennedy, for yielding time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of 
the Democratic skills training amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This amendment further 
increases our country's human capital by adding $1.05 billion to skills 
training programs at the U.S. Department of Labor.
  Mr. President, while I commend the chairman and ranking member for 
their efforts in coming forward with a bill that avoids many of the 
drastic cuts approved by the House of Representatives, there are still 
a number of vital programs that continue to be seriously underfunded. 
This amendment provides adequate funding for Federal skills training 
programs to serve more individuals who are seeking to improve their 
ability to contribute to the workplace. Today's global economy demands 
that the United States do all it can to ensure that every member of our 
workforce is prepared to meet new workplace chllenges. Unfortunately, 
the gap between high-skilled and low-skilled workers continues to grow, 
leaving many at the lower end of the spectrum even farther behind.
  One particular program I would like to mention is the Fathers Work, 
Families Win program. This important initiative improves the employment 
potential of certain low income individuals who generally have lower 
levels of education and work experience. As a result, these individuals 
usually end up accepting jobs that pay relatively low wages and have 
few benefits. They often have irregular track records in employment: 
they hold several jobs at a time, work part-time or intermittently, or 
endure periods of unemployment. Many of these individuals have been on 
the welfare rolls or are living under conditions that make them 
vulnerable to becoming dependent on Federal assistance.
  We must not forget that these individuals have the potential to make 
meaningful contributions to the economy and, given the opportunity, can 
become self-sufficient and successfully support their families. This is 
one reason why I am interested in seeing the Fathers Work, Families Win 
program funded. The portion of the program entitled Families Win 
provides $130 million in competitive grants for programs to help low 
income parents stay employed, move up the career ladder, and remain off 
welfare.
  The program's Fathers Work component provides $125 million for 
competitive grants to help certain non-custodial parents find a job, 
maintain employment, and advance on their career path. This is 
important because many fathers, rather than being ``deadbeat dads,'' 
are ``dead broke dads.'' They have the desire to support their families 
through child support payments and other means, but cannot do so 
because they cannot secure or maintain steady employment paying a 
living wage.
  Fathers Work, Families Win would build on the investments and 
partnerships started under the Workforce Investment Act and the 
Welfare-to-Work program. State and local Workforce Investment Boards 
are eligible applicants under both parts of Fathers Work, Families Win. 
These boards have been implementing WIA [weeeea] across the country, 
reforming the way in which job training and job placement services are 
conducted. The competitive grant program funds enable the Boards to 
further integrate services for the population of low income workers 
under programs such as WIA, Wagner-Peyser [wag-ner pie-zer] grants, 
Welfare-to-Work grants, and grants under the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families program. This integrated approach will help to ensure 
that many low income families will not fall through the cracks and will 
find it easier to use the network of services at their disposal.
  I continue to be a strong supporter of the Welfare-to-Work program. 
Last year, I introduced the Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999 which 
included provisions to reauthorize the program and to improve access to 
the program for more low income individuals. The eligibility changes 
were included in the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2000, which I thank my colleagues for working on and supporting. 
However, the Welfare-to-Work program itself has not yet been renewed. 
With eligibility changes taking effect for competitive grantees at the 
beginning of 2000 and for formula grantees later this year, Welfare-to-
Work efforts must be given more time to run. If the program is not 
reauthorized, worthwhile efforts at the State and local levels to help 
low income families will be adversely impacted.
  Because the Welfare-to-Work program has not been extended, many local 
communities are concerned because their efforts to help Welfare-to-Work 
participants have just begun. An abrupt end to the program would cause 
significant investments to go to waste. As the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors states in a letter dated June 10, 2000, ``Without the extension 
of the Welfare-to-Work program, welfare reform will be dealt a serious 
set back in our nation's cities which are home to the highest 
concentrations of people still on welfare.'' I ask unanimous consent 
that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2000.
       Dear Member: The United States Conference of Mayors, 
     assembled in Seattle, is gravely concerned about the future 
     of the Welfare-to-Work Program. We urge you to extend the 
     Welfare-to-Work program as proposed in the Clinton FY 2001 
     budget. Without the extension of the Welfare-to-Work program, 
     welfare reform will be dealt a serious set back in our 
     nation's cities which are home to the highest concentrations 
     of the people still on welfare.
       Mayors are aware that some members of Congress have 
     legitimately raised concerns about the low expenditure rate 
     in the current Welfare-to-Work program. Unfortunately, a 
     large percentage of the funding did not reach the local level 
     until the last quarter of 1998. In addition, the initial 
     Welfare-to-Work eligibility requirements have excluded a 
     large segment of the hardest-to-serve welfare population and 
     thus inhibited the expenditure of the first $3 billion in 
     funding.
       We were pleased that Congress made the necessary changes in 
     the eligibility requirements in the FY 2000 appropriations 
     bill. However, these eligibility changes were not effective 
     immediately. The changes are not effective for WTW formula 
     grant funds until October 1, 2000. For WTW competitive grant 
     funds, the changes became effective January 1, 2000.
       We believe that the need for the extension of this funding 
     will become increasingly evident as the program becomes fully 
     operational and the eligibility changes are enacted. In fact, 
     indications from the U.S. Department of Labor's quarterly 
     reports on WTW spending are he expenditures for formula and 
     competitive grant funding have increased overall and that 
     expenditures for competitive grant funding has increased 
     significantly since January 1, 2000, when the eligibility 
     changes became effective. It is also expected that spend-out 
     rates will also increase significantly as larger numbers of

[[Page 12819]]

     TANF recipients reach their time limits and lose eligibility 
     for cash assistance.
       Mayors more than anyone else recognize that although 
     welfare roles have declined significantly across states, 
     great numbers of former welfare clients living in cities who 
     are in need of services still remain. Many of these 
     individuals who are still not working have little or no 
     skills, are unable to read and write beyond the 8th grade 
     level, and have no work experience. When they are able to go 
     to work, the jobs often pay below minimum wage, have no 
     health benefits and are insufficient to support the 
     individual, let alone his or her family.
       As Mayors we realize that while many in the nation believe 
     the job of welfare reform is complete, we know that much work 
     remains to be done. The targeted and direct resources 
     provided by Welfare-to-Work are essential for us to address 
     the concentrated welfare caseloads in our cities and ensure 
     that those still on welfare make the transition into the 
     workforce. Discontinuing the Welfare to Work program at this 
     time would be a great disservice to those welfare recipients 
     still unable to find self-sustaining jobs.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors urges you to extend the 
     Welfare-to-Work program until we can honestly say that most 
     of those in need of these services are working in permanent, 
     self-sustaining jobs. Now is not the time to stop the 
     progress already made on Welfare Reform and Welfare-to-Work. 
     Now is the time to ensure that those remaining on the welfare 
     rolls who have the greatest challenges to employment are 
     served.
           Sincerely,
     Wellington E. Webb,
       President Mayor of Denver.
     Beverly O'Neill,
       Chair, Jobs, Education and the Workforce Standing 
     Committee, Mayor of Long Beach.
     H. Brent Coles,
       Vice President, Mayor of Boise.
     Marc H. Morial,
       Chair, Advisory Board, Mayor of New Orleans.
     David W. Moore,
       Chair, Health and Human Services Standing Committee, Mayor 
     of Beaumont.

  Mr. AKAKA. The letter goes on to note that although welfare rolls 
have decreased significantly across the country, ``great numbers of 
former welfare clients living in cities who are in need of services 
still remain.'' These are the hardest-to-help families who need our 
greatest assistance. Furthermore, many of these individuals will be 
reaching their lifetime limit on welfare benefits imposed by the 1996 
welfare reform law and will no longer be able to rely on regular cash 
assistance to support their families. We cannot allow these families to 
be left without any safety net and should continue pursuing efforts to 
``teach them how to fish''--this is what the amendment before us would 
do.
  While I am disappointed that the bill before us does not extend the 
Welfare-to-Work program, I hope that under the eligibility changes I 
helped to pass last year, Welfare-to-Work program accomplishments will 
continue to grow and provide strong impetus for the program's 
reauthorization. In the meantime, I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support programs such as Fathers Work, Families Win for low income 
individuals.
  It is interesting to note that in 1998 and 1999, while the nation was 
experiencing low unemployment, layoffs were still widespread. This 
trend was mainly due to companies requiring new skills to meet the 
demands of a new economy. Unfortunately, as we have seen by the 
announcements of large-scale layoffs from companies such as Coca-Cola, 
J.C. Penney Company, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, the situation is not 
getting any better.
  So, why are we in Congress looking at reducing or eliminating funding 
for vital programs that empower former welfare recipients and low-wage 
workers with the information and skills necessary to become viable 
citizens in their communities? Skills Training programs are essential 
to ensure that displaced workers will be able to transition into 
another trade. We must not forget that the Federal Reserve Board is 
reviewing the possibility of raising interest rates in an effort to 
slow down U.S. economic growth. This could negatively impact not only 
Hawaii's economy, especially the construction industry that is one of 
Hawaii's leading areas for job growth, but the nation as a whole. 
Hawaii's economy is just recovering from a decade of economic 
stagnation and layoffs and cannot afford another recession without 
providing the necessary funds for skills training programs.
  The current and proposed funding levels for skills training programs 
are inadequate to ensure the availability of a trained workforce. We 
must remain committed in our efforts to equip employers with an 
employment system capable of addressing potential labor shortages. For 
the State of Hawaii, eliminating all new funding for One Stop Career 
Centers/Labor Market Information will adversely impact Hawaii's ability 
to comply with the Workforce Investment Act. Hawaii will not be able to 
develop core employment statistics products used by employers, job 
seekers, educators, students, and others. More specifically, valuable 
labor market information would no longer be provided to the public.
  I commend Hawaii's Job Corps program for its successful placement 
rate of 70 percent. This is significant given Hawaii's fragile economy 
in recent years. The success of this program clearly illustrates the 
positive effect the skills training programs have on our communities. 
We should not reduce or eliminate funding for these vital programs that 
enhance employment opportunities for individuals and their families.
  The amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, would address the potential 
shortcomings in funding as proposed in the House and Senate. This 
amendment provides appropriate funding for the Department of Labor's 
Youth and Adult Employment and Training Programs, especially funding 
for Dislocated Worker assistance, Youth Opportunity grants, Job Corps, 
and One Stop Career Centers. In addition, this amendment also provides 
appropriate funding for the Summer Jobs program resulting from 
implementation of the Workforce Investment Act.
  We must continue to improve our skills training program to ensure 
that America's workforce remains competitive to the global economy. I 
urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have just learned within the last few 
minutes that a decision has been made on Capitol Hill to eliminate the 
Summer Jobs Program for this year. That decision was made by Republican 
leaders who have decided that it costs too much--$40 million.
  We have to sit back, from time to time, and measure the relative cost 
of decisions we make. If we are going to say to literally tens of 
thousands of young people across America that there will not be a 
Summer Jobs Program, what price will we pay for that decision? For many 
of these kids, it means there will not be an opportunity for the first 
time in their lives to have a real job, a real learning experience in 
the workplace.
  In this country we are prepared to pay whatever it takes when we 
sentence someone to prison. In Illinois, it costs about $30,000 a year 
to keep someone in prison. That failed life that led to crime and 
conviction ends up costing us $30,000 a year. Is it too much to pay? 
No, we will pay it. But when it comes to jobs for kids during the 
summer, the Republican leadership has decided it is too much to pay.
  How about school dropouts? When kids drop out of school, they not 
only ruin their own lives but often affect the communities in which 
they live. These are the kids hanging out on the street corners. These 
are the ones who may never have a job. These are the ones who become 
chronic statistics in our society. We will pay for those statistics one 
way or the other. We have decided that is a cost we will pay. But when 
it comes to providing jobs in the summer for kids going to school, the 
Republican leadership decided today it was too high a cost to pay. Of 
course, when we talk about tomorrow's workers, we realize that kids who 
are not put on the right track with the right values early in life may 
not go on to finish school or to become the workforce of the 21st 
century for America.

[[Page 12820]]

That is an expense to this country. It is obviously something the 
Republican leadership is willing to pay, rather than pay for a Summer 
Jobs Program.
  What does this program mean? In my home State of Illinois, the 
decision today by the Republican leaders to take out the Summer Jobs 
Program means that 10,000 kids coming out of schools in the Chicagoland 
area will not have a 6-week minimum wage summer job. Is that an 
important life experience? Boy, it sure was for me. Going to work meant 
a lot for me. As my folks used to say: We want you to learn the value 
of a dollar. When I went to work, I understood the value of a dollar. I 
added up every paycheck and how I was going to save it, how I was going 
to spend it. It also teaches you the value of hard work, the fact that 
you do get up with the rest of the world and go to work and don't 
expect somebody to hand you something. That is the value of a summer 
job, a value that will be denied to tens of thousands of kids because 
of a decision the Republican leadership made to kill the Summer Jobs 
Program. The value of showing up on time to work, dressed properly, 
prepared to work with your coworkers, you cannot teach all that in 
school. Some of that is a life experience. It is an experience I had 
and virtually everyone has on their way to a successful life. For tens 
of thousands of kids, they will be denied that opportunity because of 
this decision by the Republican leadership.
  Of course, for me and a lot of others, that summer job taught us the 
value of staying in school. How many times did I stop behind that 
shovel and think: I don't want to do this the rest of my life. I am 
going to go back to school. I am going to get my college degree and go 
on. That is the value of a summer job, too.
  Senator Kennedy is right. If we have the values, the same values of 
families across America, we would be voting for this program and this 
amendment he is proposing for summer jobs for kids so they can have a 
valuable work experience. We would be voting for this amendment so 
there will be job training for those dislocated from their jobs. We 
don't want to give up on workers. I believe in free trade, but I know 
that millions of workers in America lose their jobs each year because 
of technology and trade and change. We should be there with programs to 
help them move to the next job so they do not lose pace with the 
economy and the quality of life they are used to.
  This amendment gets to the heart of the values of the Members of the 
Senate. Senator Kennedy is right. I am happy to cosponsor it. The mayor 
of the city of Chicago said: The School Jobs Program keeps kids away 
from gangs, guns, and drugs. He hit the nail on the head. If we put 
more and more kids into positive programs where they learn how to work 
and continue to learn in the workplace, their lives can be transformed. 
If there is one value we share as Americans, it is the value of hard 
work.
  The decision by the Republican leadership to close down the Summer 
Jobs Program is a decision that flies in the face of the values of this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I welcome the superb statement made by my friend and 
colleague from Illinois. The Commission for Economic Development says 
that half of manufacturing companies nationwide do not offer any 
training programs. Nationally, all employer training programs equal 
just 1 percent of their payroll costs.
  I have here this ``Opportunity Knocks,'' a study done as a Joint 
Project of Mellon New England and Massachusetts Institute for a New 
Commonwealth. It says:

       Which workers get employer-provided job skills? For large 
     employers with 50 workers or more, 80 percent are management. 
     These employers are more likely to provide job skills 
     training for managers, computer technicians, and sales 
     workers that for production or service workers. How are these 
     lower skilled workers supposed to improve their skills and 
     move up the ladder? This really is the case. Companies are 
     doing more hiring and firing simultaneously than ever before. 
     Workers who need a new set of skills are often replaced 
     rather than retrained. We need to get workers the skills that 
     they need to compete in this information-age economy. That is 
     quite different from Europe, for example, where the companies 
     are required to provide a range of different skills training 
     so there is an investment in a company's workers. They value 
     the individual, and they know that continual, ongoing 
     training programs in each of those major industries makes 
     good business sense.

  This study goes on to say that the poor odds of an employer offering 
any training is only part of the problem. Access to employer-provided 
training is by no means equal across categories of workers. Most 
businesses are unlikely to provide any training opportunities to 
clerical or production workers and when they do offer training it is in 
the form of an orientation to their present job. There is no attention 
to up-grading the skills of those workers.
  I want to mention, as we reach the end of this presentation, the 
comments of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He recently said:

       [The] rapidity of innovation and unpredictability of the 
     directions it may take imply a need for considerable 
     investment in human capital.

  Workers in almost every occupation are being asked to strengthen 
their skills to ensure long-term success in the workplace. The 
technical know-how that workers need to stay on the cutting edge is 
being redefined every day.
  We are being told by the head of the Federal Reserve that this is 
what is necessary to keep America's economy strong. We are being told 
that by the business community. We are being told that by workers. We 
are being urged to do that by the President of the United States. It 
makes no sense to undermine that.
  We have taken action in a bipartisan way to develop a workforce 
development system that will be effective. In the next month every 
state will come on board to implement the new law. Without this 
amendment we are effectively undermining this Nation's commitment to 
provide important, necessary skills for America's workers so they will 
be able to be full participants in the American economy of tomorrow.
  It is wrong. I hope the Senate will accept my amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print letters from the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the Mayor 
of Boston.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                      The United States Conference


                                                    of Mayors,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to express the strong 
     support of The U.S. Conference of Mayors for the Skills 
     Training Amendment that you will be offering to the Labor-
     Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. 
     At our recent Annual Conference in Seattle, we sent a letter 
     to Majority Leader Lott urging him to do just what your 
     amendment does--restore critical funding to the Department of 
     Labor for youth and skills training.
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors just released a survey, 
     Examining Skills Shortages in America's Cities, which shows 
     that 86 percent of cities suffer shortages in technology 
     workers; 73 percent suffer shortages in health workers; 72 
     percent lack enough construction workers to fill available 
     jobs; 71 percent lack manufacturing workers; and 50 percent 
     lack enough workers to fill retail and wholesale jobs. It is 
     imperative that we make the critical investment in our 
     nation's current and future workforce by supporting the 
     President's budget proposals and increasing year-round 
     funding for youth. It is crucial that sufficient resources 
     are provided to address the needs of our nation's youth and 
     the skills gap that seriously affects our nation's economy.
       The funding level for the Summer Jobs and year-round youth 
     programs currently proposed in the FY 2001 appropriation bill 
     is unacceptable, especially as programs gear up under the 
     recently enacted Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The 
     funding level of the Youth Opportunity Grant Program for out-
     of-school youth is also short-sighted, as there are massive 
     unmet needs of unemployed, out-of-school youth in high 
     poverty areas.

[[Page 12821]]

       We applaud your leadership in addressing these issues and 
     your efforts to restore this critical funding. We should be 
     investing in our current and our future workforce--the health 
     and vitality of our cities, and our nation, depend on it.
           Sincerely,
                                                J. Thomas Cochran,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                                    June 28, 2000.
     Subject: Sen. Kennedy's amendment to the Labor/H 
         appropriation to increase funding for skills training.

