[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21311-21319]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2058

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I am happy to get back to the subject. I 
was of course happy to yield some time for the Senators from 
Pennsylvania, for those fine remarks to honor a person who certainly 
deserved that recognition.
  I am offering this amendment today on this underlying bill in behalf 
of myself, Senator Cochran, the Senator from Mississippi, Senator 
DeWine from Ohio, Senator Lieberman, Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, 
and Senator Ensign--all who have had a pivotal role and a leadership 
role in helping to bring this particular amendment to the floor at this 
time.
  So because of the change in time this morning, and so many Senators 
are here wanting to speak on this amendment, let me yield at this time 
to my distinguished colleague from Ohio for his remarks on this 
amendment. Then I will speak following the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for 
her nice comments. I appreciate the fact that she has yielded to me. I 
congratulate her for not only this amendment but for all the work she 
does for all children, and particularly poor children. There is no one 
in this Chamber more dedicated than is she to the children of this 
country.
  I rise today to express my support for Senator Landrieu's amendment 
as well as for Senator Gregg's amendment. These amendments target our 
limited, finite Federal resources to the school districts and to the 
children most in need. I am cosponsoring both because each is an effort 
to get funding to those school districts with high concentrations of 
poor children. Each amendment will put at least $1 billion into the 
title I targeted grant formula so impoverished school districts, those 
children, get what they need, so the children in those school districts 
get the quality education they deserve.
  A little history. This grant formula, this targeted grant formula, as 
it is called, was created in 1994. It recognized the great disparity in 
this country between poor school districts and rich school districts, 
the great disparity between children who are in poverty and children 
who are not in poverty.
  However, unbelievably and tragically, since the creation of these 
grants in 1994, not a single Federal dollar, not one dollar, has been 
appropriated to fund this grant program--that is until now with these 
two amendments. These amendments would fundamentally begin fulfilling 
the promise and commitment the Federal Government made to the poor 
children of this country in 1994. This is unprecedented. It is 
historic. So I congratulate both of my colleagues for their amendments.
  Under Senator Gregg's amendment, the districts most in need would not 
only receive the money they deserve but they also would have the 
flexibility to decide how best to use their title I funds, whether that 
is to hire more teachers, provide professional development, to put 
computers in classrooms, or purchase instructional material--whatever 
they wanted to do. The districts, the local communities, would be able 
to decide for themselves where and how those dollars would do the most 
good.
  For example, one school may have a lot of students who are having 
problems in math. That school district could use their title I dollars 
on math instructional materials or to better train their math teachers. 
Another school might have a small group of students who would need more 
individualized instruction in reading and the language arts.
  The point is this funding enables the local school to use this money 
to help the distinct needs of their own students. By funding these 
targeted grants, we are finally focusing on those kids truly in need. 
This gets us back to the original intent of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and the title I program, which is to help 
address the needs of children in low-income areas where the districts 
simply cannot meet their basic needs on their own.
  The problem has been that over the course of the last 3\1/2\ decades, 
the Federal Government really has strayed from this point, from its 
intent, with politics often driving education policy needs of these 
low-income students. As a result, the money intended to reach the most 
impoverished districts, and the most poor children, has simply not been 
getting there. These amendments go a long way to begin to rectify that.
  Because the Federal role in education accounts for only a small 
percentage of school spending--about 8 percent--we must be especially 
prudent and wise in allocating those very limited, finite Federal 
resources. That means we should direct those dollars first and foremost 
to America's most needy children. That means we need to fund the 
targeted grant program.
  The tragedy today is that not all children are getting the quality 
education they deserve because our society is divided along economic 
and educational lines. This division is nothing new. Scholars and 
sociologists warned us really for decades that this was where our 
Nation was heading, particularly if we did not properly educate our 
children.
  Unfortunately, we did not heed the warnings and, as a result, our 
Nation