       Dear Senator: The National Association of Counties (NACo), 
     the only organization representing America's counties in 
     Washington, DC, fully supports Senator Edward M. Kennedy's 
     amendment to increase appropriations for workforce investment 
     activities by $792 million for fiscal year 2001. NACo urges 
     the Senate to adopt this amendment to H.R. 4577, the Labor, 
     Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill.
       NACo has identified increased funding for workforce 
     development programs as a critical funding priority for 2000. 
     Therefore, we will be tracking your vote on this amendment 
     and any related motion to waive the Budget Act. Your vote 
     will be recorded on our web site (www.naco.org) and the 
     information will be made available to county commissioners in 
     your state.
       This amendment is of critical importance to America's 
     counties. Current and proposed funding levels for inadequate 
     to ensure that America's counties can effectively implement 
     the Workforce Investment Act. Sen. Kennedy's amendment would 
     address the substantial shortfall in funding currently 
     proposed in the House and Senate by addressing funding for 
     youth programs, incumbent and dislocated worker programs, and 
     one-stop career centers.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Larry E. Naake,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                           City of Boston, MA,

                                        Boston, MA, June 27, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to express my outrage at 
     efforts to cut funding for summer jobs programs and other 
     youth and skills related programs. As you know, Boston 
     operates one of the nation's largest summer jobs programs. 
     While we are at record low unemployment levels nationally, 
     youth unemployment rates in our cities are still unacceptably 
     high. There is a crisis among our young people as evidenced 
     by the violence and despair among youth in many of our 
     cities. The move to strip summer jobs funding from the 
     Emergency Supplemental comes at a time when we should be 
     investing in our young people, not cutting the future out 
     from under them.
       I applaud your efforts to restore critical funding to the 
     Department of Labor for our youth and our nation's workers. 
     The Skills Training Amendment you are offering to the Labor-
     Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill 
     will do exactly what we need to be doing--providing 
     sufficient resources to address the needs of our nation's 
     youth and the skills gap that seriously affects our nation's 
     economy.
       As always, thank you for your tremendous efforts on behalf 
     of our youth.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas M. Menino,
                                                  Mayor of Boston.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we start from the proposition that this 
bill, for various education and health care and job training efforts, 
is dramatically larger than the bill that was passed in this body last 
year, to everyone's satisfaction, increasing at a rate far more rapid 
than the pace of inflation or population growth in the United States.
  Obscured in the debate so far is the fact that there is some $5.4 
billion in job training programs in this bill, at a time of record low 
unemployment. This represents an increase of more than $16 million over 
the bill that is currently in effect for the present year. The greater 
increases in the bill, of course, were for education and for biomedical 
research, both of which exceed the amounts requested by President 
Clinton. Even so, the bill provides funding for two new programs 
requested by the Clinton administration: Worker training and 
responsible reintegration of youthful offenders, each at $30 and $20 
million respectively, a 22-percent increase for dislocated workers in 
the course of the last 4 years, and a 25-percent increase in the same 
period of time for the Job Corps.
  The private sector, of course, now looking more than ever for 
qualified employees, has dramatically increased its own hiring and 
training programs. Of course, in comparison with the House bill, this 
rejects the $400 million cut in the House bill in that field.
  As for summer training, the argument of the Senator from Illinois was 
a peculiar one. The current law for summer jobs, a law passed last 
fall, of course, well after last summer was over, has $1 billion in it 
for just exactly that purpose: $1 billion for summer jobs for youth.
  We have another in a series of amendments that illustrates the 
proposition that no matter how generous this body is, even I may say in 
many cases no matter how generous the administration is, some Members 
will come to the floor and demand more, whatever its impact on the 
budget.
  To quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board implicitly as 
being in favor of programs such as this is to fly in the face of logic. 
It is the clear position, often quoted by Members on the other side, 
that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board believes that the single 
most important means to the goal of a stronger economy we can follow is 
not to increase Federal spending and, in fact, to decrease it. He has 
consistently, over the years, held to the position that for the economy 
as a whole, for future job growth, the best thing we can do is be 
modest in our spending, not to increase it, I suspect, as much as it is 
increased in this bill.
  In any event, as has been the case with previous amendments of this 
nature, it will simply add millions, in some cases billions, of dollars 
to the bill. It is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. At 
the appropriate time, that budget point of order will be presented.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
express my enthusiastic support for the amendment offered by my 
colleague and friend, Senator Kennedy. Mr. President, Labor Secretary 
Herman summed up the challenge of today's economy when she declared at 
the National Skills Summit in April that in this country we have ``a 
skills shortage, not a labor shortage.''
  Right now we have the lowest unemployment rate in this country in the 
last 30 years. But even as we celebrate this remarkable feat--and it is 
remarkable--we must remember that there are still some 13 million 
people in this country who want, but do not have, a full-time job. The 
Kennedy amendment would make full-time employment a real possibility 
for homeless veterans, young people, and for youths seeking summer 
employment.
  I appreciate that the Labor-HHS subcommittee's allocations were 
inadequate to fund at sufficient levels all of the programs in this 
legislation and I think they have done a good job with what they had to 
work with. But clearly Mr. President this bill retreats from our 
commitment to fund many critical education, training, and health 
programs. I am troubled that the bill before us does not adequately 
fund job training programs for homeless veterans. Veterans issues are 
especially important to me, and I know it is of great importance to my 
fellow veterans here in the Senate. The Kennedy amendment would allow 
1,400 more veterans to receive employment placement and economic 
security than does the bill put forth by the Republicans.
  This appropriations bill severely under-funds many important 
programs, but none more critical than the youth job programs like Job 
Corps, Youth Opportunity Grants program, and the Summer Jobs program.
  Mr. President, Job Corps is the nation's largest residential 
education and training program for disadvantaged youth. This program 
takes head on the issues and the people who have been left behind in 
this period of economic expansion. While many Americans enjoy 
unprecedented prosperity, the nation's unemployment rate among African-
American teenagers is 22%, almost double the national teenage 
unemployment rate. Twenty-six percent of those who dropped out of high 
school between October 1998-99 are unemployed. We cannot relegate these 
people to the margins of our society, especially during this moment of 
great national wealth.
  There are 120 Job Corps centers in 46 states, including three in my 
state of Massachusetts. Since 1964, Job Corps

[[Page 12822]]

has given 1.7 million young people in this country the academic and 
vocational training they need to get good, entry-level jobs, join the 
military, or go to college. Job Corps offers GED or high school 
equivalency programs and training in various occupations, as well as 
advanced training and additional support services. Graduates of Job 
Corps go on to work in every field from automotive mechanics and 
repair, to business, and to health occupations. This amendment would 
allow Job Corps to serve more than 70,000 additional students and 
reduce staff turnover by offering Job Corps employees a more 
competitive salary.
  This amendment would also greatly increase funding for the Youth 
Opportunity Grants. These grants serve some of the poorest inner-city 
areas and Native American reservations in the country, where 
unemployment levels are well above the national average. Unfortunately, 
the Republican legislation would not allow the Department of Labor to 
expand this program. Last year, the Department of Labor was able to 
fund only 36 of 150 grants under the Youth Opportunity Grant program, 
two of which are in Boston and Brockton, Massachusetts. This amendment 
would allow the Department of Labor to fund 15-20 new grants, allowing 
us to provide job skills and real work experience to people who live in 
areas that have only heard rumors about our nation's economic growth, 
but have not seen it for themselves.
  I would also like to voice my support for increasing funding by $254 
million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs program. In late March I met 
with 20 members of the Boston Mayor's Youth Council, who raised money 
to travel to Washington. We met right outside this chamber on the 
Senate steps. The 20 young people that I met with spoke extremely 
eloquently and passionately about their experiences in summer jobs 
programs, and they asked me to speak on their behalf in Washington in 
support of the Summer Jobs program.
  Well, Mr. President, I intend to speak on their behalf. Approximately 
85% of youths in the summer jobs program last year were between the 
ages of 14-17. Teens in that age group typically do not find private-
sector work. But these young people were afforded the opportunity to 
learn job skills and responsibility. We have all heard teachers lament 
that students often greet lessons with cries of ``When are we ever 
going to have to use this again?'' Summer jobs make education relevant 
to teenagers, helping to reduce drop-out rates and fostering an 
interest in higher education.
  The Workforce Investment Act consolidates the Summer Jobs program and 
year-round jobs program into a comprehensive system of services for at-
risk, low-income youth. But under the bill before us, 13,000 teens will 
be eliminated from this program. The Kennedy amendment would add back 
$254 million, allowing us the opportunity to provide summer jobs to 
152,400 low-income students, 85% of whom would not otherwise be able to 
find summer employment.
  In March I received a letter signed by 22 mayors in the State of 
Massachusetts, urging me to fight for Summer Jobs program funding. In 
this letter, the mayors write ``The state has benefitted because with 
the young people working, negative behaviors that often result from 
idleness are prevented.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
this letter be printed in the record following my statement. I know 
these programs are important and are working. And I know they should 
receive greater funding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't want to end today without pointing 
out the importance of this amendment to our national trade policy. I 
believe very strongly in free trade. I know that the Trade and 
Development Act that we passed earlier this year and granting PNTR to 
China--if we ever get the chance to debate it in the Senate--will grow 
Massachusetts's economy and produce long-term benefits for workers in 
Massachusetts and across the country. But the budget put forth by the 
Republicans takes no responsibility for protecting those who are most 
at risk for being left behind. This amendment does claim that 
responsibility. As we continue with our push to open new markets, we 
have got to ensure those who lack the skills, the income or the 
education to get quality jobs can have an opportunity to succeed in the 
new economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                               Exhibit I


                          Massachusetts Municipal Association,

                                       Boston, MA, March 22, 2000.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Kennedy and Kerry: We are writing to urge you 
     to advocate for summer jobs funding in the Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill currently before Congress.
       As you are aware, the Workforce Development Act (WIA), 
     which was signed into law in August 1998, will become 
     effectively July 1st, 2000. While we certainly support the 
     WIA goal of offering more comprehensive services for youth on 
     a year-round basis, we are concerned that the additional 
     requirements of WIA and the lack of an increase in funding 
     for year-round youth programs will result in the 
     Commonwealth's inability to provide the number of jobs that 
     we need to serve our youth population this summer. Estimates 
     project that we may have to turn over half of the eligible 
     youth away this summer barring an increase in summer jobs 
     funding.
       The summer jobs program in Massachusetts has been 
     phenomenally successful, both for our young people and the 
     state as a whole. The young people gain work experience (many 
     for the first time), earn a paycheck (which many contribute 
     to household expenses), and have the chance to gain academic 
     skills (as summer is often a time when young people slide 
     backwards academically). The state has benefited because with 
     the young people working, negative behaviors that often 
     result from idleness are prevented.
       This year we face a double threat, as Governor Cellucci has 
     chosen not to fund the state summer jobs program in his 
     budget. We are working with the Legislature and others to 
     restore this funding to the state budget. We will certainly 
     have a major problem if we lose funding from both the federal 
     and state programs.
       At its winter meeting in January, the U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors passed a resolution to support: (1) an emergency 
     appropriation to address the shortfall of funds needed to 
     serve youth this summer; and (2) increased funding in the 
     FY2001 budget to meet the projected doubling of program costs 
     resulting from the new requirements of the Workforce 
     Investment Act. A copy of the resolution is enclosed.
       Please keep us updated on the efforts to include funding 
     for summer jobs in the emergency appropriation and increased 
     funding in the FY 2001 budget. Thank you for your continued 
     support and assistance on this high priority issue.
           Sincerely,
         Thomas Menino Mayor, Boston; Daniel Kelly Mayor, Gardner; 
           Mary Whitney Mayor, Fitchburg; Michael Tautznik Mayor, 
           Easthampton; Robert Dever Mayor, Woburn; William 
           Scanlon Mayor, Beverly; Mary Clare Higgins Mayor, 
           Northampton; Lisa Mead Mayor, Newburyport; John Yunits 
           Mayor, Brockton; Thomas Ambrosino Mayor, Revere; Ted 
           Strojny Mayor, Taunton; David Madden Mayor, Weymouth; 
           Edward Lambert, Jr. Mayor, Fall River; Gerald Doyle 
           Mayor, Pittsfield; Patrick Guerriero Mayor, Melrose; 
           Peter Torigian, Mayor, Peabody; James Rurak, Mayor, 
           Haverhill; John Barrett III Mayor, North Adams; Richard 
           A. Cohen Mayor, Agawam; David Ragucci Mayor, Everett; 
           Frederick Kalisz, Jr. Mayor, New Bedford; James A. 
           Sheets Mayor, Quincy.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the 
amendment my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has 
offered to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill to restore critical 
funding to skills training programs at the Department of Labor.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the work that Senators Specter and Harkin 
have put into this bill. Finding the appropriate balance in this bill 
is particularly difficult. And, while I am disappointed with the 
funding levels for many of the programs at the Department of Labor, I 
do understand that Senator Specter and Senator Harkin care deeply about 
the programs affected by this amendment.
  There are several components of the amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy but I would like to take a minute to discuss one in particular 
that is of

[[Page 12823]]

critical importance to my state of New Mexico.
  Mr. President, the amendment calls for an additional $181 million for 
dislocated worker assistance This additional funding would meet the 
President's request for fiscal year 2001.
  When Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act a couple years ago, 
an important component was the funding stream for dislocated workers. 
While much of the Nation has prospered over the past eight years, many 
in my home state have not. I have seen plant closing from Roswell and 
Carlsbad in the east, to Las Cruces in the south, Albuquerque in the 
north and Cobre in the west. Thousands of high paying jobs have been 
lost, and especially hard hit has been the extractive industries. I 
don't need to tell my colleagues how devastating a plant closing can be 
on a community and families.
  The Workforce Investment Act authorizes grants to States and local 
areas to provide core, intensive training and supportive services to 
laid off workers with the aim being to help them return to work as 
quickly as possible at wages as close as possible to those received 
prior to the layoff. These funds are critically important as the nature 
of our economy has changed over the last decade from an industrial base 
economy to a technologically based one. Workers who are laid off today, 
particularly those who have been with the same company for a number of 
years, are often unprepared to reenter the work place or for the new 
economy they face. Training and retraining is critical to develop the 
skills they need to quickly find a decent paying job and get back on 
their feet.
  Under President Clinton, dislocated worker funding has tripled from 
$517 million in Program Year 1993 to $1.589 billion in Program Year 
2000. Yet despite these increases, the need for these services has 
unfortunately kept pace with, and in some cases exceeded, the 
availability of funds. The President's budget for year 2001 continues 
the commitment to dislocated worker programs by providing adequate 
funding levels that will give dislocated workers the tools to compete 
in the new economy. This is the second installment of a five-year 
Universal Reemployment Initiative. Under the Universal Reemployment 
Initiative, dislocated worker funding was to be increased each year to 
ensure that by 2004 every dislocated worker would receive training and 
reemployment services if they want and need it, every unemployment 
insurance claimant who loses their job through no fault of their own 
would get the reemployment services they want and need, and every 
American would have access to One-Stop Career Centers.
  However, and unfortunately in my opinion, unless the level of funding 
in the Senate's Labor/HHS bill is not increased, this will be the first 
year since 1994 that there will be no increase in these funds, and our 
commitment to universal reemployment will be in serious jeopardy. 
Specifically, this bill cuts over $181 million from the President's 
request which will mean the Department of Labor will be able to serve 
100,825 fewer recipients. While the bulk of this cut would fall on 
State/local formula funding, it is important to note that 20 percent of 
the cut--over $36 million, would be in the Secretary's reserve funds, 
reducing her capacity to make National Emergency Grants to respond to 
disasters and large scale layoffs.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues know, New Mexico has been through a 
couple rough months. These funds for dislocated workers are extremely 
important and I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment to 
bring the level of funding for this, and many other important programs, 
up to the level of the President's request.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would also encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment because of the increased funding levels for 
Youth Opportunity Grants, the Summer Jobs Program, and for Job Corps, 
among others. These programs, and the funding levels contained in this 
amendment are likewise critical to meeting the needs of young people in 
my state.
  Again, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this 
amendment and commend my friend, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership on 
issues that are so important to families and working men and women 
throughout this country.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Kennedy's 
skills training amendment. This amendment contains important measures 
to provide individuals with the necessary skills to succeed in the 
workforce. The amendment addresses the need to provide employment 
skills training to noncustodial parents, particularly fathers. The 
``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative begins to address a very 
troubling epidemic, fatherlessness.
  The number of children living in households without fathers has 
tripled over the last forty years, from just over five million in 1960 
to more than 17 million today. Although the work of single mothers is 
truly heroic, father absence has caused unnecessary burdens on women 
and has forced millions of children to overcome difficult social 
hurdles. For example, children that live absent their biological 
fathers are five times more likely to live in poverty. They are more 
likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom, to commit a 
crime, to drop out of school, to be abused, to commit suicide, to abuse 
alcohol or drugs, and to become pregnant as teenagers. The $255 million 
requested for this initiative is dwarfed in comparison by the amount of 
money the Federal Government spends on dealing with the consequences of 
fatherlessness.
  There are several pieces to this puzzle, one of which is employment 
services. Too many fathers are unable to provide financial support for 
their children. Although many of these fathers have the desire to take 
responsibility for their children, they do not have the means. In 
short, these fathers are not dead-beat, they are dead-broke. The 
``Fathers Work, Families Win'' initiative gives us a way to work 
through the current infrastructure to deliver employment services to 
fathers and noncustodial parents. Skill-building and employment 
services will help to increase the employment rate among noncustodial 
fathers and therefore, increase child support payments.
  Our challenge is to give fathers the tools necessary to be successful 
parents. While employment services for noncustodial parents is an 
essential component to making fathers responsible, it is not the only 
service that is needed to ensure these fathers become good parents. 
Senator Domenici and I have introduced a comprehensive package designed 
to address the fatherlessness epidemic. S. 1364, the Responsible 
Fatherhood Act of 1999 would provide states with funds to promote the 
maintenance of married, two-parent families, strengthen fragile 
families, and promote responsible fatherhood. In addition to the 
program grants available to states, states would receive funds for a 
media campaign. A media campaign would be an effective way to 
communicate the message of father responsibility across ethnic, racial, 
and income barriers. The bill also recognizes the need to remove 
federal disincentives to pay child support.
  We face a great challenge, but we must not let it overwhelm us. We 
must instead begin to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I commend 
Senator Kennedy for including the ``Fathers Work, Families Win'' 
initiative in his amendment. It is my hope that the Senate will enact 
this legislation and continue to pursue other solutions to the epidemic 
of fatherlessness.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I'm here to speak about the Kennedy 
Workforce Investment amendment restoring cuts to the Department of 
Labor's training funds.
  This amendment is just plain common sense. The single best thing we 
can do for our society, and for every working family, is to make sure 
that every American who wants a decent paying job has the skills 
necessary to obtain a decent paying job. By helping youths and adults 
get the job training they need, we help turn them into tax-paying 
citizens who can purchase goods and services, buy homes and afford 
health care, and contribute to our growing economy.

[[Page 12824]]

  This amendment, in a multitude of ways, tries to address the most 
basic challenge facing our country: How do we help American workers 
develop the skills they need to excel in an increasingly complex and 
constantly evolving economy?
  First, our amendment helps by fully funding the Dislocated Worker 
Assistance Program. It restores $181 million in funding to a program 
that has made a substantial difference in the lives of Rhode Island 
workers. We, like many formerly industrial states, have suffered great 
worker dislocation as industries have left, often to go somewhere 
overseas where labor was cheaper. Restoring this funding to the 
President's request would allow 100,000 more workers, dislocated 
through no fault of their own, access to training, job search and re-
employment services.
  Our amendment also grants the Administration's request for $44 
million to improve access to One-Stop services for million of Americans 
and make the job search process less overwhelming and more efficient. 
The Director of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training 
informed me that the current cuts to this program will ``seriously 
impact'' the ability of our state to provide the services and 
information now required by the Workforce Investment Act for use by job 
seekers and employers.
  In addition to fully funding adult worker skills programs, our 
amendment would add $254 million to restore cuts in the Summer Jobs 
Program resulting from implementation of the Workforce Investment Act. 
Many states, like my own, were unprepared for this dramatic change in 
the federal funding stream. Thousands of kids in Rhode Island, 
especially 14- and 15- year-olds, are now going without summer jobs. 
Many of these kids are from small towns, others are from inner city 
Providence--both are limited by their age and the lack of job 
opportunities in their respective communities.
  Giving young people job experience benefits the entire country. The 
development of good work habits and a respect for the virtues of labor 
alone are strong payoffs. Everyone in this Congress should be 
supporting a restoration of these cuts.
  Finally, our amendment would restore $29 million to the Job Corps 
program, one of the most effective programs in the country for kids 
between the ages of 16 and 24. A recent Mathematica Policy Research 
Inc. study shows that 16- to 17-year-old youths who go through the Job 
Corps program are 80 percent more likely to earn a high school diploma 
or GED than a control group excluded from the program. This group also 
earned salaries that were 20 percent higher and had arrest rates that 
were 14 percent lower. This program works, and we should be fully 
funding it.
  Strengthening our workforce strengthens our families, and ultimately 
makes our entire country stronger. Adopting this skills training 
amendment is good for both American business and American workers, and 
every member of this Chamber should be in support of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute remaining. The Senator 
from Washington has 26 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Washington.
  The Chair notes there is time still pending on the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, as 
amended, that the effect of adopting the amendment provides budget 
authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the 
fiscal year 2001 Concurrent Resolution on the Budget and, therefore, is 
not in order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for 
consideration 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the time 
being we lay aside the current amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
conclusion of the debate on the Wellstone amendment on the subject of 
suicide, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the previously 
debated amendments, with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. 
Those votes are as follows:
  Dodd amendment No. 3672 on community learning centers;
  Kerry of Massachusetts amendment No. 3659 on technology literacy;
  Reed of Rhode Island amendment No. 3638 on the GEAR UP program; and 
Kennedy amendment No. 3678 on workforce investment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Those votes, Mr. President, will start at about 3:30 
p.m., for the information of my colleagues.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.


                           Amendment No. 3680

    (Purpose: To provide for a certification program to improve the 
    effectiveness and responsiveness of suicide hotlines and crisis 
                                centers)

  Mr. REID. Mr. 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 Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3680.