[[Page 21312]]

today is a nation split really into two Americas, one where children 
get educated and one where, tragically, they do not.
  This gap in educational knowledge and economic standing is 
entrenching thousands upon thousands of children into an underclass and 
into futures filled with poverty and little hope, little opportunity, 
and little room for advancement. That is exactly what is happening in 
my home State of Ohio and across the country.
  Ohio generally is a microcosm of what we see in the country. When we 
look at this growing gap, when we see this development of the two 
Americas, what we see in Ohio is also what we see in our Nation. In 
Ohio, growing income and educational disparities are creating our own 
very permanent underclass.
  Most of Ohio is still doing pretty well and doing pretty well 
educationally. Children in those areas have a great future. However, 
when we look across our State, when we look across the Nation, we see 
two areas where that is not taking place, areas where the children are 
not being educated as well as we would like and where the income level 
shows that disparity. One place is in rural Appalachia, our Appalachian 
counties, and the other is in our core cities or our inner cities. This 
is where we as a society, we as a people, face our greatest challenge.
  The children living in these high-poverty areas are at risk, every 
single one of them. The structural conditions of poverty make it very 
difficult for these children to succeed in life and to move up and out 
of their impoverished circumstances.
  The fact is that with poverty often come drugs, crime, broken homes, 
unemployment, violence, and lower educational levels. In fact, 
according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 1999, 
young adults living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 percent 
of all family incomes were five times as likely to drop out of high 
school as their peers with families in the top 20 percent of the income 
distribution.
  The point is not that money solves all problems. The point is we have 
an obligation, with the finite dollars we have available to us, to 
spend them wisely and prudently. We need today to fulfill to what we 
have committed in the past and have not done; that is, help poor 
children of this country.
  In conclusion, because of the cyclical nature of poverty and the 
systemic problems associated with it, I believe the best way we can get 
to these children before we lose them is through quality education. 
Education is the ticket out of poverty. It has been throughout the 
history of this country.
  We need to provide all children, regardless of their economic 
circumstances or family backgrounds or how poor the school district in 
which they live, with the tools they need to make it as adults in our 
society, with the tools necessary to rise above individual situations 
in poverty and instability and individual situations of hopelessness 
and despair. When education is not working to give our kids the tools 
they need to move ahead in life, those children suffer.
  We can't solve all the problems of this country. We can't fix all the 
broken homes. But we can use Federal dollars in ways that help close 
the educational gap in America.
  That is exactly what we are doing with my colleague's amendment and 
with Senator Gregg's amendment. We are finally putting our money where 
our mouth is. No more lip service. This funding would go to enable 
schools to provide opportunities for low-income and low-achieving 
children to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in 
school and later in life.
  In doing so, we will help education equalize the environment for our 
children. That is the right thing to do.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague, and I again congratulate her 
for the excellent amendment and for the work she does for children 
every day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for those 
remarks, and, of course, for his hard work on this amendment. I often 
say to our other colleagues that any Senator who is a father of eight 
children certainly is an expert when it comes to the matters of 
children and families. He has demonstrated that over and over again.
  I see my colleague from Mississippi coming in to also speak on this 
amendment. I am mindful of the time and his patience because our 
amendment has been rescheduled so many times. I would be happy to yield 
to him at this time or in a few moments if he wants to speak on this 
particular amendment because he has most certainly been a leader in 
this regard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana will yield, I would be happy to speak in support of her 
amendment and acknowledge that I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I 
believe that it does redirect some of the funding allocated under the 
bill for title I programs so that it goes to the States with the 
highest percentage of poor students in their student population. These 
are students we decided needed special attention many years ago when 
the program was first authorized as title I under the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. The Federal Government has the responsibility 
to address that program--not by supplanting the primary responsibility 
of the States to run their education programs and to provide the 
resources for teachers and school districts to educate those students 
in the States.
  We have decided some States have such serious problems in this 
respect that the Federal Government ought to step in and provide some 
additional assistance. When the program was authorized, not all of the 
authorized activities were funded. This is one example of an unfunded 
but authorized activity and a program that was designed to help those 
States with very special needs. Obviously, my State is one of them.
  Sixty-five percent of the student population in the State of 
Mississippi is classified as eligible for title I support. These are 
poor children. Most of those children reside in small towns and rural 
communities; some in urban settings, of course. But most of them are in 
areas with high rates of unemployment and low-wage rates where people 
do have jobs, and with real estate that doesn't generate the kind of 
taxes that are needed to operate top-of-the-line education programs. 
They start out with the deck stacked against them because of where they 
live and the fact that they are poor.
  This is money that is now going to be targeted and redirected to 
those areas of special need. I think it is totally justified under the 
circumstances that we see in our country today, and also to be used in 
a program that has been tested and proven to be helpful.
  We had hearings in our State earlier this year talking to 
administrators in school districts that are eligible for title I 
funding; talking to teachers and meeting with the State board of 
education members to try to assess how effective the program has been 
and what would happen if the funds were cut. For example, we were told 
if the funding under title I was reduced in our State, the effect would 
be devastating. We were also told the more money they could get into 
the program, the better job they could do in providing educational 
opportunities to those who are harder to teach and who need special 
assistance in many cases in order to achieve their goals and to be what 
they could be if they were given the right kinds of educational 
opportunities.
  One of our witnesses turned out to be a school superintendent in 
Yazoo City, MS, who had been a title I student. He talked about his 
personal background and his history and the fact that there was no 
opportunity for him. But because of additional funds in the school that 
he attended that added some instructors, that added some teachers who 
concentrated on those students with special problems because they were 
poor, he benefitted from that. He talked about how he then ended up 
going to college. He is now a leader in our State in education, 
devoting his