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

       On page 34, line 17, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That within the amounts 
     provided herein, $3,000,000 shall be available for the Center 
     for Mental Health Services to support through grants a 
     certification program to improve and evaluate the 
     effectiveness and responsiveness of suicide hotlines and 
     crisis centers in the United States and to help support and 
     evaluate a national hotline and crisis center network''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are 30 minutes 
that have been designated for the amendment being offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No formal time agreement has been entered 
regarding this amendment.
  Mr. REID. If the Chair would be kind enough to advise me when I have 
used 15 minutes, I won't ask for a unanimous consent agreement, but 
there was an agreement that there would be approximately a half hour on 
this.
  This amendment would provide $3 million to certified crisis centers. 
This deals with the plague of suicide that is sweeping this country. 
Every year in America, 31,000 people kill themselves. This is probably 
far fewer than the actual number. It is something that is very 
devastating to those who are survivors. But there is also a situation 
in this country that creates a tremendous loss of economic benefits for 
everyone concerned.
  I offered this amendment on behalf of Senator Wellstone because I was 
asked to by his staff. Since Senator Wellstone is the prime sponsor of 
this amendment and is now on the floor, I would like for him to 
proceed. I will be happy to proceed when the Senator has completed his 
remarks. The amendment has been offered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is there any 
pending business at the moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is 
amendment No. 3680.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is that the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe we were scheduled to vote at 
3:30

[[Page 12825]]

on four amendments. So I inquire of my colleague from Minnesota how 
long he will be on this matter.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be quite brief. I apologize. I 
didn't realize the amendment was coming up now. Senator Reid and I were 
doing this together. Probably 10 minutes is what I will need. My 
understanding is that the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has been 
focused on suicide prevention and trying to do better with mental 
health treatment, would accept the amendment. I think I can do this in 
10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was going to take 15 minutes, but 10 
minutes would be fine.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
to the Wellstone amendment on a 10-minute time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises Senators that there is no 
time agreement, unless we get this unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time on 
the Wellstone amendment be divided with 7 minutes for Senator Wellstone 
and 3 minutes for this Senator.
  Mr. REID. I haven't spoken yet. I have only spoken for 1 minute.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I 
haven't been out here on the amendment. He knows that, and I don't want 
the Senator from Nevada to only have a few moments. It is an important 
issue. I don't think we can do it in that time.
  Mr. SPECTER. I withdraw my request and suggest that we proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we will move forward and not go through 
any unnecessary delay. This amendment would support a certification 
program to improve and evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of 
suicide hotlines and crisis centers in the U.S. and to help support and 
evaluate a national hotline and crisis center network.
  Let me go through these figures here on the chart.
  Suicide facts for our country:
  Every 42 seconds someone attempts suicide.
  Each 16.9 minutes someone completes suicide.
  Suicide is the eighth leading cause of all deaths.
  Death rates from suicide are highest for those over age 75.
  The incidence of suicide among 15- to 24-year-olds has tripled over 
the past 40 years, making it the third leading killer in that age group 
of 15- to 24-year-olds.
  In the State of Minnesota, it is the second leading killer of young 
people from age 15 to 24. These statistics that deal with mental 
illness and suicides are disturbing. I point out to my colleagues that 
one of the factors that makes it so disturbing is that so much of 
suicide is connected to mental illness, especially depression or 
substance abuse, and so much of it is diagnosable. Frankly, it is 
treatable.
  Really, there should be a hue and cry in the country for corrective 
action. I do a lot of work with Senator Domenici, and I get to do this 
work with Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy as well. There are a whole 
host of issues that deal with our failure to provide decent mental 
health coverage for people.
  I thank Surgeon General David Satcher for doing marvelous work. The 
Surgeon General's report, which came out recently, talks about 500,000 
people every year in our country requiring emergency room treatment as 
a result of attempted suicide. In 1996, nearly 31,000 Americans took 
their own lives.
  I think of Al and Mary Kluesner in the State of Minnesota who started 
this organization called SAVE. They themselves have lost two children 
to suicide. Several of their other children have been unbelievably 
successful in their lives. There has been, up until fairly recently, 
this shame and people feeling as if it is their own moral failure. But 
it has so little to do with that.
  I met a couple weeks ago with Dr. David Shaffer from Columbia 
University and Kay Jamison from Johns Hopkins University. She has done 
some of the most powerful writing. It was Dr. Jamison who said before 
Senator Specter's committee, ``The gap between what we know and what we 
do is lethal.''
  We know so much about the ways in which we can treat this illness and 
we can prevent people from taking their lives, but we have not done 
nearly as much. We have many different organizations that support this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Organizations Supporting the Wellstone-Reid-Kennedy Suicide Prevention 
        Amendment to the LHHS Appropriations Bill, June 28, 2000


                            38 organizations

       American Association of Suicidology (AAS).
       American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).
       Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network (SPAN).
       Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education (SA/VE).
       National Mental Health Association (NMHA).
       National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI).
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
       American Psychiatric Association.
       American Psychological Association.
       National Mental Health Awareness Campaign.
       Light for Life Foundation (Yellow Ribbon Campaign).
       QPR Institute (Question/Persuade/Refer).
       National Organization of People of Color Against Suicide 
     (NOPCAS).
       National Institute for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender 
     (NIGLBT).
       With One Voice.
       Contact USA.
       Crisis Support Services of Alameda County.
       Contra Costa Crisis Center.
       Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Center.
       San Mateo Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention 
     Center.
       Pueblo Suicide Prevention Center.
       Alachua County Crisis Center.
       CrisisLine of Lantana.
       Switchboard of Miami.
       Cedar Rapids Foundation 2.
       Prince George's County Hotline and Suicide Prevention 
     Center.
       St. Louis Life Crisis Services.
       Crisis Call Center, Reno, Nevada.
       Covenant House.
       Fargo HotLine.
       HelpLine of Delaware County.
       HelpLine of Morrow County.
       CONTACT of Pittsburgh.
       Sioux Falls, Volunteer Information Center HelpLine.
       Nashville Crisis Intervention Center.
       Houston Crisis Center.
       Crisis Link of Northern Virginia.
       Friends of Mental Health of Loudon County.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, what this amendment does is add $3 
million to SAMHSA to support, through grants, a certification program 
that would evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of crisis 
centers and suicide hotlines across the United States.
  It also helps to support a national hot line and crisis center 
network. There are 750 such crisis services in place across the country 
today. These centers are documented in the directory kept by the 
American Association of Suicidology.
  To date, there has been little or no funding to help support the 
training and to improve the quality of guidance through these hot line 
and crisis services. This amendment does exactly that. These funds will 
be used to improve the training and the skills of the staff at the 
crisis hot lines for suicides. There will be a variety of ways in which 
we can get the money to people so this work can be done.
  In awarding these grants, I encourage the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to collect an experienced nonprofit organization with 
significant expertise to administer this program.
  According to U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher, approximately 
500,000 people each year require emergency room treatment as a result 
of attempted suicide. In 1996 alone, nearly 31,000 Americans took their 
own lives. In the U.S., suicide is the third leading cause of death of 
people age 15-34. A suicide takes place in our country every 17 
minutes.
  In some parts of our country, including my own state of Minnesota, 
suicide is the second leading cause of death for

[[Page 12826]]

these young people. Three times the number of Minnesotans die from 
suicide than from homicide.
  We know, without a doubt, that 90 percent of all completed suicides 
are linked to untreated or inadequately treated mental illness or 
addiction. To prevent suicide requires an all-out public health effort 
that will recognize this problem, and will educate our country that we 
can no longer afford to turn our eyes away from the unthinkable reality 
that our citizens, even our children, may want to die.
  Dr. Satcher and other national mental health experts, such as Dr. 
Steve Hyman, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, have 
helped bring this issue forward, and to help us understand that, with 
proper treatment, this is one of the most preventable tragedies that we 
face as a country.
  In 1996, the World Health Organization also issued a report urging 
members worldwide to address the problem of suicide, and one result was 
the creation of a public/private partnership to seek a national 
strategy for the U.S., involving many government agencies and advocacy 
groups. This is clearly a serious problem throughout the world.
  For too long, mental illness has been stigmatized, or viewed as a 
character flaw, rather than as the serious disease that it is. A cloak 
of secrecy has surrounded this disease, and people with mental illness 
are often ashamed and afraid to seek treatment, for fear that they will 
be seen as admitting a weakness in character. For this reason, they may 
delay treatment until their situation becomes so severe that they may 
feel incapable of reaching out.
  Although mental health research has well-established the biological, 
genetic, and behavioral components of many of the forms of serious 
mental illness, the illness is still stigmatized as somehow less 
important or serious other than illnesses. Too often, we try to push 
the problem away, deny coverage, or blame those with the illness for 
having the illness. We forget that someone with mental illness can look 
just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting 
next to us on a plane. It can be our mother, our brother, our son, or 
daughter. It can be one of us. We have all known someone with a serious 
mental illness, within our families or our circle of friends, or in 
public life. Many people have courageously come forward to speak about 
their personal experiences with their illness, to help us all 
understand better the effects of this illness on a person's life, and I 
commend them for their courage.
  The statistics concerning mental illness, and the state of health 
care coverage for adults and children with this disease are startling, 
and disturbing.
  One severe mental illness affecting millions of Americans is major 
depression. The National Institute of Mental Health, an NIH research 
institute, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
describes serious depression as a critical public health problem. More 
than 18 million people in the United States will suffer from a 
depressive illness this year, and many will be unnecessarily 
incapacitated for weeks or months, because their illness goes 
untreated. Many will die.
  I recently had the good fortune to meet with a group of some of the 
foremost experts on suicide prevention, including Dr. David Shaffer, 
from Columbia University, and Dr. Kay Jamison, from John Hopkins 
University. They gave me an extraordinary overview of the many critical 
points of intervention where suicide may be prevented, and it is my 
intention to develop a larger bill, in collaboration with Senator Harry 
Reid, and hopefully many of my colleagues, that will address many of 
these issues.
  But this amendment will meet an important need right now, one that is 
timely, and even with its modest funding can help save many lives. This 
amendment has the support of Senators Reid and Kennedy, as well as the 
support of the national groups:
  American Association of Suicidology,
  American Foundation for Suicide Prevention,
  SPAN (Suicide Prevention and Advocacy Network),
  National Mental Health Association,
  National Alliance for the Mentally Ill,
  American Psychiatric Association,
  American Psychological Association,
  Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and SA/VE, a group based in 
Minnesota (Suicide Awareness/Voices of Education), headed by Al and 
Mary Kluesner.
  My amendment will add $3 million to SAMHSA to support through grants 
a certification program to improve and evaluate the effectiveness and 
responsiveness of crisis centers and suicide hotlines across the United 
States, and to help support a national hotline and crisis center 
network. Although there are 750 such crisis services in place across 
our country--these centers are documented in the directory kept by the 
American Association of Suicidology--to date there has been little or 
no funding to help support the training and improve the quality of the 
guidance that is provided through these hotline and crisis services.
  This amendment will do exactly that. These funds will be used to help 
improve the training and skills of the staff at crisis hotline 
suicides, through guidance provided by the American Society of 
Suicidology, the Center for Mental Health Services, the National 
Institute Mental Health, and other mental health professionals. It will 
also help support the development of a national hotline and network of 
certified crisis centers.
  In the awarding of grants, I would encourage the Secretary of HHS to 
select an experienced non-profit organization with significant 
expertise in this area to administer the certification process, so that 
this process of training can begin as quickly as possible.
  Telephone hotlines are only one of the points of intervention, and 
are not and cannot be the only solution to those who suffer from severe 
mental illness and the extraordinary despair that leads to suicide. Our 
country also needs to ensure that Americans have fair access to medical 
care, that the stigma associated with mental illness is reduced, and 
more education and training for health care providers is made 
available. But the hotline does provide a lifeline for those who need 
to reach out for help and have nowhere else to turn too when they reach 
the point of despair.
  The crisis centers that run suicide hotlines are often patched 
together through a variety of funding sources, and struggle to keep 
their staff trained and their services of the highest quality. Although 
some centers are certified by the American Association of Suicidology, 
and some are connected through the Hope Line Network that is working to 
establish a national network, this process has only just begun. These 
centers perform a critically important service and would benefit 
enormously from a national certification process and regular staff 
training. The time is right to fund such a process.
  Staff at crisis centers need to be trained to conduct a suicide risk 
assessment to determine the seriousness and urgency of someone who may 
be contemplating suicide. They also need to know when to refer the 
individual to a local community mental health provider if the person is 
not in crisis. But most importantly, they need to know when to send the 
police to the person's home or workplace if the staff person is 
convinced that a suicide is about to take place.
  Most people think that there is a national suicide hotline already in 
place that links people throughout the country. But until recently, 
this was not so. Crisis centers operated on their own, with volunteer 
help, and few resources. Recently, a national hotline number (1-800-
SUICIDE) was established through the Hope Line Network, through the 
National Mental Health Awareness Campaign. As an example of the 
incredible need for such a number, the national hotline found itself 
flooded with calls after recently advertising on MTV and Fox Family 
Channel. Additionally, 1.5 million Americans logged onto their website 
during the 2 weeks after this advertising began. There are obviously 
many people who are in need of this service. And it needs to be the 
best possible service, and linked as best it can be to local help.

[[Page 12827]]

  By improving the training and skills of crisis hotline operators, 
such contact can be of the highest quality. Certification would require 
rigorous on site training and visits, evaluation of operations, records 
reviews, verification of staff training and skills, and the like.
  The Surgeon General is to be commended for bringing this issue of 
suicide forward as a major public health crisis in his 1999 report, 
Call to Action to Prevent Suicide. In his report, he specifically cited 
the need for instituting training programs concerning suicide risk 
assessment and recognition, treatment, management, and aftercare 
intervention. He also asked that community care resources be enhanced 
as referral points for mental health services. This amendment helps to 
support both of these requests.
  I must emphasize that suicide is often linked to severe depression 
and other forms of mental illness. These illnesses are not the normal 
ups and downs everyone experiences. They are illnesses that affect 
mood, body, behavior, and mind. Depressive disorders interfere with 
individual and family functioning. Without treatment, the person with a 
depressive disorder is often unable to fulfill the responsibilities of 
spouse or parent, worker or employer, friend or neighbor. And far too 
often, without treatment, a person can reach such a level of despair 
that they will take their own life. This amendment will fund programs 
to help people get the treatment they need before it is too late. As 
Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison stated in a recent Senate hearing on suicide, 
when it comes to treatment for mental illness, ``the gap between what 
we know and what we do is lethal.''
  The issue of suicide prevention is one that we have discussed before, 
at a hearing held by Senator Specter, and during other discussions 
about mental health research and treatment. I am proud of my colleagues 
who have supported these efforts, including the cosponsors of this 
amendment, Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy. I am proud to join them in 
bringing this amendment forward, and I ask you for your support.
  There is a piece of legislation I have with Senator Domenici called 
the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act. We believe, especially when 
it comes to physician visits and days in hospitals, that people with a 
mental illness should be treated the same way as people with a physical 
illness. We think it is time to end this discrimination.
  I have two other amendments that are included in other legislation 
which deal with the problem of suicide and mental health--especially 
with young people--and ways of getting money to communities that can 
then put the money to use, whether it be substance abuse treatment 
programs, whether it be family counseling, or whether it be 
pharmacological treatment, or you name it.
  The amendment I introduced with Senator Reid is very basic. It is 
very straightforward.
  It basically provides the grants through a certification program to 
improve the effectiveness of these suicide hot lines and crisis centers 
in the United States. It will help them support and evaluate a national 
hot line and crisis center network.
  I say to my colleague from Nevada that this is really incremental. It 
is not the be all or the end all. But the additional resources will 
really help SAMHSA. It will help us make sure these crisis hot lines 
are put to the very best use; that the people who are working there 
have the best training; that people who will be working these lines 
will do their very best in taking calls and know how to help people.
  This is important. It is a network of support for people. It is one 
step and only one step.
  But I will finish my remarks and then hear from my colleague from 
Nevada who really is taking the lead on this amendment.
  Again, every 42 seconds someone in our country attempts suicide. 
Every 16.9 minutes someone completes suicide. Suicide is the eighth 
leading cause of all deaths.
  This one really gets to me. I admit that until I saw this--I believe 
I do a lot of work in the mental health area--I didn't realize the 
suicide rates are highest for those over age 75. I didn't realize that. 
My focus has really been on young people because in my State of 
Minnesota, for the age of 15 to 24, suicide is the second leading cause 
of death.
  We need to do better. In this piece of legislation, we take this 
funding from administrative services and put it into this program. I 
think it will make a very positive difference.
  I am delighted that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going to support this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which 
is a long overdue attempt to deal more effectively with suicide, a 
serious public health threat in the United States.
  In 1998, suicide was the cause of more than 29,000 deaths--nearly 60 
percent higher than the number of homicides in that year. The nation's 
Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, issued a Call to Action to Prevent 
Suicide in 1999, in which he recommended a national strategy to reduce 
the high toll that suicide takes. Our amendment will provide grants 
through the Center for Mental Health Services to help support a 
national network of suicide hotlines and crisis centers, and to provide 
a certification program for the staff members of the network. This 
program will ensure that people who seek help during a crisis will 
receive an effective response from appropriately trained and certified 
personnel.
  In Massachusetts, the state's 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found 
that one of every five adolescents had seriously considered suicide in 
the previous year, and one in twelve--more than 20,000 teenagers--made 
an actual attempt. But this serious problem is not limited to young 
Americans. It affects all age groups. In fact, suicide rates increase 
with age, and are highest among men aged 75 years and older.
  Suicide also affects all racial and ethnic groups. Between 1980 and 
1996, the rate of suicide among African-American male teenagers more 
than doubled. Native American communities have long experienced high 
suicide rates.
  Suicide and suicide attempts affect both genders. Although males are 
four times more likely to die of suicide, females are more likely to 
attempt suicide. Each year in the United States, half a million people 
require emergency room treatment for a suicide attempt.
  But suicide and suicide attempts can be prevented. Ninety percent of 
people who complete suicide have depression or another mental or 
substance abuse disorder. These disorders respond to effective 
treatment.
  The amendment we offer today will ensure that when a person is in 
crisis anywhere in our nation, there is a network of hotlines and 
crisis centers to call for help, and that a trained and certified staff 
member will be available to intervene effectively. Every 17 minutes 
another American completes suicide. We can do much more to prevent this 
national tragedy. Our proposal is a small, but significant, step toward 
preventing the unnecessary loss of American lives, and I urge the 
Senate to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Minnesota has been a great 
partner on this issue. He has been very understanding. He is a very 
caring person, as indicated by the work he has done. He has outlined 
very generally and in many cases specifically the problems we have in 
America today relating to suicide.
  There is no question about it. Suicides occur more often in this 
country than can be calculated. As I have indicated, the statistics 
that the Senator from Minnesota gave us are reported suicides. There 
are many deaths that appear to be accidents that are suicides, and they 
cannot be calculated.
  The State of Nevada leads the Nation in suicide. It doesn't matter 
what age group it is. It doesn't matter whether they are teenagers or 
senior citizens. The State of Nevada has the dubious distinction of 
leading the Nation in suicide. That is too bad.

[[Page 12828]]

  This amendment is a step in the direction of helping people not only 
in Nevada but all over the country. The amendment offered by the 
Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from Nevada will set up a number 
of crisis centers. Today, we have about 78 crisis centers that are 
certified. This would allow hundreds more to be certified.
  What does this mean? It means that when you call 1-800-SUICIDE, which 
was activated a little more than a year ago--people who are depressed 
or suicidal or those concerned about someone else who is depressed or 
suicidal--you are automatically connected to someone who is at one of 
these centers and who is trained. These calls are routed to the crisis 
center nearest to the person where the call is placed.
  The crisis center calls are answered by certified counselors 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week--on Thanksgiving and on Christmas; it is sad to 
say but Christmas is one of the biggest suicide days in this country.
  In the event the nearest crisis center is at a maximum volume, the 
call is routed to the next nearest center. There is never a busy 
signal, or a voice mail. People in crisis usually reach a trained 
counselor within two or three rings, or about 20 to 30 seconds from the 
moment they dial 1-800-SUICIDE.
  What does this suicide crisis line mean?
  Let me read excerpts from a few letters.
  This one is written to the Northern Virginia hot line. It says, among 
other things:
       I would like to name NVHL (Northern Virginia Hotline) as 
     one of my beneficiaries on my life insurance policy . . .
       The reason for this act of kindness is to give back to your 
     organization what your organization has given to me. You see, 
     over the past twenty years I have used your listeners during 
     moments of crises in my life. When I had no one to turn to, I 
     could turn to your listeners for insight and support . . .
       I want to give back to the organization that has been 
     responsible for helping me through many tough late nights 
     over the past twenty years.

  We have a letter from the Catholic Newman Association in Houston, TX. 
It is a three-paragraph letter. I will read only one paragraph.

       I simply want to say that because of you, Karen, a girl 
     named ___ is alive today and has, for perhaps the first time 
     in her life, a real hope and desire to live. She called you a 
     few weeks ago, with a razor blade in her hand, and she had 
     already begun to cut her wrist. You talked to her for almost 
     an hour, though she tried to hang up a number of times. You 
     were able to get information about the fact that she had 
     recently talked to me, as well as where she lived. You were 
     able to keep her on the line while you had someone contact me 
     and I got to her apartment in time to keep her from 
     completing the suicide attempt. She has been hospitalized and 
     has undergone intensive therapy and is soon to be released, 
     with real hope that there are good reasons to stay alive. You 
     must have been very skillful, Karen because she is a very 
     sharp girl and it was a true suicide attempt prevented only 
     by the fact that she wanted to talk to one human being--you--
     before killing herself. Because you took her seriously, 
     because you cared, because you knew what to say and do, she 
     is alive today and wants to continue to live.

  We also have a letter addressed to Arlene, someone who works at one 
of these hot line centers.
  Among other things, this woman says:

       A member of my staff had come to me with some family 
     problems, both financial and emotional, which were causing 
     that person to be very despondent . . .
       Fortunately, I was able to refer my employee to the 
     Hotline. I don't know the details of the conversations but I 
     can see the results. Having someone available to talk to, 
     combined with the follow-up counseling, has helped this 
     person to find a solution to problems which had seemed 
     overwhelming. I now have a valuable, productive employee and 
     the individual now feels in control of life and 
     circumstances.

  Finally, I have a letter from the Fairfax County Police Department. 
This is from Capt. Art Rudat. He is a commander in the McLean 
substation. He is writing a letter to say having this hotline helps the 
police department, freeing them to do other things. He says:

       Upon our arrival, we found the subject in his room and he 
     was extremely upset and agitated. He was holding a 4" knife 
     to his jugular vein, threatening to kill himself. This threat 
     was not taken lightly because he had already cut his left 
     wrist and was bleeding. The atmosphere at the time was tense, 
     not knowing if anything that the officers would say would 
     further upset the subject. There was a moment, when the 
     subject stood up screaming and pressing the knife into his 
     throat almost cutting his jugular vein, that it was thought 
     the incident would have a tragic ending. * * *
       Even this was occurring, the subject was on the phone, 
     still deep in conversation with Miss Dicke. He would go from 
     being out of control to a very peaceful state. Slowly though, 
     he became less upset and eventually sat down and began 
     listening to Miss Dicke reason with him and win him over. Of 
     course, the officers didn't know what Miss Dicke was saying, 
     but it was enough for him to eventually give up his knife and 
     go to the hospital with rescue to receive much needed 
     assistance.
       It is my understanding that of the nearly 18,000 calls that 
     are received at the hotline center per year, approximately 
     600 are suicide calls and only 5 involve weapons. We at 
     Fairfax County Police Department were quite fortunate to have 
     had both Miss Dicke and Miss Ross working that night. Without 
     their teamwork, tenaciousness and training, this incident 
     could have had a tragic end-
     ing. * * *
       Although hotlines do not historically receive the fanfare 
     and headlines that other public service groups do, we at the 
     Police Department realize what a tremendous resource you are 
     to us and the outstanding service which you provide to the 
     community.