[[Page 21313]]

life to helping others who are in similar situations. He was a very 
impressive, and as you might understand, a very persuasive witness.
  I am here today to speak for people like him and others in our State 
who because of their lives and experiences show that this program 
works. It has been of great benefit to him. We want it to benefit many 
more.
  That is why I am cosponsoring the Landrieu amendment. I hope the 
Senate will vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the remarks of 
my colleague from Mississippi and my neighbor to the south right across 
the line because we share a lot of common challenges in Mississippi and 
Louisiana. The Senator spoke about the need for this amendment and 
called the attention of the Nation to the fact that about 60 percent of 
the students in Mississippi--that would be about the same for 
Louisiana, probably about 65 percent--live below the poverty line or 
are so close to it that opportunities are hard to come by. I think it 
is important for us to step back and take a moment to recognize that 
great inequity.
  As I refer to my notes, I am reminded that in order for students to 
be eligible for title I, as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi 
knows, it means a family of four can make no more than $22,000. It is 
hard for an individual to live on $22,000, much less a family, whether 
they live in rural Mississippi or rural Louisiana or right here in 
Washington, DC. But there are many working families who have incomes at 
that level, and all they are asking is for their children to get a 
better education, so that instead of bringing in that $22,000, they 
could bring in $45,000 or $65,000 or $100,000, and not only help 
themselves and their families, and the children they will ultimately 
have, but help this Nation to fulfill its economic promise.
  One of the great effects of this amendment, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, because you yourself have been supportive and outspoken and 
effective in your advocacy as a former Governor of Delaware and now as 
a Senator who speaks so directly about this issue, is it helps us to 
begin. It is only a modest beginning to help solve a great inequity in 
this Nation. It is the inequity that the Senator from Mississippi 
brought up and the inequity that I want to spend a few minutes speaking 
about again this morning.
  The fact is that among these 50 States there are some States and some 
communities and some districts and some counties and some parishes that 
simply do not have the resources to make the grade. They have the will. 
They have the skill. They have the desire. And the children, because of 
the way God created them, have the brains. They are not sitting down on 
the job. These are children who want to learn. These are parents who 
work very hard, who do not have flexible schedules, who wake up early 
in the morning before the Sun comes up, who stay at work until the Sun 
goes down.
  These are the children title I tries to reach: first-generation 
immigrants, families that have been in this country for many years 
struggling to get ahead, families that work hard and save their hard-
earned dollars. These are the children title I tries to reach. Yet when 
we do not provide the funds through the targeted grants, we often miss 
the opportunity to meet these families halfway.
  I think we have an obligation, on the Federal level, because of the 
disparity, because of the great inequity, to do what we can to try to 
level this playing field.
  Let me be the first to say, although I am a sponsor of this 
amendment, this amendment does not correct that inequity. We would need 
many billions of dollars more to correct that inequity. But this is a 
beginning. That is why it is so important for us to vote overwhelmingly 
for this particular amendment. It is a beginning. It will be the first 
time the targeted grant formula has ever been funded in the Senate. It 
will build on the work of the House. It will support what the President 
wants us to do.
  As we push our schools to greater heights, as we expect higher 
standards from our students, from our educators, and from our parents, 
then we can help them by giving this additional funding, so that even 
schools in the places that are poor, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, 
and places in Delaware that may be disadvantaged, have a chance to meet 
these higher standards. That is what this amendment does.
  I am proud of the bipartisan support we have received. And I know it 
is tough because there are some States where funding maybe goes up 
slightly and there are some States where funding decreases.
  I do not see my partner, Senator Lieberman, in this Chamber. He has 