  I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Revenue Recovery Consultants, Inc.,

                                     Fairfax, VA, October 8, 1998.
     Ms. Arlene Krohmal,
     Northern Virginia Hotline,
     Arlington, VA.
       Dear Arlene: I just wanted to take a moment to thank you 
     and to compliment the Hotline for the assistance your staff 
     provided to one of my employees recently.
       A member of my staff had come to me with some family 
     problems, both financial and emotional, which were causing 
     that person to be very despondent. This attitude was 
     affecting the individual's work and life. An appointment with 
     a counselor had been set, but it was ten days away and it 
     seemed as if help was needed immediately. This person told me 
     that, if not for worry about two children, life wouldn't be 
     worth living.
       Fortunately, I was able to refer my employee to the 
     Hotline. I don't know the details of the conversations but I 
     can see the results. Having someone available to talk to, 
     combined with the follow-up counseling, has helped this 
     person to find a solution to problems which had seemed 
     overwhelming. I now have a valuable, productive employee and 
     the individual now feels in control of life and 
     circumstances.
       Thank you for providing a valuable service to the 
     community.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Fran Fisher,
     President.
                                  ____

         Catholic Newman Association, Religion Center, University 
           of Houston,
                                                      Houston, TX.
       PEACE!
       I am writing this letter simply out of my own need to 
     express gratitude, plus the fact that I am aware you likely 
     don't get much positive feedback for what you are doing. It 
     is addressed primarily to one of your people named ``Karen'' 
     whom I have been unable to contact personally, but really to 
     all of you because it could have been any one who happened to 
     answer the phone that day.
       I simply want to say that because of you, Karen, a girl 
     named ___ is alive today and has, for perhaps the first time 
     in her life, a real hope and desire to live. She called you a 
     few weeks ago, with a razor blade in her hand, and she had 
     already begun to cut her wrist. You talked to her for almost 
     an hour, though she tried to hang up a number of times. You 
     were able to get information about the fact that she had 
     recently talked to me, as well as where she lived. You were 
     able to keep her on the line while you had someone contact me 
     and I got to her apartment in time to keep her from 
     completing the suicide attempt. She has been hospitalized and 
     has undergone intensive therapy and is soon to be released, 
     with real hope that there are good reasons to stay alive. You 
     must have been very skillful, Karen because she is a very 
     sharp girl and it was a true suicide attempt prevented only 
     by the fact that she wanted to talk to one human being--you--
     before killing herself. Because you took her seriously, 
     because you cared, because you knew what to say and do, she 
     is alive today and wants to continue to live.
       I am writing this, as I say, simply because I want to let 
     you know--and all of you who work at Crisis Hotline--that 
     what you are doing is beautiful as beautiful as life compared 
     to death, as beautiful as hope compared to depression, as 
     beautiful as loved compared to apathy. I realize, because of 
     my own life-work in this way that you often don't know the 
     effects of your listening,

[[Page 12829]]

     your caring, your loving, that you very likely wonder 
     sometimes if it's worth the time and effort. All I can say 
     is: ``Hey, today I saw the sun shine in a girl's eyes!'' It's 
     worth it!!!
       Thank you, Karen, I love you,
     Rev. Jim Barnett.
                                  ____

                                       Ashburn, VA, June 14, 1999.
     Arlene Krohmal,
     Director, Northern Virginia Hotline,
     Arlington, VA.
       Dear Arlene, I have a request. Please send to me 
     information about your organization, for you see, I would 
     like to name NVHL (Northern Virginia Hotline) as one of my 
     beneficiaries on my life insurance policy. I need to know 
     exactly how to word NVHL as a beneficiary so that there would 
     be no loop holes for anyone to contest.
       The reason for this act of kindness is to give back to your 
     organization what your organization has given to me. You see, 
     over the past twenty years I have used your listeners during 
     moments of crises in my lie. When I had no one to turn to, I 
     could turn to your listeners for insight and support.
       I came to know about the benefit of your hotline due to 
     meeting the original director Bobby Schazenbach and hearing 
     her story why this wonderful and unique organization was set 
     up. I have very fond memories of Bobby and everytime I call 
     your hotline, I often think of her and wonder how she is 
     doing. Her creation of this hotline has been a link to my 
     survival for many years. I won't bother you with the details, 
     but I want to give back to the organization that has been 
     responsible for helping me through many tough late night over 
     the past twenty years.
       Please sent to me any information on your organization that 
     might help facilitate in changing my beneficiary to your 
     organization. I also want you to know that I will be naming 
     the Loudoun Abused Women's Shelter as well.
       Thank God for all of you and thank God for Bobby.
           Fondly, and forever grateful,
                                  ____



                             Fairfax County Police Department,

                                      Fairfax, VA, March 31, 1998.
     Ms. Arlene Krohmal,
     Northern Virginia Suicide Hotline,
     Arlington, VA.
       Dear Ms. Krohmal: I would like to bring to your attention, 
     the actions of two of your volunteers and the impact it had 
     upon a family's future. On March 7, 1998, at approximately 
     5:59 pm, officers from the McLean District Station responded 
     to the Ritz Carlton, near Tysons Corner, for a subject 
     threatening to commit suicide with a knife. The 911 call was 
     made to the Fairfax County Police by Miss Katie Ross, of the 
     Northern Virginia Suicide Hotline, who was assisting Miss 
     Marilyn Dicke, also with the Suicide Hotline, The information 
     received was that the subject had been involved in a 
     continuing domestic dispute with his parents and was at the 
     end of his rope.
       From the beginning, the information given to us by Miss 
     Ross was clear and concise and left little for us to wonder 
     about. This is a key element in our response to a complaint 
     and how the officers will handle the case from the onset. 
     Upon our arrival, we found the subject in his room and he was 
     extremely upset and agitated. He was holding a 4'' knife to 
     his jugular vein, threatening to kill himself. This threat 
     was not taken lightly because he had already cut his left 
     wrist and was bleeding. The atmosphere at the time was tense, 
     not knowing if anything that the officers would say would 
     further upset the subject. There was a moment, when the 
     subject stood up screaming and pressing the knife into his 
     throat almost cutting his jugular vein, that it was thought 
     the incident would have a tragic ending.
       Even this was occurring, the subject was on the phone, 
     still deep in conversation with Miss Dicke. He would go from 
     being out of control to a very peaceful state. Slowly though, 
     he became less upset and eventually sat down and began 
     listening to Miss Dicke reason with him and win him over. Of 
     course, the officers didn't know what Miss Dicke was saying, 
     but it was enough for him to eventually give up his knife and 
     go to the hospital with rescue to receive much needed 
     assistance.
       It is my understanding that of the nearly 18,000 calls that 
     are received at the hotline center per year, approximately 
     600 are suicide calls and only 5 involve weapons. We at 
     Fairfax County Police Department were quite fortunate to have 
     had both Miss Dicke and Miss Ross working that night. Without 
     their teamwork, tenaciousness and training, this incident 
     could have had a tragic ending.
       This exemplifies how the citizens of Fairfax County and the 
     Police Department benefit from programs such as yours. 
     Although hotlines do not historically receive the fanfare and 
     headlines that other public service groups do, we at the 
     Police Department realize what a tremendous resource you are 
     to us and the outstanding service which you provide to the 
     community. It is without any reservation that I commend Miss 
     Dicke and Miss Ross for the outstanding job they did that 
     evening. They should be very proud of themselves and the 
     organization they are affiliated with.
           Sincerely,
                                                Captain Art Rudat,
                               Commander, McLean District Station.

  Mr. REID. I extend my appreciation to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I support the legislation dealing with the 
issue of suicide. It is very important.
  Many, many years ago, early one morning I came to an office and found 
a coworker had taken his life. It was, of course, a morning I will 
remember the rest of my life, finding a coworker and a friend who had, 
over the nighttime hours, taken his life.
  I suppose only those who have been acquainted with that circumstance 
can barely imagine the kind of horrors that persuade someone to take 
their own life. I think anything we can do as a country in public 
policy to reach out and say to those who are visited by those emotional 
difficulties, those pressures and internal problems that persuade them 
to consider taking their life, anything we can do to reach out to them 
to say, here is some help, we ought to be able to do that.
  This amendment is very small. Incrementally, it will be helpful.
  I appreciate the work of Senator Wellstone and Senator Reid. I think 
someday--we may never know the name--adding these resources will help 
someone who is ravaged by these emotional difficulties and can be 
prevented from taking their own life, and we will be rewarded for 
having paid attention to this issue.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from South Dakota knows I had the misfortune of 
my father committing suicide. As the Senator from North Dakota, I saw 
my father lying there after having shot himself. This is something that 
never leaves you.
  People think suicide always happens to someone else, but it doesn't. 
I say to my friend from North Dakota, we could go around this room and 
we would be surprised; almost everyone in this Senate Chamber has had a 
relative, a neighbor, or a friend who committed suicide. It is 
remarkable and sad.
  I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota sharing his story. The 
reason it is important he shares it is to recognize what a universal 
problem this is, at 31,000 people a year. We know, as I indicated a 
number of other times on this floor, many more people commit suicide.
  I think the mere fact that we talk about it is going to help the 
problem. We now have this crisis hotline established. We also, of 
course, have support groups that we didn't have 15, 20 years ago. The 
problem is not getting easier, but it is getting better with people 
better understanding the issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, two things. First, I thank the Senator 
from Nevada for his comments. Second, I say to Senator Specter, I am 
sure he remembers when Kay Jamison testified before his committee, 
saying the gap between what we know and what we do is lethal. This is 
just a small step. I am hoping that the Senate--the sooner the better--
will embrace this issue and put some resources back to communities that 
can put this money to work in terms of suicide prevention. Much of this 
is diagnosable and preventable.
  We have some confusion. Before I agree, I say to Senator Reid, I want 
to suggest the absence of a quorum. We have a disagreement about how we 
will deal with this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Let me make a short statement. We are anxious to move 
ahead with our votes scheduled at 3:30.
  The amendment is acceptable. The subcommittee held a hearing on this 
matter in February and had extraordinarily heartrending testimony from 
families who had been touched directly by suicide. The hearing was held 
at the request of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. It was quite 
compelling.
  The subcommittee and the full committee allocated $662 million to the 
mental health services, an increase of $31 million over last year. A 
number of amendments have been offered seeking to reallocate the money 
in a variety of ways. I have responded that, unless they have offsets, 
we have made the allocations as best we can.
  I think the fact we have such a large sum of money in mental health 
services on a relative basis, including a $31

[[Page 12830]]

million increase for this year, is a testament to the propriety or the 
value judgments which have gone into the structure of this bill. The $3 
million for the hotline can be accommodated easily within the existing 
funds. We had already urged the mental health services to find ways 
through their research to prevent suicides--to find other means of 
communicating with people who were emotionally stressed coming to grips 
with the issue, and preventing suicides. The substantial allocation the 
Appropriations Committee has made is a testament to the value judgments 
and the priorities we have established.
  I thank Senator Reid for sharing his own experiences. It is a very 
telling matter. At his request, we had a very informative hearing in 
February, with quite a few people coming forward, including Danielle 
Steel, the noted authoress who talked about her own son's experience. 
It made quite an impact. I think it is true that while the C-SPAN 2 
audience may not be enormous, people will hear what is being said and 
it can have a salutary effect.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. It was very difficult for the Senator to work this hearing 
into the very busy schedule of this huge subcommittee. The Senator did 
that. I think it has done so much good across the country to have 
people such as Danielle Steel and Kay Jamison, who are experts, to come 
in and talk about their experiences. I am grateful to you for doing 
this, as I think anyone is who has had the misfortune of having had 
some connection with suicide. You are to be applauded for having done 
this with schedule that was really a burden to you.
  We appreciate this very much.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for those 
kind remarks. Perhaps we could move ahead to acceptance of the 
amendment.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania 
for his genuine concern, and the ways in which, as the chair of this 
committee, he has supported this initiative. He cares about it deeply. 
I thank him. I am pleased he will accept the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3680) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3672

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
pending motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Which is the first 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dodd amendment No. 3672 on community 
learning centers.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the point of order has been raised 
because, although the Dodd amendment for afterschool programs takes up 
a meritorious subject, we have already added approximately $150 million 
to that account, bringing it up to $600 million.
  The program has been in effect for only a few years. We have provided 
for additional funding in many similarly related situations. We believe 
the priorities established were appropriate. Had there been a 
suggestion for an offset, had the Senator from Connecticut made a 
suggestion that this priority was more valuable than others, we would 
have been willing to consider it. But it simply breaks the allocations 
and therefore the point of order has been raised. We urge it be 
sustained and not waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in favor of the motion to 
waive the Budget Act?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is a 
motion, to the Senator's amendment, on the Budget Act.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 2 minutes to 
explain the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was reduced to 2 minutes equally divided. 
Those opposed to the motion have already spoken. The Senator has 1 
minute to speak.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, to my colleagues, very briefly, this 
amendment is a carryforward to what has been offered by Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Wellstone, and Senator Murray, all 
trying to improve the quality of public education in the country. One 
of the key issues is afterschool programs.
  We know from parents all across the country the most dangerous period 
for 5 million children unattended is between 3 and 6 in the afternoon. 
Good afterschool programs are meaningful. The country wants it. School 
boards have asked for it. But despite efforts, we have only funded 310 
afterschool programs. Last year, there were 2,500, close to 3,000, 
applications for afterschool dollars. We could only meet the requests 
of 310 school districts.
  It seems to me we must do something to improve the quality of 
education with good afterschool programs, when children are most at 
risk, most vulnerable, when they get involved with habits of smoking, 
and alcohol, of marijuana, when they are victimized. As we know by 
every police study, afterschool programs work.
  I realize there are budgetary concerns, but we spend less than one-
half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on the quality of public 
education in this country. That is a disgrace.
  What we have offered in these series of amendments is to improve our 
Federal investment in education. This amendment is to improve the 
quality of afterschool programs for the 5 million children in America 
who need that assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The question is on agreeing to 
the motion to waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3672. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Specter

[[Page 12831]]


     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
51. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored 
against the allocation of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that 
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes 
in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is only fair to say to the 
Members that we are going to try to enforce the more limited time on 
these votes. I know we try to accommodate Senators on both sides when 
they get delayed because of elevators or the subway or whatever. But it 
is also unfair to the managers and people trying to do the bill, when 
we are all here, if we can't do the votes in the prescribed time. We 
will push for that.
  Secondly, I commend the managers for trying to begin to make some 
progress. We have had a whole series of votes here in this grouping--
four, I guess. But we still have an awful lot of pending amendments. I 
don't want to mention a number because it is too scary.
  I can't complain about the Democratic side because there are almost 
as many amendments on the Republican side. When Members are asked to 
come and either work out their amendments or offer them, they are too 
busy to get it done. We need to get this Labor, HHS, and Education 
appropriations bill done tonight. In order to do that, it is going to 
take an awful lot of work. The managers, or the whips, Harry Reid and 
Don Nickles, can't do it by themselves. Some are beginning to say how 
about Thursday night. When we get Labor-HHS appropriations done, we are 
going to the Interior appropriations bill, plus we have the military 
construction conference report with the emergency provisions, providing 
funds that we have been wanting to get completed for defense and for 
disasters and for Colombia. We may not get that until late Thursday 
night, so that we can't vote on it until Friday. We will have other 
votes on Friday. So we have to complete this bill, the Interior 
appropriations bill, and the MILCON conference report.
  I thank Senator Daschle for his work in that effort and for his 
support as we try to complete this work. I know it is a lot to do in 3 
days, but I know we can do it if we really stick with it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I join in the request made by the 
majority leader to try to cooperate in a way to allow us closure on 
this bill. He has proposed an aggressive agenda. At the very least, we 
have to finish this bill. As he said, there are scores of amendments 
that have to be addressed before we can complete our work. I want to 
finish this bill this week. I want to be as cooperative and as forceful 
with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle in accommodating that 
kind of schedule. We have been on this bill, and we have had a good 
debate with good amendments and a lot of votes. There will be more 
amendments and votes.
  There comes a time when we have to try to bring this to a close. I 
want to do it as soon as we can and still accommodate Senators who have 
good amendments to offer. Please come to the floor and agree to time 
limits for each amendment. Work with us to see if we can't winnow down 
the list a little bit. We have had some cooperation, but it is going to 
take a lot more cooperation if we, indeed, are going to get the bill 
done on time.
  I believe we are ready to vote, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 3659

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to the Kerry amendment. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the pending matter is the motion of the 
Senator from Massachusetts to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to address the digital 
divide that all of us are aware is significantly handicapping the 
capacity of a lot of Americans to participate in the new marketplace. 
The House of Representatives has recognized this problem to the tune of 
$517 million. In our budget, we are only at $425 million. We are going 
to vote in the Senate on the H-1B visa, allowing 200,000-plus people to 
be imported into this country because of our lack of commitment to our 
own citizens in developing their skills for the new marketplace.
  This is an opportunity to make it clear that, for teachers and their 
ability to be able to teach, for virtual high school capacity to have 
advanced placement, in order to enhance the ability of our young to 
learn the new marketplace skills and to close the digital divide, we 
need to make this commitment.
  I think everybody in the Senate knows that with this surplus, with 
our ability to be able to make the choices we have in the budget, we 
have allowed for a waiver of the budget precisely for this kind of 
moment. I ask my colleagues to join me in saying the House of 
Representatives will not have a better sense of this priority than the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call on our colleagues to oppose the 
waiver. This bill has $4.5 billion more than last year's, $100 million 
over the President's request, and it is a matter of allocation of 
priorities.
  There is no doubt that technical literacy is an important objective. 
We have, in the Senate bill, $425 million. If the Senator from 
Massachusetts could establish its priority over others, and add 
offsets, that is something we would be glad to consider. I wish we had 
more money to spend on things such as technical literacy, but we do 
not. To accept this amendment would exceed our 302(b) allocations. 
Therefore, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the budget act in relation to Amendment No. 3659. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays, 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack

[[Page 12832]]


     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, and the nays 
are 51. Three-fifths of the Senators present and voting, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion to waive the Budget Act is not 
agreed to.
  The amendment would increase the budget authority and outlays scored 
against the allocations of the Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that 
subcommittee has reached the limits of its allocation. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 3638

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes equally divided on 
the motion to waive the Budget Act by the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Reed.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would add an additional $100 
million to the appropriated funds for the GEAR UP program. GEAR UP is 
the centerpiece of our efforts to reach out to disadvantaged students 
and give them both the skills and the confidence to go on to college. 
It is particularly clear in low-income neighborhoods that young people 
and families do not have either the access to college or the kind of 
skills they need to make it all the way through high school into 
college.
  This program does that. It complements the Pell grant. It complements 
other programs because it actually gives young people, starting the 
sixth or seventh grade, the tutoring, the mentoring, the confidence, 
the ability to go through high school, and go on to college.
  By voting for this amendment, we will say to scores of disadvantaged 
children: You can succeed; you can go to college; you can take your 
place in American society as a college graduate. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this incredibly important program, to make 
opportunities real in the lives of all of our citizens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is no doubt this is a good program. 
It has been in effect only since 1999 when we put in $120 million; last 
year, up to $200 million; this year our figure is $225 million.
  Again, it is a matter of priorities. This bill has $4.5 billion more 
than last year's education bill. It is $100 million higher than the 
President's figure. When the Senator from Rhode Island argued the 
matter as being a very special program, I posed a practical question: 
What should be offset? What is less important?
  We think we have established the appropriate priorities. As much as 
we want to have additional funds for a program of this sort, it simply 
isn't there. The extra million dollars would exceed our 302(b) 
allocation. Therefore, we ask our colleagues not to waive the Budget 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3638. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 156 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored 
against the allocations to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and that 
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 3678

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes for debate on the 
Kennedy amendment. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment basically follows the 
President's recommendation, and that is to provide a cost-of-living 
increase to the training programs for youth and adult workers in this 
country.
  At the present time, half of all the employers in this country 
provide no training whatsoever, the other half of the employers provide 
1 percent of payroll costs, and 80 percent of that training goes to 
management level workers.
  We have talked a good deal about H-1B visas and bringing into the 
United States those guest workers who have special skills, but I think 
we have a basic responsibility to ensure continuing training programs 
for America's workers as we continue to expand our economy and compete 
in the world.
  That amendment provides an important increase for training programs. 
Two years ago, along with Senator Jeffords, we consolidated the 
training programs. We now have an effective one-stop system that will 
offer real opportunities for workers.
  Finally, this amendment also restores the Summer Jobs Program. 
Without this amendment, there will be no Summer Jobs Program for the 
youth of this country. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as with so many of the pending 
amendments, the objective is good if we had more funding. We have 
increased the funding for the Department of Labor by $400 million. We 
have funded two new programs requested by the administration: incumbent 
worker training for $30 million and responsible reintegration of 
youthful offenders for $20 million.
  Over the last 4 years, there has been a 32-percent increase for 
dislocated workers and a 25-percent increase for the Job Corps. If it 
were possible to have additional funding, we would be glad to provide 
it. We think we have established the priorities in an appropriate order 
for this complex bill. I ask the motion to waive the Budget Act be 
denied.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to amendment No. 3678. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[[Page 12833]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays scored 
against the allocations to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and that 
subcommittee has reached the limit of its allocations. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request and 
will then reclaim the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Who has the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee for the purpose of propounding a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following listed amendments be the only remaining first-degree 
amendments in order to the pending Labor-HHS appropriations bill and 
they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  I further ask unanimous consent that with respect to HMO-related 
amendments, they be subject to second-degree amendments relating to the 
subject matter of the conferenced HMO bill or the underlying Labor-HHS 
bill or the original first-degree language.
  The list is Specter managers' amendment; Domenici 3561, telecom 
training center; Domenici 3662, telecom training center; Frist 3654, 
education research; Jeffords 3655, IDEA; Jeffords 3656, medicine 
management; Jeffords 3677, Public Health Service Act; Jeffords 3676, 
high school; Collins 3657, defibrillator----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a moment? If I could 
respectfully request, maybe we could just submit our two lists, 
Democrat and Republicans lists. The staffs have looked at them. Unless 
the Senator wants to read them for some reason, we have 80-some on our 
side that we don't want to read.
  Mr. SPECTER. Well, that would be fine with me, Mr. President. The 
question would arise as to how we are going to get consent if Members 
don't know what is on the list.
  Mr. REID. We have made on our side numerous hotlines to Members. We 
had the 11 o'clock time that we were going to submit the amendments. If 
the Senator wants to read them, that is fine with me.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
lists be printed in the Record as they are. Senators knew there was a 
time. They checked this list. Statements were made. I think it would 
save some time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I will object until I can 
get some understanding or we can get some understanding from the 
majority leader as to when we are going to have a date set for a vote 
on PNTR. This is an issue which transcends politics, if I might have 
the attention of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I know we are in a hurry. We are trying to 
get through with this bill. I think that is important work, and I am 
for it. Let me make my point very succinctly.
  This bill, in section 515, has a provision that changes current law 
and shifts the payment date for SSI, the Supplemental Security Income 
program, from October back to September. What that does is shift $2.4 
billion worth of spending out of the budget year for which we are 
writing this appropriation back into the previous fiscal year. In the 
process, it allows $2.4 billion more to be spent this year by spending 
$2.4 billion in the previous fiscal year. This payment shift was 
specifically debated during the budget resolution debate. It was 
rejected. Part of the agreement that was made that passed the budget 
was that there would be no payment shift on SSI.
  This provision is subject to a point of order because it violates the 
budget agreement. It shifts spending into fiscal year 2000 and drives 
up spending in that year $2.4 billion above the level provided for in 
the budget.
  If we are going to write budgets, they have to have some meaning. 
This is not just some minor provision. The debate on this issue was a 
key element of the debate on that budget, and the Budget Committee and 
the Senate specifically rejected this payment shift.
  So on the basis of that, Mr. President, I make a point of order that 
section 515 of the bill, as amended, violates section 311 of the Budget 
Act, since it would cause fiscal year 2000 budget authority and outlays 
to exceed the spending aggregates in the budget resolution.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget 
Act, as amended, I move to waive section 311 of that act with respect 
to the consideration of this amendment.
  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, I have just had a discussion with the 
Senator from Texas about setting this issue aside so that we can 
proceed with other matters and try to make a determination as to how we 
can solve this issue.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, objection. Respectfully, I know how hard the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa worked on this 
measure. But with this hanging over our heads, we might as well get 
this resolved now. We have spent 3 or 4 days on this bill already. If 
this prevails, we are all through here. So we believe this matter 
should be resolved now.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it takes unanimous consent to set it 
aside. I urge the Senator from Nevada to reconsider. We had an issue 
yesterday raised by the chairman of the Finance Committee, and there 
was an agreement between the chairman of the Finance Committee and the 
chairman of the full Appropriations Committee as to what would happen 
in conference, that items would be taken out, and that we would seek an 
additional allocation.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to remind 
my colleagues that sustaining this point of order does not bring down 
the bill. Under the unanimous consent agreement the bill is being 
considered under, sustaining this point of order would simply strike 
section 515.

[[Page 12834]]

  I am perfectly willing to let the Senate go on with other amendments. 
I am going to insist on this point of order at some point, and it will 
have to come to a resolution. But if we can do other business while 
this is being discussed, I think that is a good idea. The point of 
order is a very targeted point of order against section 515, not 
against the bill.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada will state it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the objection of the Senator from Nevada 
is withdrawn and another amendment is considered, would the Senator 
still have the same right to object to any further proceedings after 
this amendment that would be brought up next is disposed of?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Normally, the point of order would occur after 
another amendment had been disposed of.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will 
propound a question under the reservation.
  I am trying to understand the consequences of the amendment. Let me 
reserve the right to object while I ask the Senator from Texas and the 
Senator from Pennsylvania this: If the point of order is sustained, can 
we get some notion of what consequences it will have on the spending in 
this bill for education, labor, and other issues?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I might respond, if the point of order 
is sustained, we would lose $2.4 billion and there would be required an 
adjustment of the bill which would be catastrophic.
  So it is my suggestion that we set it aside, taking the willingness 
of the Senator from Texas to do that, and then proceed with other 
amendments so we can try to figure out what other allocation might be 
possible. We have an amendment ready by the Senator from Vermont and 
one by the Senator from North Carolina. We have not had many Republican 
amendments. It is my hope that we can proceed. We have to find a way 
out of this. If we have a little time, we have a chance to find our way 
out of it. So I hope we will proceed.
  If I may have the attention of the Senator from Nevada, he will have 
the opportunity to--we will have to set it aside, as I understand the 
parliamentary ruling, each time a new amendment is called up. Is that 
correct, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. So I hope we will set it aside for the two amendments 
that we now have lined up and ready to go.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, continuing to reserve the right to object, 
the Senator from Pennsylvania talked about if this prevails, the 
requirement of an adjustment to the bill would be ``catastrophic.'' 
That was the word he used. I am trying to understand the consequences 
of that. What kind of adjustment would we be talking about with respect 
to this bill on Education and Labor?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I don't know how this percentage worked. 
I am advised that with this provision there would be an across-the-
board 6.75 percent cut to bring the bill under the allocation.
  I am not sure of that math, although that is the representation made 
to me. If you take $2.4 billion out of $104.5 billion, that, it would 
seem to me, would be under 3 percent. But it would be very material.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a 
critically important piece of legislation. It is a funding bill for 
education and labor issues and a range of things that are very 
important. If the consequence of the motion offered by the Senator from 
Texas would be to require a substantial across-the-board cut to this 
piece of legislation, it is of significant interest to virtually every 
Member of this body.
  I don't believe we ought to go on. If the Senator from Nevada chooses 
not to object, I shall object. But I will leave it to the Senator from 
Nevada to comment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, before we break down in the tears and the 
shock that would come from not shifting spending from one year to 
another to break the budget by $2.4 billion, let me remind my 
colleagues that with this shift and with the entitlement changes that 
Senator Stevens has said we are not going to make, this bill will grow 
by 20.5 percent over last year. You can't find that growth rate even 
going as far back as the Carter administration. You have to go all the 
way back to when L.B.J. was President to find a bill growing that fast.
  If the point of order is sustained eliminating the phony pay shift 
and an adjustment is made in spending, this bill will still be growing 
by 17.7 percent. Granted that we each look at the world through 
different glasses. I don't see that as cataclysm; I see that as 
somewhat of a movement toward fiscal restraint.
  But the important point is this provision violates the Budget Act. We 
considered this payment shift in the budget. We specifically rejected 
it. We set out numbers that were meant to meet the targets for spending 
that were agreed to. This provision violates the Budget Act, and it 
should be stricken. I will insist on the point of order against it, but 
I am perfectly willing to let amendments move forward. If the minority 
doesn't want amendments to be considered, it is up to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised that the 17.7 percent would 
be the across the board on outlays. I have heard what the Senator from 
Texas says about those percentages. I do not think they are accurate. 
We will compute the percentages. That simply is not factually so. I 
managed last year's bill. But we will tally them up and make 
representation on the floor at a later point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I believe the pending motion is the motion 
to waive the Budget Act. Is that not true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is that not a debatable motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a debatable motion.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
  Mr. President, the figures we just heard from the Senator from Texas 
really are quite phony. They include all kinds of advanced funding and 
everything else to come to that figure that the Senator threw out on 
the 20 percent.
  But you have to ask yourself: Why are we facing this now? What the 
Senator from Texas is trying to do is to save one day. It is one day, I 
tell my friend from North Dakota.
  This provision was put in there not by me and not by the minority. It 
was put in there by Senator Stevens in order to allow us to do the 
legitimate work we have to do to meet the obligations we have in 
education and in health and NIH, and all of the other things in this 
bill which has pretty wide support. It wasn't us. The chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee put it in.
  The Senator from Texas--let's be clear about it--is moving the 
outlays for SSI paychecks from one day to the previous day--that is all 
he is doing--one day. But that one day will cause about a 6-percent 
across-the-board cut in NIH, cancer research, Alzheimer's research, 
education funding, Pell grants, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
IDEA, you name it--a 6-percent across-the-board cut because the Senator 
from Texas wants to move by one day the payment of SSI. He wants to 
move it to one day later. Last year, we moved it one day forward. He 
wants to move it to one day later.
  Who cares about one day? Why is it such a big deal to go from 
September 30 to October 1? But if it means that it allows us to move 
forward with this bill and to have the adequate funding in this bill 
when we go to conference, it means a lot.
  This really is a mischievous point of order because it really doesn't 
do anything. It doesn't save us any money. The money we will spend on 
SSI will either go out September 30 or it will go out October 1. It is 
going out. The Senator from Texas is not stopping that

[[Page 12835]]

money. It is going to go out. It is either going to go out on one day 
or the next day. He is not saving a nickel. But by doing this, he is 
causing all kinds of problems on this bill. That is why I say it is 
just simply a mischievous motion.
  Of course, I support my colleague, the chairman, in the motion to 
waive. Hopefully, we will hear from Senator Stevens on this. But there 
is really no substance. I guess what I am trying to say is that there 
is no substance to the motion--none. You don't save a nickel. You don't 
help anybody. You don't hurt anybody. You just move the payment from 
one day to the next. That is all. But you sure hurt this bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving my right to the floor, I will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I wonder if the 
Senator recalls last year a technique similar to this used on the 
Department of Defense bill. I am just curious whether our colleague, 
the Senator from Texas, came to the floor to make a point of order when 
it had to do with defense. I don't know the answer to that. I am 
curious. It seems to me if there is a consistent point of order against 
the deployment of this technique, one wouldn't just make it on 
education issues, which, of course, to you, me, and others is very 
important. It is some of the most important spending we do. It is some 
of the most important investments we make in the country.
  I ask the question, Does the Senator know whether a similar point of 
order was made by our colleague when it had to do with the Defense 
Department last year?
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't know the answer to that question. I was not 
involved in the appropriations bill for defense. I will leave that to 
others. I have no knowledge of that. I accept the Senator's insight 
into that. I don't know the answer as to whether the Senator from Texas 
objected to that. The Senator from Texas can certainly speak for 
himself in that regard. But I guess the Record will show one way or the 
other.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask another question, the point here is this 
bill deals with the effort the Federal Government makes to respond to 
the education needs in this country. Most of education funding, of 
course, comes from State and local governments. We provide some funding 
in a range of areas. We provide assistance in VA, health care, and a 
range of other issues. This is a very important piece of legislation 
that invests prominently in the lives of the people of this country.
  The technique that is being objected to is not a new technique; it 
has been employed before. That is the point I was making. Is it a good 
technique? I don't know. You could find other ways to adequately fund 
these needed programs. Some in this Chamber may not want to fund these 
programs. They may think they are not a priority perhaps. This is not a 
new technique. But apparently when it comes to funding for VA, health 
care, and education, we have people come to the floor to make a point 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. BAUCUS. On another matter, Mr. President, I ask the Senator from 
Iowa to yield for a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will yield, without losing my right to 
the floor, for a question from my friend from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if I could consult with the good Senator 
from Iowa on a matter which I raised earlier, that is, the Senator from 
Mississippi, the majority leader, asked unanimous consent for the 
Senate to take up a list of amendments on both sides and to have 
printed that list of amendments with respect to the pending bill.
  I asked the majority leader if it might not be a good idea for the 
leader to set a date certain in July to bring up PNTR. I am not asking 
the Senator for his view on the bill, but I ask the Senator if he 
thinks it is a good idea to bring the bill up and at least have a vote 
on it, particularly in July. Wouldn't it be better to have a bill 
brought up in July than, say, in September, given the fact that it has 
passed the House, given the fact that we will bring it up sometime this 
session of Congress, and given the fact that delay is dangerous?
  Does the Senator agree it would be a good idea to bring it up and 
have a date certain, at least for insurance that we are going to vote 
on it this year? The month of July would be the preferable month to 
vote on it rather than a subsequent month; does the Senator agree?
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Montana, who is a strong 
supporter on the Finance Committee of the permanent normal trade 
relations with China--and he has worked very hard on this issue--I know 
he desires, as many others, to get on with that, debate it, have a vote 
and move on.
  The Senator is asking this Senator a question on which I do not feel 
qualified to make an answer. I am not involved in this issue or on the 
Finance Committee. Right now my interest is getting this bill through. 
I am trying to help and do what I can to get the amendments through and 
get adequate funding for education, for NIH, for health care, for human 
services, to try to educate our kids, and attend to the human needs of 
our people. We are trying to get this through.
  I have not had time now to consider when the PNTR should be brought 
up. I know my friend from Montana is obviously well versed in this 
subject. I probably would accede to his knowledge of this issue and 
when it ought to be brought up. As to my own view, I don't think this 
Senator is qualified to respond.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I will not object to a unanimous 
consent request on this bill today, but I do hope prior to recessing 
for the July recess we can work out an agreement, that the majority 
leader will be able to make a statement, the result of which is to make 
it clear that the vote will come up in July.
  I reserve my right as to what action I will take tomorrow. I thank 
the Senator.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, back to the point at hand, I want everyone 
to understand what this mischievous motion is all about. All it does, 
in order to save the money, is move the date from October 1 to 
September 30. Last year, we moved it up to October 1; we moved it back 
to September 30.
  The motion of the Senator from Texas says, no, you can't do it 
September 30; you have to do it on October 1. In fairness and in 
reality, the SSI checks should go out at the end of the month. If the 
Senator has an objection, he should have filed it last year because we 
moved it from September 30 to October 1. SSI checks are to go out the 
end of the month. All we are doing is bringing it back to where it 
really ought to be, at the end of the month.
  Be that as it may, we are only talking about 1 day. I don't think too 
many people are hurt by 1 day. The Senator moves it back to October 1 
when it ought to be September 30.
  What does his motion do if it is upheld? We will have almost a $3 
billion cut in education, a $1.4 billion cut in NIH, a $210 million cut 
from the Centers for Disease Control, a $300 million cut from Head 
Start, a $77 million cut from community health centers.
  I heard some talk earlier about going to conference and taking care 
of it there. The House bill is lower than ours. If we cut these numbers 
here, when we go to conference, we will be locked into the lower 
numbers. So it has a great impact.
  We have a lot of amendments that have been filed--not only on the 
Democratic side but the Republican side as well--from Senators Collins, 
DeWine, Smith, Lott, Hutchison, Coverdell, Ashcroft, Helms, Nickles, 
Smith, Gramm, and a whole bunch on our side, too.
  How can we debate these amendments in any kind of a legitimate 
fashion, if, in fact, we don't even know what kind of money we are 
talking about? Some of the amendments add money; Some take it away; 
Some modify.

[[Page 12836]]

  If we go ahead and have the amendments, we don't know whether the 
motion from the Senator from Texas is going to hold or whether it will 
be waived, so we will be debating these amendments in a vacuum without 
the full knowledge of exactly what dollar amounts we are looking at. 
Are we going to cut it by 6.75 percent across the board or not? We 
don't know that yet.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. In formulating this question as to whether we are going 
to cut it by 6.75 percent, may I suggest to the distinguished ranking 
member and comanager that we will not cut funding by 6.75 percent.
  What we are seeking to do now is to obtain a reallocation. 
Discussions are underway with the chairman of the full committee to 
reallocate some funds to this bill from other bills, which delays the 
day of reckoning for the whole process. That is the way things are 
done, not only around here but generally.
  It is my hope we can accomplish that. The chairman of the full 
committee is now busy working on a supplemental, but he will be here in 
a few minutes. I believe we will find a way on a reallocation to 
satisfy the issue which has been raised by the Senator from Texas.
  Unfortunately, we had three amendments queued up and ready to go to 
make progress, but seeing the state of affairs on the floor, our 
amendment offerers have dispersed. We are trying to find some more 
amendments, and we have an amendment ready to be offered.
  It is my hope that on the representation we are making progress on 
finding an allocation, which will leave our bill at $104.5 billion, we 
take the Senator from Texas up on his willingness to set his issue 
aside so we can proceed with the bill.
  Mr. REID. It sounds reasonable. We have one person who wanted me to 
protect him. He is across the hall. I will see if I can get that taken 
care of. We object for a little bit.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I had yielded for a 
question. I hope we can get this clearance. I think we probably can 
move ahead. From what my distinguished chairman said, I hope that can 
happen in terms of reallocation and we can put this thing to bed.
  An objection to laying the motion to waive aside holds right now 
until we can get clearance on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the comments 
made by our colleague from Iowa. My point of order can be called many 
things, but calling it mischievous--not that there is anything wrong 
with being mischievous in defense of the public interest--but my point 
of order is anything but mischievous.
  Our colleague from Iowa would have us believe that shifting SSI 
payments from fiscal year 2001 to 2000 does not increase spending. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. Under current law, the 
payments for SSI will be made on October 2 and they will be part of the 
2001 budget. What this illegal--under the Budget Act--payment shift 
does is shift this payment back into fiscal year 2000 and raids the 
surplus that we have all pledged to protect by a total of $2.4 billion, 
freeing up $2.4 billion more to be spent next year. So the first point 
is, sustaining this point of order will mean we will spend $2.4 billion 
less.
  Second, a point of order was not raised against the D.C. 
appropriations bill last year on the pay shift because there was no 
point of order available. That pay shift did not violate the budget in 
effect at that time. This SSI payment shift was considered in the 
budget and it was rejected, specifically rejected.
  Let me explain exactly the arithmetic of where we are. In allocating 
spending for this fiscal year, the Appropriations Committee allocated 
to Labor-HHS appropriations, a subcommittee that funds many important 
programs for America, a 13.5-percent increase in spending. That was far 
and away the largest increase in spending of any budget allocation. You 
would have to go all the way back to when Jimmy Carter was President to 
find that level of spending.
  The first thing this committee did was it put some entitlement 
reforms in the bill, which the chairman of the committee has already 
said are not going to be made. They are going to be taken out in 
conference. But by claiming that they are going to be made, they 
magically raised their increase in spending from 13.5 percent over last 
year's level to 17.7 percent over last year's level. You are now in the 
range where going back to when Jimmy Carter was President does not hold 
up. We are getting to the point where you have to go back to the time 
when Lyndon Johnson was President to find increases like that.
  But even that was not enough. What they did was include a phony 
payment shift--by taking SSI payments, which by law are to be made on 
October 2, which is after the beginning of the new fiscal year, in 
other words, money they would have had to have funded in the 2001 
budget--by taking that payment and moving it into fiscal year 2000, 
they can rob the surplus by $2.4 billion and spend $2.4 billion next 
year. By doing that, they would then raise the increase in spending 
over last year's level to 20.5 percent.
  These tears that are being shed about my point of order, which simply 
calls on the Senate to live up to its budget, these tears are being 
shed because by doing that we could increase spending in this area only 
by 17.7 percent. By enforcing the budget, rather than increasing 
spending by 20.5 percent, we would increase spending by 17.7 percent. 
How many working families have seen their income go up by 17.7 percent 
in the last year? I submit, not very many families.
  So what I have done is simply said: When we adopted a budget we meant 
it. When we set out what we were going to spend in this coming year, we 
meant for those constraints to be binding. What is literally happening 
in the Congress is that this surplus is burning a gigantic hole in our 
pocket. We are seeing spending increases at levels that have not been 
approached since Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. It 
is very dangerous for two reasons. No. 1, if we have a downturn, those 
surpluses are not going to be there. Second, some of us had hoped that 
we would repeal the marriage penalty, so we do not have to make people 
in America who fall in love and get married pay $1,400 a year in 
additional income taxes for that right. We had hoped to repeal the 
death tax so your family would not have to sell off your family farm or 
your business that your parents worked a lifetime to build up, simply 
because they died. But if we are going to be increasing spending like 
this and busting the budget, we are never going to have an opportunity 
to share the benefits of this prosperity with working Americans.
  When our colleague says this point of order does not save money, that 
is simply not true. It saves $2.4 billion.
  Second, I am going to raise a point of order on the supplemental 
appropriation for military construction. I am going to raise it because 
what we are doing is obscene in terms of spending, and the bill does 
violate the Budget Act. I intend to raise the point of order.
  Let me finally say that this point of order is important. In fact, we 
have used it five times today to prevent new spending from being added. 
The amazing thing is that we have before us an appropriations bill that 
grows by one-fifth, over 20 percent, and yet we have spent all day long 
where the minority has been trying to add more and more and more 
spending. You begin to wonder when is it enough? Is there any 
appropriations bill that could have been written that would have been 
enough?
  Yet with all this spending, we are all talking about locking away 
money for Social Security, locking away money for Medicare, but the 
spending goes on and on and on.
  I raised the budget point of order. If Senator Stevens comes over and 
reallocates money and takes it away