been working for hours, for days, for months on this amendment. Senator 
Lieberman is a cosponsor. Clearly, as the Senator from Mississippi 
said, Mississippi will benefit. He has more poor children in 
Mississippi per capita than any State in the Union. My State is a close 
second. So to Mississippi and Louisiana, this is serious business. This 
is about whether these children, in homes where parents are working, 
doing their best, have a chance or not. That is what this amendment 
means. It is literally a life-and-death opportunity.
  There are some States that are wealthier, Connecticut being one of 
them. Senator Lieberman supports this amendment. I tell you, he is a 
great inspirational leader to me. Just to give an example of how great 
his leadership has been, Connecticut will not benefit as much as 
Louisiana, but Senator Lieberman knows, as do other Senators from 
wealthier States, that it is ultimately in the interest of all the 
businesspeople and families in Connecticut if every child in this great 
Nation has a chance for an excellent education. The benefits will come 
back to Connecticut in indirect ways, if not directly. That is the kind 
of long-term leadership, the kind of vision that we need more of in the 
Senate.
  So while in some ways it is easier for Senator Cochran and I to stand 
in this Chamber and argue for it because our State will be a tremendous 
beneficiary, I recognize the sponsorship of Senators from States that 
do not immediately do better, but in the long run they know this is 
best for their State and for the Nation; to them goes tremendous 
credit.
  Let me take a moment to speak about the underlying bill. Many of us, 
including the Presiding Officer, have been working for many months to 
try to put forward some of the new principles that are in this 
particular piece of legislation.
  The appropriations bill that we are discussing today helps to frame 
or give substance to the authorization bill that is in committee. There 
are some principles that I think are important, and I will address 
those for a moment.
  First of all, the underlying bill recognizes the importance of 
teachers. We always say teachers are important, but sometimes we do not 
put our money where our mouths are. The underlying bill gives $1 
billion more to help improve the quality of teachers.
  We know that a good teacher instructs but a great teacher inspires. 
We need to have more great teachers; we need to help them become great 
teachers, taking their great motivation and their enthusiasm, and 
helping them build their skills to inspire our children in every 
school, in every district, to become the very best citizens they can be 
for our Nation and to become the very best leaders in the world. This 
challenging time certainly calls on us to make those investments. That 
is one of the initiatives in this bill.
  In addition, it has been important to work on this particular bill at 
this time because I think there is a sense that while we have a very 
good public school system, it works pretty well most of the time, and 
we can be proud of the work we do, I think the Landrieu-Cochran 
amendment, and the work that is being done in the underlying bill, to 
push forward on some of these points, demonstrates there is a sense of 
urgency to move our schools to a higher level, expecting performance 
and not concentrating on process, but expecting results, 
accountability, improvements, and working with the

[[Page 21314]]

local people in a partnership to do that.
  Why is that important? It has always been important. It has always 
been important, but I think since September 11 it has become even more 
obvious why it is important to have excellence in our schools and to 
give every child, regardless of whether they come from a wealthy 
district in Connecticut or the cotton fields of Mississippi and 
Louisiana, the chance to succeed, to carry the flag that we all share 
as Americans, and to do the very best we can to hold up that flag when 
our Nation calls upon us to do so.
  I have been very impressed with the work of the Business Roundtable 
on education. They, along with many corporate executives, have 
supported some of the educational reform efforts that are being made in 
this Congress. I commend them for their focus.
  They issued a poem, written by one of their members, that I will ask 
to print in the Record. I want to share it with my colleagues this 
morning because it so clarifies where we are today in America and why 
the underlying bill is important, and why the targeting amendment is 
important.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. It is entitled ``Pretty Good.'' It reads as follows:

                              Pretty Good

                          (By Charles Osgood)