[[Page 12837]]

from another use so the total level of spending does not rise, he 
certainly has a right to do that. That will mean this point of order 
will stand. This phony payment shift will be stricken. But the money 
will be allocated to be spent on these programs and taken away from 
something else. That is how the budget is supposed to work. We are 
supposed to make decisions like American families make decisions. If 
they want a new refrigerator they don't buy a new washing machine. If 
they want to go on vacation, they don't buy a new car. They set 
priorities.
  Our problem is we never set priorities. So I think this point of 
order is important. This point of order is an enforcement of the 
budget. We ought to be holding the line on spending. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Texas. I 
know sometimes it upsets people when we come out and say: Wait a 
minute, we are breaking the budget.
  I work with the Senator from Texas on the Budget Committee and he 
happens to be right. I also compliment my colleague from Pennsylvania, 
who is managing the bill. As the Senator from Texas mentioned, no 
matter what is in this bill, many people--particularly on the other 
side--say it is never enough. No matter what is in there, it is never 
enough. The Senator from Pennsylvania put in more money than the 
President requested for education, and we have had four or five 
amendments saying let's spend billions more. It is never enough. No 
matter what, we more than matched the President.
  The bill we have before us has outlays greater than the President 
requested and it is still not enough.
  I happen to be one who is, I don't want to say a wonk on numbers, but 
I am really picky on numbers. I think we ought to be accurate on 
numbers. I asked people before, by how much does this bill grow? The 
Senator from Texas just says it grows by a fifth. He understates the 
growth by just a tad. The growth in this bill is 20.4 percent in budget 
authority according to CBO. That is a lot of BA growth. Some people say 
we are growing other areas of the budget, and that is true. No other 
area of the budget is growing nearly as fast. The Defense 
appropriations bill we already had before us and passed, if my memory 
serves me correctly, was growing at 7-point-some percent. That is a 
lot. It is a big increase. This is growing almost three times as much 
in budget authority.
  People ask: What does that mean? It means the money we authorize to 
be spent; we are committing the Government to spend that amount.
  What are outlays? Sometimes outlays are easier to figure. The growth 
percentage in outlays is not quite as much. The growth percentage in 
outlays is 12 percent. The Senator from Texas wants to take off $2.4 
billion because that is an offset. That is, frankly, a faulty offset. 
It is only in there so we can have more money in real growth in 
outlays, in budget authority, in commitment to growth spending.
  There is actually $4.9 billion in outlay offsets. The Senator from 
Texas might have been able to do the full $4.9 billion. I know he can 
do $2.4 billion, but there is $4.9 billion in offsets. I believe the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said we will drop those 
offsets.
  The real program growth--and this is what we are talking about in 
BA--is $104.1 billion. That compares to last year's $86.5 million in 
budget authority. That is a growth of 20.4 percent. That is a lot.
  If we adopt the amendment of the Senator from Texas, the growth will 
still be in excess of 17 percent. Granted, I know it will cause some 
consternation. I know the members of the committee will have to 
reshuffle and limit the growth of the spending in commitment to 17.5 
percent. I happen to think that is doable. Maybe it is not the easiest 
thing in the world because we made commitments to grow spending more 
than the President did in this area or that area. Certainly, 17-percent 
growth is adequate, sufficient, and responsible.
  As to the bill before us, one can only say it complies with the 
budget if they take into consideration $4.9 billion of offsets which, 
frankly, will not happen.
  Again, I compliment my colleague from Texas for his amendment. I will 
submit for the Record a chart I put together which shows budget 
authority and outlays for the Labor-HHS bill for the last 10 years.
  For my colleagues' information, in 1990, 10 years ago, budget 
authority was $43.9 billion. Last year, it was $86.5 billion. It 
basically doubled in the last 10 years.
  The bill before us is trying to grow at 20 percent. In other words, 
it will double in about 4 years at twice the rate of growth of what we 
have done in the last 10 years. I think that would be a mistake.
  I am not critical of anyone. I compliment my colleague from Texas. He 
has a good amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the chart which shows the growth in this 
particular area of the budget, the Labor-HHS budget, be printed in the 
Record. It shows growth in outlays and in budget authority for the last 
10 years.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        LABOR/HHS APPROPRIATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    BA growth    Outlay
                                  Budget   Outlays               growth
                                authority           (percent)  (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................      43.9      49.4  .........  .........
1991..........................      51.0      54.4      16.2       10.2
1992..........................      60.1      58.5      17.9        7.5
1993..........................      63.2      62.7       5.1        7.3
1994..........................      68.1      68.7       7.8        9.6
1995..........................      67.4      70.2      -1.0        2.1
1996..........................      63.4      69.1      -5.9       -1.6
1997..........................      71.0      71.9      11.9        4.1
1998..........................      80.7      76.2      13.7        6.1
1999..........................      85.1      80.2       5.4        5.2
2000..........................      86.5      86.3       1.6        7.7
2001 House Net................      97.2      91.1      12.4        5.5
2001 House Gross*.............     101.8      94.3      17.8        9.2
2001 Senate Net...............      98.1      93.1      13.5        7.9
2001 Senate Gross*............     104.1      96.7      20.4       12.0
2001 President................     105.8      94.6      22.3        9.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*=Gross spending levels do not include mandatory offsets, contingent
  emergencies, or other adjustments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will take a couple minutes. I heard the 
Senator from Texas talking about there is never enough. Of course, he 
just talked about Democrats on this side offering amendments to 
increase funding. I thought what is good for the goose is good for the 
gander.
  There are Senators on that side of the aisle who have amendments to 
increase spending in this bill: Senator Cochran, Senator Collins, 
Senator DeWine, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords. Those are the only 
ones I have right now from their side that I know of who add money to 
the bill. It is not only Democrats; Republicans, too. There are some on 
that side of the aisle, as well as on this side of the aisle, who 
understand we have unmet needs in this country when it comes to dealing 
with education, health, human services, and research.
  I point out there is all this talk about how much this budget has 
increased. It all depends on how you look at it. It depends on your 
baseline. It depends on your numbers. The Senator from Texas probably 
knows that as well as anybody around here. So we can look at it a 
different way.
  Let's look at it this way, for example: Twenty years ago, the share 
of the dollar that went for elementary and secondary education in this 
country that came from the Federal Government was a little over 11 
cents. In other words, 20 years ago, 11 cents out of every dollar that 
was put into elementary and secondary education came from the Federal 
Government. Today, that is down to 7 cents. We are going backwards. We 
put the burden on our property taxpayers around the country. It is an 
unfair tax, a tax that can be highly regressive, especially in an area 
where there are a lot of elderly people who may not be working and live 
on Social Security, but they still have to pay the property taxes. When 
one looks at it that way, one can say we are shirking our 
responsibility. If we had just kept up that 11-percent level for the 
last 20 years, we would not be having all these amendments.

[[Page 12838]]

  Second, the figures they are throwing out about a 20-percent increase 
is about as phony as the piece of paper it is written on because that 
takes into account a lot of things that are not figured into how much 
we are actually increasing programs. If one looks at the program 
increases--education and the other program increases--this year over 
last year, it comes in at a little over 9 percent, somewhere between 9 
and 10 percent.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 8.2 percent.
  Mr. HARKIN. My chairman is always ahead of me on these things--8.2 
percent. If one looks at the increases we are making next year over 
this year, it comes to 8.2 percent, not 20 percent. I wanted to make 
the record clear. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have one sentence in reply, and that 
is, we will provide the details as to increasing 8.2 percent instead of 
the alleged 20.4 percent, but we want to do it at a later point so we 
can move ahead with amendments.
  We have two amendments lined up: one from the Senator from Ohio, Mr. 
Voinovich, and one from the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside so we can 
proceed with the Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, will I be next in line 
for an amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the Voinovich amendment, we proceed to the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 3641

 (Purpose: To permit appropriations to be used for programs under the 
              Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. 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 Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3641.
       On page 59, line 10, insert ``; to carry out part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.);'' after ``qualified teachers''.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I speak on this amendment I sent 
to the desk, I would like to say just a couple of words in regard to 
the point of order the Senator from Texas has just made.
  I was one of the Members of the Senate who worked with the Senator 
from Texas to place in the budget resolution certain points of order 
which we believed we needed to have to make sure spending did not 
increase more than what the budget resolution provided for.
  His point of order is directed at exactly what we were concerned 
about. It is what I might refer to, in all due respect, as a gimmick. 
In considering the 2001 budget, money that was put into the FY 2001 
budget is being moved back into the 2000 budget in order to make 
available $2.4 billion more than could be spent otherwise.
  What does that mean? That means that when you shove the cost back 
into the year 2000, you are going to use $2.4 billion of the on-budget 
surplus that many of us recently voted to use to pay down the national 
debt.
  When we put a budget resolution together, at least--I thought it 
meant something. One of the things that disturbed me last year was 
that, at the end of the game, we did all kinds of things to exceed what 
we had originally anticipated to spend. So here we are today, trying to 
do the same kind of thing we did at the end of last year.
  I think this Senate should sustain the point of order; that we ought 
to live by the budget resolution we agreed to earlier this year, and 
that the committee should make the hard choices.
  One of the things that was brought up is that in order to pay for 
many of the new increases in spending in new programs, mandatory 
programs were cut, mandatory programs that I think are fundamental. 
Things such as the social services block grant, things such as the CHIP 
program. I have been told they will be taken care of later on.
  My belief is that if we have a budget resolution and we agree to 
spend a certain amount of money, we ought to live within that budget 
resolution. I hope we sustain the point of order.
  Mr. President, few will dispute that each and every child in this 
Nation deserves to be able to obtain a quality education, a fact 
Congress recognized 25 years ago when it passed the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  Since that time, IDEA has helped ensure that all students, regardless 
of their disability, are able to receive the educational services they 
need in order to attend their local school.
  In my State of Ohio, IDEA has helped thousands of young men and women 
go beyond their disabilities and obtain a quality education.
  Thanks to IDEA, Ohio students with debilitating problems like 
Cerebral Palsy and autism have been able to receive help in reading and 
writing from special education teachers. They can use programs like 
Dragon Dictate--a speech recognition program that can be used to 
control a word processor-- in order to help them better understand 
their school work.
  Before IDEA, these children would have been virtually forgotten 
elements in our education system. With IDEA, these children are in 
school, they are learning and they are growing. And IDEA doesn't just 
help disabled students. Alexandra Shannon, a 16 year old student from 
Beavercreek, OH, believes that ``enhanced educational opportunities 
help everyone.'' In a meeting with one of my staff members just a few 
months ago, she told of her friend, Peter, who had learned to walk at 
school with the help of his schoolmates. The entire school was brought 
closer together by the experience that Alexandra called, the ``joy of 
the year.''
  However, even with all the success of IDEA across the Nation, the 
fact remains that the cost to implement this program is draining money 
from our schools and significantly impeding the ability of State and 
local educators to fund their own priorities--priorities that include 
some of the items my colleagues here in the Senate think should be 
funded at the Federal level.
  The cost of serving a handicapped student is typically twice as much 
as the average amount spent per pupil, while in some school districts, 
the cost is higher still. Think of this. In Centerville, OH, 
Centerville High School superintendent, Frank DePalma estimates that in 
his school, special education services cost 4 to 5 times as much as do 
services for nonhandicapped students. He said:

       Costs for services such as occupational therapy, speech 
     therapy and physical therapy continue to skyrocket.

  Indeed, the Cincinnati Post wrote in an editorial just 2 months ago 
that the city's public schools spend:

       $40.3 million a year on disabilities education. That's 
     nearly 11% of its $365 million budget.

  That is 11 percent of their budget.
  Many school districts recognize that students with disabilities 
require different, and often, expensive needs. They want to help their 
students, but they also need and want the financial help that the 
Federal Government has promised.
  As many of my colleagues may recall, when IDEA was passed in 1975, 
Congress thought it was such a national priority, that it promised that 
the Federal Government would pay up to 40 percent of the cost of this 
program.
  To date, the most that Washington has provided to our school 
districts under IDEA is 12.6 percent of the educational costs for each 
handicapped child; and that was in fiscal year 2000.
  The remainder of the cost for IDEA still falls on State and local 
governments.
  Because the Federal Government has not lived up to its commitment, 
IDEA amounts to a huge unfunded Federal mandate. When I was Governor of 
Ohio, I fought hard for passage of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 
1995 so that circumstances like this could be avoided in the future.

[[Page 12839]]

  And just how large an unfunded mandate has IDEA become?
  In fiscal year 2000, Congress allocated almost $5 billion for special 
education for school-age children. If we had funded IDEA at the 40 
percent level that Congress had promised in 1975, we would have 
allocated $15.6 billion in fiscal year 2000 rather than $4.9 billion.
  In essence, a $10.7 billion unfunded mandate was passed along to our 
State and local governments for IDEA. And that is on top of the 60 
percent--or $23.3 billion--for which they are already responsible. So, 
for a federally created program, our State and local governments' 
``share'' in this fiscal year will amount to $34 billion out of a total 
of $38.9 billion.
  Indeed, Mr. R. Kirk Hamilton from Southwestern City School, Grove 
City, OH has written to me, stating that IDEA is:

       an enormous, unfunded mandate which is so expensive and so 
     cumbersome that the funds are not available to deliver needed 
     services to children.

  Mr. President, that is just wrong.
  For all programs under IDEA, the President of the United States 
assumes an expenditure of $6.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. That is 
only a $332 million increase from the $6 billion level of funding in 
fiscal year 2000.
  However, the President's fiscal year 2001 budget contained a whopping 
$40.1 billion in discretionary education spending. That is almost 
double the $21.1 billion in discretionary education spending allocated 
by the Federal Government just 10 years ago in fiscal year 1991, and 
nearly 5 times the $8.2 billion spent on discretionary education 
spending 25 years ago in 1976. Where is that money going? Think of 
that. Where is it going?
  It is important to understand that the White House and some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very good at reading 
polls. They see that education is of high interest to the American 
people.
  Even though the Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the 
funds for education in this country, the White House and these same 
colleagues consider themselves, sometimes, I think, to be members of a 
national school board.
  They have other, new priorities that they believe Washington should 
fund instead of providing additional funding for the federally created 
IDEA--programs like school construction, afterschool programs, hiring 
more teachers, improving technology and training in schools, and 
creating community learning centers. They are all great ideas.
  They are important initiatives, but they are the responsibility of 
our States and local communities. Of course, the politically expedient 
thing to do is to support funding for all these programs at the federal 
level; it makes us look as if we are ``for'' education. They are high 
in the polls. Nevertheless, I believe in the delineation of Federal and 
State responsibility, and increased funding for IDEA is a Federal 
responsibility.
  It is one that we mandated on the school districts. It is part of our 
responsibility. We said we would pay for 40 percent of it. It is about 
time we paid for 40 percent of it, rather than going off on a lot of 
new initiatives.
  During our debate on the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, I 
offered, and this body adopted, by a vote of 53-47, an amendment 
stating that before we fund new education programs, we should make 
funds available for IDEA.
  The amendment that I am offering today makes good on the commitment 
we made in the budget resolution.
  Specifically, my amendment would give local education agencies the 
flexibility to take $2.7 billion of Federal money under title VI of 
this appropriations bill and spend it on IDEA, if they choose. In other 
words, we are saying that school districts, if they choose, can use new 
money for IDEA.
  If the Federal Government was fully funding IDEA, most of the 
education initiatives my colleagues are proposing--school construction, 
afterschool programs--could be and likely would be taken care of at the 
State and local level. That is how our State and local education 
leaders want it.
  In February, with the help of the Ohio School Board Association and 
the Buckeye Association of School Administrators, I contacted Ohio 
teachers, superintendents, and educational leaders from urban, 
suburban, and rural districts in every part of Ohio to ask what they 
would prefer: a full Federal commitment to IDEA or new Federal funding 
initiatives.
  More than 90 percent of the responses I received so far have shown 
that Ohio's education community leaders prefer a full commitment to 
IDEA over new programs. I am confident this same poll conducted in 
other States would produce a similar result.
  Let me read a few responses I received. Mr. Philip Warner, 
Superintendent of Ravenna City School wrote:

       I believe school districts would benefit the most if 
     Congress met its obligations under IDEA, therefore allowing 
     school districts to fund programs that would be specific in 
     each school district.

  David VanLeer, Director of Pupil Services, Euclid City Schools, right 
across the street from where I live:

       Congress should honor that pledge to provide 40 percent of 
     the cost of IDEA before any new programs are funded.

  Doreen Binnie, speech language pathologist at Colombia local School 
District responded, ``Absolutely,'' to the question of whether Congress 
should fund IDEA before new programs.
  We must stop acting as if we are the Nation's school board, trying to 
fund every education program possible. The truth is, many of the 
programs that Members of Congress and the President want to enact 
should be funded at the State and local level. In my view, those 
programs would have a better chance of being funded if State and local 
governments didn't have to divert such a large percentage of their 
funds to pay for IDEA. The Federal Government has a commitment to IDEA 
and that commitment should be fully honored. I believe our State and 
local leaders should be given the flexibility they need to spend new 
Federal education dollars that are allocated under this bill to honor 
the commitment of IDEA. I appreciate the fact that the appropriations 
committee provided increased money for IDEA in this budget.
  The fact is, we should say to our local school districts that with 
the $2.7 billion which is allocated in title VI one of the options we 
should give them is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Under the unanimous consent 
agreement, I have the right to offer my amendment at this time.
  Mr. REID. Not until we finish the Voinovich amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Voinovich amendment must be disposed of.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have been consulting on the 
complexities of the bill. If I understand the amendment by the Senator 
from Ohio, it is that the title XI block grant of $2.7 billion, which 
is divided for class size and construction, may be used for other 
purposes at the discretion of the local boards. If they choose not to 
use it for construction or class size, it could be used at their 
discretion. He wants to be sure those funds can be used for special 
education.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. That would be acceptable. It is our purpose that the 
local boards, having decided they do not want it for the other 
purposes--construction or reduction in class size--may use it as they 
decide. We are prepared to accept the Voinovich amendment. We are also 
anxious to proceed with the bill.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the minority has reviewed the amendment. I 
have spoken with Senator Harkin. We have no objection to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3641) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 12840]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. May we have a time agreement on the amendment of the 
Senator from Louisiana?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would need about 20 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. May we have a time agreement of 30 minutes, 20 minutes 
for the proponents of the measure and 10 minutes for the opponents, if 
there are opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 3645

(Purpose: To provide funding for targeted grants under section 1125 of 
   the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am hoping there will not be opponents 
because we think this amendment makes a lot of sense. We are happy to 
agree to a time limit because we are interested in moving this debate 
along.
  I agree with our distinguished colleague from Ohio. I think his is a 
good amendment. I commend him for coming to the floor and bringing to 
the Senate an issue that is very important to Louisiana, to our 
educators, teachers, superintendents, and parents who are very 
interested in funding. I thank the Senator for continuing to advocate 
for us to fulfill our commitment and meet our promises to our special 
education students. I hope the leadership would consider accepting this 
amendment, which I offer in good faith, because it does not add money 
to the budget. It simply provides greater flexibility.
  I send my 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 3645.

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

       On page 55, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     page 56, line 8, and insert the following: ``Higher Education 
     Act of 1965, $9,586,800,000, of which $2,912,222,521 shall 
     become available on July 1, 2001, and shall remain available 
     through September 30, 2002, and of which $6,674,577,479 shall 
     become available on October 1, 2001, and shall remain 
     available through September 30, 2002, for academic year 2000-
     2001: Provided, That $6,985,399,000 shall be available for 
     basic grants under section 1124: Provided further, That up to 
     $3,500,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     on October 1, 2000, to obtain updated local educational 
     agency level census poverty data from the Bureau of the 
     Census: Provided further, That $1,200,400,000 shall be 
     available for concentration grants under section 1124A: 
     Provided further, That $750,000,000 shall be available for 
     targeted grants under section 1125 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965: Provided further, That grant 
     awards under sec-''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment will not require 60 votes 
because it does not seek to waive the Budget Act.
  I am somewhat in agreement with what Senator Gramm said and our 
ranking member, Senator Harkin, about the fact that we do need to be 
concerned with the amount of spending. We need to be concerned about 
the amount of spending for education, for health, for our military. We 
want to make sure we are making smart and wise investments. We want to 
make sure we are not getting back into the era of big Government or 
irresponsible Government with irresponsible tax breaks. I am much 
inclined to support many of the comments that were made.
  This amendment fits that debate exactly. I am hoping the leadership 
on both sides will see it that way.
  Let me begin by telling my colleagues again what this amendment does 
not do. It does not ask to waive the Budget Act. It does not add any 
money to this budget. It does not reduce one penny of title I money to 
any State in the Nation.
  It simply attempts to redistribute the moneys within this budget to 
reflect a value about which we all speak on both sides of the aisle 
each day; that is, the value of trying to target the money in this 
budget to those children, families, and communities that need the most 
help.
  Many communities in Louisiana, California, New York, Michigan, and 
Mississippi are struggling to meet their obligations to provide a 
quality education for all children, regardless of their race, religion, 
or what side of the track they were born on, or whether they have a lot 
of money in their household or little money.
  We believe that in America every child deserves a quality education. 
We say that on this floor over and over and over again. We speak these 
words. We say this. But when it comes to writing our budget, which we 
are doing today, we don't do it. We don't do it. We have the power to 
do it. Fifty votes, right now, could do this. But, unfortunately, I 
don't think we may get more than maybe one or two or three or four 
because we are very good at talking about equality, fairness and 
justice, but when it comes to writing a budget, we don't do it.
  As a Democrat, it is hard for me to say, but I have to be honest and 
say I am not sure the President's budget reflects that value as closely 
as it should. I have to say the Republican budget doesn't reflect that 
value, and some of my own colleagues were not reflecting that value.
  This amendment, with all due respect to the committee and to 
everybody who tried to work on this, attempts to say that with some 
portion of this increase, we should increase title I because it is the 
only title that attempts to send money out in a way to this Nation 
where the poor children, the neediest children, get the help and 
attention, giving complete flexibility to the local government to 
decide whether it is additional teachers, additional resources. Title I 
has great flexibility. There are few limitations, but it says let's 
help the poorest children, whether it is in Louisiana or Arkansas or 
Mississippi or California, and there are many States that would benefit 
from this change.
  All of the increases Senator Gramm talked about, whether it is a 20-
percent increase or an 8-percent increase, for the purpose of my 
amendment, are not really the issue because of all of the increase--
whether 20 percent or 8 percent--a small amount, a few tiny pennies, 
have been devoted to title I. The poorest children in this Nation, who 
have no lobbyists, no big and powerful agencies to represent them up 
here, have literally been left out. In addition, the accountability 
money that was placed in this budget in past years to make sure the 
money was going to the poor districts, the middle-income districts, and 
the wealthy districts has been totally taken out.
  So this bill we are debating, that has either a 20-percent or 8-
percent increase, literally underfunds the poor children of the Nation, 
the moderate-income families, the lower income families, who are 
struggling to make the American dream possible for themselves. Yet we 
all come here every day and talk about widening the circle of 
opportunity, how we want to share the great wealth of this Nation. But 
when it comes to funding education for the kids who need it the most, 
so they can have a chance, we say no, no, and no. That ``no'' is being 
said on the Democratic side, the Republican side and, frankly, from the 
White House.
  This is one Senator who thinks it is wrong. If I am the only vote on 
the bill, let it be so. I think there will be a few others. I don't 
think this amendment will pass. I am sure it will be second degreed 
because when we can't agree, we offer a commission--I am sure someone 
is going to do that--to study the issue because we have to keep 
studying the issue of how poor children are affected when their 
education is at a disadvantage.
  I will vote against a study. I am going to vote for this amendment 
because it will simply move within the confines of this bill $750 
million, which is still a reasonable amount of money, from one title 
into the title I.
  I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 12841]]



 STATE ALLOCATIONS AT $738 MILLION (THROUGH BASIC, CONCEN. AND TARGETED)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Landrieu       Appropriations
               State                  Amendment          Committee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................      144,564  134,762+10 million
Alaska.............................       21,513  20,225+1 million
Arizona............................      140,669  130,766+10 million
Arkansas...........................       89,736  84,016+5 million
California.........................    1,155,500  1,075,015+80 million
Colorado...........................       76,628  72,531+4 million
Connecticut........................       83,202  77,575+6 million
Delaware...........................       23,653  22,429+1 million
DC.................................       31,071  28,611+3 million
Florida............................      430,617  403,006+27 million
Georgia............................      249,983  234,458+15 million
Hawaii.............................       23,306  21,956+2 million
Idaho..............................       26,254  24,716+2 million
Illinois...........................      362,951  332,172+30 million
Indiana............................      129,110  122,037+7 million
Iowa...............................       57,129  54,715+3 million
Kansas.............................       62,627  59,452+3 million
Kentucky...........................      141,777  131,270+10 million
Louisiana..........................      209,188  191,242+18 million
Maine..............................       35,358  33,785+2 million
Maryland...........................      116,722  109,446+7 million
Massachusetts......................      170,733  161,058+9 million
Michigan...........................      380,257  353,215+27 million
Minnesota..........................       94,030  89,526+5 million
Mississippi........................      134,957  124,813+10 million
Missouri...........................      154,238  144,421+10 million
Montana............................       29,986  28,346+1 million
Nebraska...........................       34,320  32,636+2 million
Nevada.............................       27,397  25,713+2 million
New Hampshire......................       22,034  20,919+2 million
New Jersey.........................      202,046  189,679+13 million
New Mexico.........................       78,176  72,541+6 million
New York...........................      874,009  803,360+71 million
North Carolina.....................      174,860  167,151+7 million
North Dakota.......................       22,389  20,984+2 million
Ohio...............................      326,933  305,597+21 million
Oklahoma...........................      111,448  104,642+7 million
Oregon.............................       75,647  72,354+3 million
Pennsylvania.......................      376,332  351,631+25 million
Puerto Rico........................      299,038  282,528+17 million
Rhode Island.......................       28,262  26,427+2 million
South Carolina.....................      116,887  110,255+6 million
South Dakota.......................       22,223  20,672+2 million
Tennessee..........................      147,499  138,396+9 million
Texas..............................      782,711  726,154+56 million
Utah...............................       37,139  35,293+2 million
Vermont............................       19,834  18,659+1 million
Virginia...........................      136,709  128,802+8 million
Washington.........................      118,831  113,362+5 million
West Virginia......................       80,579  74,627+6 million
Wisconsin..........................      136,280  126,519+10 million
Wyoming............................       19,942  18,798+1 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this shows clearly that every State in 
the Union will benefit. The poor children in every State will benefit 
significantly by this amendment. I will read specifically into the 
Record the poorest States that will greatly benefit, and those States 
are: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, California, District of 
Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, 
Texas, and West Virginia.
  Just to read out a few pretty startling numbers, let's take 
California. This amendment, without adding one penny to the budget, 
will give California $80 million more because they have in certain 
areas a concentration of very poor children who need additional help. 
Louisiana will get an $18 million increase. Without this amendment, 
Senator Breaux and I will basically go home empty-handed to a State 
where a headline in one of our major newspapers this week was: 
Louisiana's Children Suffer.
  The Kids Count Data Book just came out. It clearly demonstrates which 
States need the help and which States could use the help. I don't 
believe in just throwing around new money. I am arguing for flexibility 
and accountability. But I am also arguing that we have an obligation to 
target our Federal resources better than we do. I am hoping my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will see the wisdom in this 
amendment.
  I am going to yield a few minutes of my time to my colleague from 
Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, who has waited patiently to speak. I thank 
her for her support, her passion, and her interest in helping us make 
our point. At this point, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
Arkansas, and then I respectfully request the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, join my colleague, Senator 
Landrieu, in applauding what our colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Voinovich, was doing previously in bringing up the importance of not 
only the program of IDEA but also the importance for us to be able to 
make good on commitments we have made, things we have asked our States 
and our localities to do and yet have not provided them the resources 
to do them.
  This is just one of those requests. When we look at the targeted 
grants for the title I dollars, it is a program that was authorized 
over 6 years ago and never has been funded. That is all the Senator 
from Louisiana is asking--that we make good on our obligation that came 
about several years ago to target those dollars to the neediest of 
children across this Nation.
  And to our colleague, Senator Gramm from Texas, who mentioned that 
one of the most important things we need to do in this debate is to set 
priorities, I say: Exactly. Let's set the priorities of educating our 
children and understanding that we are only as strong as our weakest 
link, and that devoting the resources we have obligated long ago to the 
neediest of children should be done.
  So I rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend from 
Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, which would provide a modest increase in 
title I funding and target those additional resources to the neediest 
public schools. As I have said on many occasions, I believe strongly 
that we need to increase the Federal investment in public education to 
ensure that all students have access to quality education. But spending 
more money to help educators meet higher standards is only one part of 
that solution. We also have to ensure that Federal dollars are spent 
responsibly and that we allocate those resources where we can make a 
real difference.
  Right now, in those title I funds, there are three categories. These 
targeted grants don't receive any of that funding. Eighty-five percent 
goes to basic grants and 15 percent goes to concentration grants. 
Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who 
attend schools with a high concentration of low-income students lag 
behind students from more affluent areas. This is certainly true in 
Arkansas, where students in the delta region score lower on academic 
achievement tests than students in our more prosperous regions of the 
State.
  To me, these statistics are a clear indication that title I, which 
again was created to aid the education of disadvantaged children, isn't 
working as well as it should. We have diluted our title I program funds 
to so many different areas, until they have become less effective in 
the areas where they are supposed to be directed--to the disadvantaged.
  Congress recognized that problem back in 1994 when it created those 
targeted grants for title I dollars. In the most recent ESEA 
Reauthorization Act, unlike basic and concentrated grants, targeted 
grants are designed so that school districts with a high percentage of 
low-income students receive a greater share of title I funding.
  I think we were on to something, but unbelievably these targeted 
grants have never been funded.
  This is unfortunate because these are the kids who need the Federal 
assistance the most, and it is where we could do the most good. Income 
status alone doesn't determine student achievement. It is the 
concentration of economically disadvantaged students in a school that 
makes the most difference.
  After visiting dozens of schools and talking with hundreds of parents 
in my home State, I am convinced that we have to change our approach if 
we want to maintain public confidence and support for a strong role in 
education at the Federal level. In addition to more targeted funding, 
we need tough accountability standards to ensure students are learning 
core academic subjects, and more flexibility at the local level to 
allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs. Ultimately, 
we have to account for the money we spend in Washington and show our 
constituents results to sustain their support.
  I also call on my colleagues to support an amendment Senator 
Lieberman will be offering later which will address this issue. It 
calls for a comprehensive GAO study of targeting under title I. At the 
very least, I believe we have a responsibility to take a good, hard 
look at the current system because the status quo isn't good enough.
  This amendment is an important step in the right direction. I applaud 
my colleague from Louisiana for the courage to stand up for what is 
right. Maybe it is not the most popular, but it is right.
  I urge support for this proposal. This may not be a political issue, 
and this certainly may not be the most popular issue with those in this 
body who want to keep the status quo, but it is the

[[Page 12842]]

right issue. It is the right decision to make, and it is the right 
amendment to support. If nothing else, this body should support this 
amendment on behalf of the neediest children in this Nation.
  I applaud my colleague's courage, and I appreciate her leadership in 
this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield 4 of those minutes. But I ask 
for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
  I yield 5 of those minutes to my colleague from Connecticut, and I 
would like 5 minutes to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague 
from Louisiana.
  Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from Louisiana, 
Senator Landrieu, and express my strong support for her amendment to 
better target our Federal education funding to the schools and children 
who need it most. I know from our collaboration on our comprehensive 
new Democrat education reform plan, the Three R's legislation, that 
Senator Landrieu's commitment to rescuing failing schools and providing 
every child with a quality education is unsurpassed in this body.
  I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas for her 
devotion to this cause, and for her very eloquent statement on behalf 
of this amendment.
  As Senator Landrieu and many others have rightly pointed out, we are 
facing an educational crisis in our poorest urban and rural 
communities, where learning too often is languishing, where dysfunction 
is too often the norm, and where as a result too many children are 
being denied the promise of equal opportunity. It is just not right or 
acceptable that 35 years after the passage of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, that the average 17-year-old black and Latino 
student reads and performs math at the same level as the average 13-
year-old Caucasian American student. We must begin to respond to this 
emergency with a greater sense of urgency, and that is exactly what the 
Landrieu amendment aims to do, infusing $1 billion in new funding for 
FY 2001 into the Title I program for disadvantaged students and 
allocating those resources to the districts with the highest 
concentrations of poverty.
  We are currently spending $8 billion a year on Title I. No one in 
this body questions the value or mission of Title I, which was enacted 
in 1965 to compensate for local funding inequities and help level the 
playing field for low-income students. But the unpleasant truth is that 
this well-intentioned program is not nearly as focused on serving poor 
communities as it is perceived to be, leaving many poor children 
without any aid or hope whatsoever.
  According to the Department of Education, 58 percent of all schools 
received at least some Title I funding, including many suburban schools 
with small pockets of low-income students. Of the 42 percent that don't 
receive any Title I support, a disturbing number have high 
concentrations of poor students. In fact, one out of every five schools 
with poverty rates between 50 percent and 75 percent do not get a dime 
from Title I. Let me repeat that startling statistic, because the first 
time I heard it I did not believe it--one of every five schools that 
have half to three quarters of its children living in poverty receives 
no Title I funding. None.
  How does this happen? The formulas we are using to allocate these 
funds purposely spreads the money thin and wide. Any school district 
with at least 2 percent of its students living below the poverty level 
qualifies for funding under Title I's Basic Grants formula, through 
which 85 percent of all Title I funding is distributed. The rest of the 
money is channeled through the Concentration Grant formula, which is 
only marginally more targeted than the Basic formula, providing aid to 
districts with as few as 15 percent of their students at the poverty 
level. As a result, almost every school district in the country--9 out 
of every 10--receives some aid from this critical aid pool.
  In fairness, Congress did make an effort to correct this imbalance in 
1994 through the last reauthorization of the ESA. We approved the 
creation of a new Targeted formula, which puts a much heavier weight on 
poverty and therefore would direct a much higher percentage of funds to 
schools with higher concentrations of poor children. The key word 
there, of course, is would. Congress has unfortunately never 
appropriated funding through the Target formula. Not a penny, Instead, 
we have perpetuated a system that promises one thing and delivers 
another, that succeeds in letting us bring home funding to each of our 
districts but fails to meet its fundamental goal of helping those most 
in need.
  That is exactly what this amendment introduced by the junior Senator 
from Louisiana will do. Once again, I congratulate her on her 
leadership. This is an amendment which would put our money where the 
needs generally are. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will try to be brief as I conclude my 
remarks on this important amendment.
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his extraordinary 
leadership in the area of education. It is particularly wonderful and 
refreshing to note that there are some Members of this body who will 
take their time and give their energy to speak on an amendment on the 
principles because States benefit from this--and Connecticut most 
certainly benefits from this. Connecticut is not one of the poorer 
States in the Union. I thank my colleague for his extraordinary 
leadership and commitment, even though he doesn't come from a State 
where the per capita income is low. It is quite high. It makes his 
leadership on this issue all the more inspiring. I thank him for his 
help.
  Connecticut will do well under this formula, as will many other 
States. But it is the States that have poorer rural students and poorer 
urban students that will do the best because that is what the Federal 
Government should be doing with a portion of our education money, 
helping to level the playing field.
  We talk a lot about opportunities, and then we don't fund them. We 
talk a lot about fairness, but we don't fund it. We talk a lot about 
equality, but we don't fund it.
  Mr. President, talk is cheap. Whether it comes from this side, that 
side, or down Pennsylvania Avenue, that is what this amendment is 
about. That is why I am insisting on a vote. That is why, while a study 
may be helpful, what really would be helpful is a vote for the poor 
kids of this Nation.
  One of the great Presidents of one of our distinguished universities 
said: If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
  I offer to this body that there is not any way in this world, not 
with any tax cut, not with any fancy new technology, not with any new 
program that anybody in this Chamber can think of, we can help sustain 
this economic miracle of growth if we don't fund a quality education 
for every child in this Nation.
  Mr. President, this budget doesn't do it.
  This amendment helps to target some money to the kids who need it the 
most. We need to put back our accountability money, put our money where 
we say our values are.
  I yield the floor, and I ask for a vote on my amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe Senator 
Reid was going to offer a second-degree amendment on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). A second degree amendment 
would not be in order until the time has been used.
  Mr. LOTT. How much time remains?

[[Page 12843]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 10 minutes 
and the Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew the unanimous consent request with 
respect to the limit of first-degree amendments to the pending bill and 
send the list of amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list of amendments is as follows:

       Ashcroft, Medicare; Baucus, Medicare; Baucus, Impact aid; 
     Bayh, State children's health program, No. 3614; Bingaman, 
     Energy, No. 3652; Bingaman, Drop out; Bingaman, Tribal 
     colleges; Bingaman, Relevant.
       Bingaman, Relevant; Bingaman, Relevant; Bingaman, Relevant; 
     Bingaman, Relevant; Boxer, Relevant; Boxer, Relevant; Boxer, 
     Relevant; Breaux, Point of order.
       Brownback, Disease treatment, No. 3640; Brownback, Family 
     research, No. 3646; Byrd, Relevant; Byrd, Relevant; Collins, 
     Defibrillator, No. 3657; Collins, Defibrillator, No. 3643; 
     Collins, Drug treatment for homeless, No. 3642; Collins, 
     Rural education.
       Conrad, Relevant; Conrad, Relevant; Coverdell, Contracts 
     with criminals, No. 3647; Coverdell, Needles, No. 3648; 
     Daschle, Discrimination; Daschle, Relevant; Daschle, Relevant 
     to any on list; Daschle, Relevant to any on list.
       Daschle, Relevant to any on list; DeWine, Troops to 
     teachers, No. 3591; DeWine, Poison control, No. 3592; Dodd, 
     After school program; Dodd, Restraints; Dodd, Relevant; 
     Domenici, Telcom training center, No. 3651; Domenici, Telecom 
     training center, No. 3662.
       Dorgan, Relevant; Dorgan, Relevant; Dorgan, Institutional 
     Development Award Program, No. 3611; Durbin, Asthma, No. 
     3606; Durbin, Asthma, No. 3607; Durbin, Immunization, No. 
     3608; Durbin, Immunization, No. 3609; Edwards, Relevant.
       Edwards, Plan to eliminate syphilis, No. 3613; Enzi, OSHA 
     (ERGO), No. 3660; Feingold, Defibrillations; Feingold, 
     Relevant; Feingold, Campaign finance; Feingold, Campaign 
     finance; Feinstein, Master teachers; Frist, Education 
     research, No. 3654.
       Graham, Social services, No. 3595; Graham, Healthcare 
     providers, No. 3597; Graham, Health; Graham, Health; Graham, 
     Relevant; Gramm, Budget limit, No. 3667; Gramm, Relevant; 
     Harkin, School construction.
       Harkin, Discrimination; Harkin, Relevant; Harkin, Relevant; 
     Helms, School facilities; Hollings, Amendment; Hollings, 
     Amendment; Hollings, Amendment; Hutchinson, NLRB, No. 3627.
       Hutchinson, Medicaid waivers; Jeffords, IDEA, No. 3655; 
     Jeffords, Medicine management, No. 3656; Jeffords, Public 
     Health Service Act, No. 3677; Jeffords, High school, No. 
     3676; Kennedy, Mental health services; Kennedy, Health 
     professionals; Kennedy, Job training.
       Kennedy, Relevant; Kennedy, Relevant; Kennedy, Health care; 
     Kennedy, Health care; Kerrey, Web-based education, No. 3605; 
     Kerry, Technology literacy, No. 3636; Kerry, Technology, No. 
     3659; Landrieu, Adoption services, No. 3668.
       Lautenberg, Health spending; Lautenberg, Relevant; Leahy, 
     Office of Civil Rights; Levin, Relevant; Levin, Relevant; 
     Lieberman, GAO study on Title I funds; Lieberman, Targeted 
     education, No. 3650; Lott, Relevant.
       Lott, Relevant to any on list; Lott, Relevant to any on 
     list; Lott, Relevant to any on list; Lott, Energy, No. 3615; 
     Murray, Class size; Nickles, Relevant to any on list; 
     Nickles, Relevant to any on list; Nickles, Relevant to any on 
     list.
       Nickles, Relevant to any on list; Nickles, Relevant to any 
     on list; Nickles, Health care; Reed, Gear-Up, Nos. 3637, 
     3638, 3639; Reed, Immunization; Reed, Summer job; Reed, Youth 
     violence-drug and gun free schools; Reed, Relevant.
       Reid, National Institute of Child Health, No. 3599; Reid, 
     Relevant; Reid, Relevant; Robb, School Construction; Schumer, 
     Vocational rehab; Schumer, Cancer funding; Schumer, Relevant; 
     Smith, (NH) CHIMPS, No 3603.
       Smith (NH), CHIMPS, No. 3670; Smith (NH), Invasive medical 
     tests in schools; Smith (NH), Davis-Bacon; Smith (NH), Davis-
     Bacon; Smith (NH), Relevant; Smith (NH), Relevant; Specter, 
     Managers amendment; Stevens, Relevant.
       Stevens, Relevant; Torricelli, Fire sprinklers; Torricelli, 
     HCFA regulation; Torricelli, Lead poisoning; Torricelli, Lead 
     poisoning; Torricelli, Lead poisoning; Torricelli, Cost 
     effective emergency transportation, No. 3612.
       Wellstone, Perkins Loan cancellations; Wellstone, Stafford 
     Loan forgiveness; Wellstone, NIH grants and drug pricing; 
     Wellstone, Child care, No. 3644; Wellstone, Social services, 
     No. 3596; Wellstone, Suicide prevention; Wellstone, 1.1 
     billion advance LIHEAP; Wellstone, Relevant; Wellstone, 
     Relevant; Wyden, NIH.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana has 2 minutes 
remaining. Does she wish to use that time or reserve it?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the distinguished leader. I have made my 
closing arguments. If there is no one else to speak, I am happy to 
receive a motion on the amendment so we can call for a vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have a very short statement to make.
  I applaud the Senator from Louisiana for this amendment. I do believe 
it is a very good idea to target funds for disadvantaged children under 
title I. The difficulty is that the $600 million will be taken from 
title VI, where we have already allocated the principal sum of those 
funds to meet the President's requirements for new school construction 
and for class size on the condition that local boards may use it for 
other purposes if they decide they do not need classroom construction 
or additional teachers.
  When the Senator from Louisiana concludes, I will move to table the 
amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask the Senator, is it not true that there is a $1.5 
billion increase in title VI; yet there is a very small percentage or a 
$400 million increase for title I? If we are going to build schools or 
reduce class size, and this is a question, does the Senator think we 
should try to do it for the poorer communities first and then we can do 
it for everyone else? That is what my amendment attempts to do. I ask 
the Senator that.
  Is that in the interest of the Nation, to do it for the poor schools 
first and then worry about everyone else?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, my preference would be to move for the 
poor schools first.
  In constructing this bill, there were many objections as to how the 
money was going to be allocated. The only way we could work through the 
complications was to put it in title VI. That was not my first choice, 
nor are the programs my first choice.
  Working through a great many considerations, we ended up in title VI 
leaving the options to school districts, if they choose not to have 
construction, or if they choose not to have reduction in class size. 
That is an accommodation to very many disparate views.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for his honesty, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, and this has 
been cleared on the other side, that the vote on the Landrieu amendment 
be set at 7:45.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could amend that request to ask consent 
that votes occur on the pending amendments at 7:45 in the order which 
they were debated, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to 
the votes, and that there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each 
vote.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, there will be a motion to 
table on the Landrieu amendment. There will be a motion to table on the 
Jeffords amendment. We would not want a right taken away, in case a 
motion to table fails, to second degree.
  Mr. LOTT. That is not limited by this.
  I further ask consent that the time between now and 7:45 be equally 
divided on the Jeffords amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 3655

     (Purpose: To increase the appropriations for carrying out the 
      Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with an offset)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now send amendment No. 3655 to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hutchinson, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brownback, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Santorum, 
     and Mr. Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 3655.

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

       On page 58, line 15, strike ``$4,672,534,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,372,534,000''.
       On page 58, line 17, strike ``$2,915,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,615,000,000''.
       On page 58, line 22, strike ``$3,100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,800,000,000''.

[[Page 12844]]

       On page 58, line 26, strike ``$2,700,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,400,000,000''.
       On page 60, line 16, strike ``$7,352,341,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,652,341,000''.
       On page 60, line 19, strike ``$4,624,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,924,000,000''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Coverdell and Chafee be added to the other cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I begin by commending my colleague from 
Pennsylvania for his leadership as chairman of the Labor, HHS, 
Education, and related agencies subcommittee. His efforts to increase 
funding for education and health care often receive too little 
attention. I offer him my thanks on behalf of all Members who share our 
dedication to education.
  He has had a challenging job crafting appropriations bills that 
balance the many real and competing needs of the Nation. He has been a 
strong advocate for education funding and an even stronger advocate for 
the funding of IDEA. He has been an equally strong advocate for more 
funding for the National Institutes of Health. This year he has once 
again taken up the challenge of balancing competing needs. The 
appropriations bill he brought to the Senate is a product of difficult 
negotiations between competing viewpoints.
  Because of my respect for my friend from Pennsylvania, I come to the 
floor with an amendment only because of my conviction that there is an 
unmet Federal obligation that must now be met in full. Almost all the 
Members of this body have gone on record in support of fully funding 
our commitment to our local schools. We should fully fund IDEA for 
special education.
  I also commend my good friend from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has been 
a tireless champion of education funding and health care funding.
  I anticipate that the opponents of my amendment may argue that this 
amendment should be defeated because it takes funds from one education 
program and provides it to another. I, too, support increased funding 
for education, and have voted repeatedly over the past several days to 
waive the Budget Act in order to secure additional funds for education. 
It is clear, however, that this does not reflect the will of the 
Senate.
  Because it is very clear that there is not sufficient support for an 
amendment which would exceed the budget caps, we must make difficult 
choices regarding which programs should be given priority. I have been 
a longtime advocate for funding for the title VI block grant program. 
This appropriations bill provides this program with a $2.7 billion 
increase, while providing a $1.3 billion increase for IDEA. I believe, 
and this belief is held by every school board in Vermont, that IDEA 
should be our very first priority.
  In 1974 we made a commitment to fully fund IDEA. If 25 years later we 
cannot meet this commitment in an era of unprecedented economic 
prosperity and budgetary surpluses, when do we plan to keep this 
pledge?
  When I first arrived in Congress, one of the very first bills that I 
had the privilege of working on was the Education of All Handicapped 
Act of 1975.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to sponsor that 
legislation and to be name as a member of the House and Senate 
conference committee along with my chairman Johns Brademus and then 
Vermont Senator Bob Stafford.
  At that time, despite a clear Constitutional obligation to educate 
all children, regardless of disability, thousands of disabled students 
were denied access to a free and appropriate public education. Passage 
of the Education of All Handicapped Act offered financial incentives to 
states to fulfill this existing obligation.
  Recognizing that the costs associated with educating these children 
was more than many school districts could bear alone, we pledged to pay 
40 percent of these costs of educating students.
  I know that there is some disagreement about whether or not a 
commitment was made. I want to tell you as someone that was there at 
the time that we made a pledge to fully fund this program.
  I have in my hands a petition from every school board in my State. I 
urge all of my colleagues to come by my desk and look at these 
petitions. They know we made that commitment. Passing this amendment 
will do more to help our school districts meet their obligation to 
improve education in this country than nearly anything else we can do.
  In 1997 Congress once again took up this landmark legislation. This a 
complex bill that has profound impact on classrooms across the Nation. 
With the strong leadership of Senator Lott, Senator Frist, Senator 
Gregg, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, Senator Harkin, and many others, 
we passed the first reauthorization of IDEA in 22 years. It is an 
accomplishment that many of us are very proud of.
  At that time, we reaffirmed our commitment to pay 40 percent of the 
costs of educating children. We made this pledge to families, to school 
boards and to the Governors of our States. Over the past 3 years, we 
have made some progress.
  But as my good friend from New Hampshire has pointed out several 
times over the past year, we are only supporting 13 percent of these 
costs. In 1975, we made a pledge which we did not keep. In 1997 we made 
that same pledge once again when we reauthorized IDEA.
  In the 105th Congress we felt it important to reaffirm our commitment 
to full funding for IDEA. We added language to the fiscal year 1999 
Budget that stated that IDEA should be fully funded as soon as 
feasible. And it is feasible now. We know that. This language was 
adopted unanimously by the Senate. At that time, we still faced budget 
deficits and it was argued that full funding was not feasible.
  In the 106th Congress we continued to press for full funding for 
IDEA. The fiscal year 2000 appropriations provided a $600 million 
increase in funding for IDEA. During the debate over the 2001 Budget 
Resolution the Senate adopted language that I advocated calling for 
full funding of IDEA as soon as feasible.
  The appropriations bill that is before us raises funding for IDEA by 
$1.3 billion in fiscal year 2001. I commend Senator Specter and Senator 
Harkin for providing for this historic increase in funding for IDEA. 
Nonetheless, this increase does not put us on the path toward fully 
funding this program.
  Our amendment is simple. It doubles the increase that is provided in 
the bill and provides IDEA with an increase that is comparable to the 
increase that Senators Specter and Harkin have provided for the 
National Institutes of Health.
  It provides a path by which we will achieve full funding for IDEA by 
fiscal year 2005. It sends a clear message to the Nation that we, as a 
body, make good on the commitment we make.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Good Lord, if we can't do it now with budget surpluses and the 
economy we have, if not now, when will we do it? I do not believe 
anyone can rationally argue this is not the time to fulfill that 
promise. I intend to do all I can to make sure we do.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa controls 14 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from Vermont. I want to make it clear I am not 
rising in opposition to his goal. Senator Jeffords' goal is the same 
goal I have. We both want to do everything we can to fully fund, on the 
Federal level, our stated goal of paying 40% of the costs of special 
education. We should do it. So I agree with the Senator on that. 
Senator Jeffords has been a stalwart supporter of that goal. I believe 
I have been, too. So I do not rise in opposition to what my friend from 
Vermont is trying to do Just like me, he wants to educate kids with 
disabilities and ensure the Federal Government meets its

[[Page 12845]]

authorized funding goal that was stated in the bill, in IDEA, when it 
was passed 25 years ago.
  I do, however, feel compelled to clarify once again, as I have every 
year that this issue has come up, usually presented by the Senator from 
New Hampshire, the terms of the 40 percent. The stated assumption that 
the Federal Government is to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating 
children with disabilities is not correct. You must look at the 
legislation. The authorizing legislation of 25 years ago authorized the 
maximum award per State as being the number of children served times 40 
percent of the national average per pupil expenditure. It was not 40 
percent of the cost of educating kids with disabilities.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I did not say it was. I carefully deleted that and said 
it is the cost of educating a child.
  Mr HARKIN. A child? Then the Senator is correct. Usually it is stated 
the other way around. The Senator correctly stated the law.
  But back to the point I wanted to make. Should we reach that 40-
percent goal? Absolutely. We should have reached it a long time ago. I 
agree the Federal Government has fallen down on its effort to reach 
that goal.
  What I rise in opposition to is how my friend from Vermont does this. 
What my friend is doing is he is taking money out of title VI, which 
was put in there for school construction and modernization--$1.3 
billion.
  He is taking that money and saying it should be used to help meet our 
goals on IDEA.
  Again, it is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Do we have 
a need for the Federal Government to educate kids with disabilities and 
meet its goals to our States? Yes. We ought to fully fund IDEA.
  Do we also have a responsibility to help States and our local school 
districts rebuild our dilapidated and crumbling schools? I believe the 
answer to that is yes. The average school in America now is over 40 
years old. They are crumbling. They need to be modernized. They need to 
be updated.
  I say to my friend from Vermont--and he is my friend and he is a 
great supporter of education, I know that--but I ask my friend to 
consider this: When we modernize schools and rebuild schools, one of 
the biggest beneficiaries is a kid with a disability. I want the 
Senator to consider that because when many of our old schools were 
built, they were not accessible. The doors are too narrow, the 
bathrooms are not accessible, and even the drinking fountains are not 
accessible, especially for someone who uses a wheelchair.
  When we talk about school construction and modernization, we talk 
about $1.3 billion, which is a mere pittance of what is required. What 
the Senator from Vermont is actually doing by taking that money and 
putting it into IDEA, is penalizing kids with disabilities who need 
these schools modernized and upgraded. But then the Senator proposes 
that he is putting the money in IDEA to help kids with disabilities. 
Please, someone make some sense out of that for me.
  As I said, the Senator's intentions are very good and laudable to 
increase funding for IDEA. If he were to do this in an open way and say 
we ought to increase money for IDEA, I would be on his side, but not at 
the expense of school modernization and construction because it is kids 
with disabilities, maybe above all others, who need to have some of 
these schools modernized, I say to my friend from Vermont.
  Second, we just adopted an amendment offered by Senator Voinovich 
from Ohio. I said: Yes, we will accept it. The amendment of the Senator 
from Ohio says the schools can use title VI money, an allowable 
expense, to meet the requirements of IDEA. I submit to my friend from 
Vermont that the acceptance of the Voinovich amendment takes care of 
that. It leaves the money in there for school modernization and 
construction. However, out of the total pot of title VI money, the 
Voinovich amendment says that one of the allowable uses would be to use 
it to meet the requirements of IDEA.
  I hope that will satisfy the Senator from Vermont. It still leaves 
the money in there for construction and modernization. I want to make 
that clear. Because this is where I differ with my friend from Vermont. 
Under his amendment we will have zero dollars for school construction 
and modernization. Zero. At least with the Voinovich amendment, they 
will be able to decide what they want to do. They will have money in 
there for school modernization and construction.
  I hope the Senator from Vermont will perhaps reconsider this 
amendment. I know the goal is laudable. Heck, I support that. We ought 
to fund IDEA, but not take it out of school construction and 
modernization.
  I hope we can move beyond this and meet our obligations to all our 
children in this country in education and not penalize one group to 
help another group. In this case, we penalize kids with disabilities to 
help kids with disabilities. That does not seem to make much sense to 
this Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Iowa, 
perhaps we can add a phrase to this amendment that says the communities 
should make it a high priority to fix any problems with access. Would 
he then support this amendment?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator asks me a legitimate question. As I 
understand it, under the Voinovich amendment, IDEA is an allowable use 
under title VI. I believe that is well covered in the Voinovich 
amendment.
  Again, the Senator wants to restrict the use of the construction and 
modernization money. A lot of it will be used for accessibility. Some 
may not be. Some may be used to repair a ceiling. A ceiling is leaking, 
and they need to repair it. It might not just help kids with 
disabilities, it would help all kids. I would not want to narrow it 
this way.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Again, I want to point out that the people's 
understanding of our responsibilities are pretty clear in this case. If 
there is a statutory obligation and a commitment to fully fund a 
program--as there is in IDEA--this should be our highest priority. And 
again, I remind my colleague that this body has gone on record in vote 
after vote that we should fully fund IDEA. To suggest that fully 
funding IDEA should not be given higher priority than our desire to 
create a new construction program, is to abandon our original 
commitment. Certainly, if you owe money to a bank, that is a first 
priority over putting money in your savings account.
  We made these pledges. The people back home know that the best way to 
improve education using Federal money is to have financial relief from 
the pressures of IDEA. It should be obvious what our conscience is 
telling us. We should fully fund the obligations we made back in 1975. 
That should be our primary priority. We said it over and over again and 
now we are turning our back on our commitment. We say: No, we are going 
to use it for other things, and we are going to use it for things for 
which we have not already made a commitment, and that is to help with 
the construction of schools. School construction has always been a 
state and local responsibility. Fully funding IDEA will allow local 
communities to fund their own priorities, including construction.
  I urge my friends to recognize our commitment to fulfill the promise 
we made and to use these funds to fund IDEA.
  Look at these petitions from every single school board in my state. 
Every school district in the state says that the first thing we should 
do is fulfill our promise to fully fund IDEA.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 4 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just heard my friend from Vermont say some magical 
words with which I totally agree. I wrote them down as he said them: 
``Take budget surpluses and meet our commitments.'' I agree with that.
  Do you know what? Just this week we now found out we are going to 
have $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years we didn't know we were going 
to have in surplus.

[[Page 12846]]

  If my friend from Vermont wants to offer an amendment to fully fund 
IDEA, and to take it out of the surpluses, I am with him 100 percent of 
the way because he would be right on. The Senator just said that: 
``Let's take our budget surpluses.'' I agree with that.
  That is not what my friend is doing. He is taking it out of school 
modernization and construction.
  I say to my friend from Vermont, if you want to rewrite the amendment 
and take it out of surpluses in the future, I am with you.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If I may respond.
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I say to the Senator, as you know, I have voted that 
way. In fact, I offered the amendment to the budget resolution that 
would have done that. My amendment would have made mandatory money 
available for IDEA. But it was rejected. I agree with my friend from 
Iowa that we should dedicate more of the surplus to fully funding IDEA. 
It is the right route, but we were turned down by three votes. It 
failed.
  Now I am trying to use a different route. I am interested in offering 
an amendment that I hope will be supported by a simple majority of this 
body. An amendment which funds education using the surplus is in 
violation of the budget resolution and must be approved by a sixty vote 
majority. The Senate has repeatedly voted to reject similar amendments.
  This amendment is the one that has a chance to succeed in spite of 
the limitations imposed by the budget resolution. We can take the money 
from a brand new program, which we are doing, and shift it over to IDEA 
where I believe it ought to be our first priority. That is something we 
can do on this bill. We can't tap the surplus now, as I tried during 
the budget resolution. That was turned down.
  Mr. HARKIN. As the Senator knows, I supported that when he offered 
it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.
  Mr. HARKIN. That was on the budget. This is on appropriations.
  I say to my friend, offer an amendment. The Senator can offer an 
amendment right now to fully fund IDEA and take it out of budget 
surpluses. I will support him on it right now.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It will take 60 votes and fail.
  Mr. HARKIN. Who knows if it will fail? Wouldn't it be nice to try?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Sure. If I fail, you can try. All right?
  Mr. HARKIN. We should not be taking it out of school construction and 
modernization--not at all. Our local school districts need this money. 
Go out and talk to your school districts. The people who are paying our 
property taxes are getting hit pretty darn hard. Ceilings are falling 
down. They are leaking. They need this help from the Federal 
Government. We have the wherewithal to do it. And that is what we ought 
to stick with.
  If the Senator wants to offer an amendment to fully fund IDEA, take 
it out of the $1.9 trillion budget surplus--``take it out of the budget 
surpluses,'' as my friend said, I am in lockstep with him because that 
is what we ought to be doing with that surplus. We ought to be meeting 
this basic goal of our Federal Government.
  Of course, while I believe some of the surplus should be invested in 
quality education, we don't need to touch the surplus to meet the goal 
of fully funding IDEA. There are many savings we could achieve that 
could more than pay for the investment.
  For example, look at Medicare fraud, waste and abuse. While we've cut 
it over the last few years, the HHS IG testified before our 
Subcommittee this March that last year Medicare made $13.5 billion in 
inappropriate payments. Eliminating that waste alone would more than 
pay for IDEA. Yet, the House passed Labor-HHS bill actually cuts 
funding for auditors and investigators. That means we would lose 
hundreds of millions more to fraud and abuse.
  In addition, I've introduced The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1999 to 
promote greater fiscal responsibility in the Federal government by 
eliminating special interest tax loopholes, reducing corporate welfare, 
eliminating unnecessary programs, reducing wasteful spending, enhancing 
government efficiency and requiring greater accountability. This bill 
would result in savings of approximately $20 billion this year and up 
to $140 billion over five years.
  For example, by enhancing the government's ability to collect 
defaulted student loans, the bill would save $1 billion over five 
years. By ending tax deductions for tobacco promotions that entice our 
children to smoke, we'd save $10 billion. And by limiting the foreign 
tax credit that allows big oil and gas companies to escape paying their 
fair share of royalties, we'd save about $3.1 billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Good.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 1 minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am willing to yield back my 1 minute.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania may want a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa yield back his 
minute?
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to see if the chairman wants to say anything.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont believes 
very deeply about the importance of the IDEA program and the necessity 
and desirability of the Federal Government to fund it.
  The difficulty is--and we wish we had more funds in the education 
budget, although this budget has $4.5 billion more than last year, and 
$100 million more than the President's figure--but when it comes out of 
the construction account, or any other account, they are very carefully 
calibrated to provide the appropriate balance.
  The construction account is one of the President's priorities. We 
have met that, as with class size, subject to the discretion of the 
local school boards. If they make a finding they do not need additional 
buildings or additional teachers, they may use it for what they choose. 
It may be that they could use it for the purposes articulated by the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont. So it is with reluctance that we 
are opposing his amendment. And I move to table.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. 3645

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes for debate prior to the 
vote on the Landrieu amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we would ask the proponent of the 
amendment to step forward to debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Landrieu amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has already been made on 
the Landrieu amendment.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I just moved to 
table the Landrieu amendment, and the Chair advised me a motion had 
already been made to table. And I might ask, by whom was that made?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania, prior to the 
quorum call, made a motion to table.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, I believe the 
Senator from Pennsylvania was moving to table

[[Page 12847]]

the Jeffords amendment and not the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 7:45, the Landrieu amendment was pending. 
The motion to table was made.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe the hour of 7:45 had not arrived at that point, 
and that Senator Jeffords had made his remarks. I believe the Senator 
from Pennsylvania was moving to table the Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I moved to table, I withdraw the 
motion and yield to the Senator from Iowa to make a motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, now I understand the Senator from 
Louisiana is here, and she wants a minute. I will make my motion to 
table after her minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I was under the impression that perhaps 
the other amendment would go first on the vote, but I thank my 
colleagues for giving me a moment to get here.
  I want to object, of course, to the tabling of this amendment. As I 
described earlier, I believe very strongly, as do some others, that 
this money should be better targeted. That is what this amendment does. 
It does not add new money to this bill. It simply says, of the money 
that we are going to spend--whether it is a 20-percent increase that 
Senator Gramm earlier spoke about, or an 8-percent increase--whatever 
the increase, if we are going to increase funding in this bill, the 
money should go to help the poorer children first, the communities 
around this Nation that need the most help, whether they be in rural 
areas or urban areas.
  Every State will gain. Every State will leave with additional money 
for title I. The States that need the most help will get that help. 
That is simply what this amendment does. I object to the tabling.
  I thank the Senators for granting the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table Landrieu amendment 
No. 3645. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Bayh
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Cleland
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Helms
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3655

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes for debate on the 
Jeffords amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa requested order in the Chamber. We need order 
in the Chamber. We will withhold business until there is order in the 
Chamber.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is the Jeffords amendment relating 
to title VI of the bill. It takes money which is dedicated to school 
construction and puts it into IDEA and special education.
  We have over and over again pledged to fully fund up to 40 percent of 
the cost of educating children in special education. We have not done 
that. All of you committed to doing that. We have no comparable 
historical obligation to contribute money for school construction. That 
is an option under title VI and will remain an option even if my 
amendment is approved. We believe we should fund and pay for our 
current Federal obligations first before we take on new and open ended 
obligations. It is a promise we have all made. It is a promise we 
should keep.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague 
from Vermont that it would be desirable to put more money into the 
program for individuals with disabilities. But in constructing this 
bill, we have tried to fashion it in a way that it will be signed by 
the President. We have put the money into construction to meet requests 
with the proviso that if the local boards do not need it for 
construction, or want it, they can use it as they choose. If we had 
additional funds, I would be delighted to acknowledge Senator Jeffords' 
request. But in its present form, we cannot take those funds without 
increasing the chance of a veto.
  This carefully constructed bill ought to stand. Therefore, I move to 
table the Jeffords 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 to table amendment No. 
3655. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Inouye
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________