     There once was a pretty good student,
     Who sat in a pretty good class
     And was taught by a pretty good teacher,
     Who always let pretty good pass.
     He wasn't terrific at reading,
     He wasn't a whiz-bang at math;
     But for him education was leading
     Straight down a pretty good path.
     He didn't find school too exciting,
     But he wanted to do pretty well,
     And he did have some trouble with writing
     And nobody taught him to spell.
     When doing arithmetic problems
     Pretty good was regarded as fine.
     Five plus five needn't always add up to be ten,
     A pretty good answer was nine.
     The pretty good class that he sat in
     Was part of a pretty good school,
     And the student was not an exception,
     On the contrary, he was the rule.
     The pretty good school that he went to
     Was in a pretty good town.
     And nobody seemed to notice
     He could not tell a verb from a noun.
     The pretty good student in fact was
     Part of a pretty good mob.
     And the first time he knew what he lacked was
     When he looked for a pretty good job.
     It was then, when he sought a position,
     He discovered that life could be tough,
     And he soon had a sneaky suspicion
     Pretty good might not be good enough.
     The pretty good town in our story
     Was part of a pretty good state,
     Which had pretty good aspirations,
     And prayed for a pretty good fate.
     There once was a pretty good nation,
     Pretty proud of the greatness it had,
     Which learned much too late
     If you want to be great,
     Pretty good is, in fact, pretty bad.

  We have some pretty good schools. We have some pretty good students. 
We have some pretty good teachers. We have to have great schools, great 
students, and great teachers. We need them in Mississippi. We need them 
in Louisiana. We need them in Connecticut. We need them in 
Pennsylvania. Our country depends on educated, well-skilled citizens to 
lift this democracy, to help lift this world, and to become a beacon of 
light. We can do that. It is not that complicated. It just takes some 
principles, some determination and some funding levels, partnerships 
with local governments, to make it happen.
  The underlying bill, with this amendment, and the work that has been 
done in the authorizing committee will get us from pretty good to 
great. That is what our Nation needs at this time.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted to support, 
enthusiastically, the Landrieu-Cochran amendment. I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this amendment. I believe this is a balanced and 
bipartisan amendment. I am especially pleased that this amendment 
represents a change in the way the title I formula is funded. My State 
of Utah has been socked by this formula for years. Correcting the title 
I formula has long been a priority of mine and this amendment is a good 
step in the right direction.
  This amendment would direct Federal funds to go out to States using 
the degree to which States equalize resources among their school 
districts as a proxy for their commitment to education.
  This so-called ``equity provision'' of the Education Finance 
Incentive Grant section of the title I formula rewards states that have 
a policy of fairly distributing resources among school districts.
  I have been beating a steady drum relative to this issue for years. 
As many of my colleagues know, wealthy school districts can afford to 
provide more resources to their schools than can poorer school 
districts. This sends an incredibly bad signal to students in so much 
as it can appear that wealthy students have access to scholastic 
resources such as computers and up-to-date science labs which may be 
unavailable to students from less affluent areas.
  We should work to eliminate what has been called this ``Savage 
Inequality'' between more wealthy and less wealthy school districts. I 
believe that support for the equity provision of this formula sends a 
strong signal to these students that the Congress deems it a priority 
for States to find a way to eliminate this barrier to academic 
progress. I am very proud that my State of Utah has had a policy of 
equalizing resources among school districts for decades.
  A majority of States have either been taken to court or been 
threatened with lawsuits over the issue of equalized resources among 
school districts. This amendment would assist States which currently 
are being compelled to address this issue.
  As a conservative, I am pleased that the equity provision does not 
mandate to States how they should achieve a more equitable school 
funding strategy, it merely rewards them when they do achieve a more 
equitable school funding strategy.
  I am also pleased that this amendment would establish an alternative 
proxy for determining a State's commitment to education. Currently, the 
only measure of a State's commitment to education has been its per-
pupil expenditure. That measure unfairly evaluates a State like Utah's 
commitment to education. Utah has a relatively low tax-base and the 
highest percentage of school aged children.
  This means that based on the per-pupil expenditure, Utah ranks 
relatively low. But the per-pupil expenditure is only one measure to 
judge a State's commitment to education. It makes sense as a matter of 
good policy to have a variety of measures to establish a State's 
commitment to education. This amendment moves us soundly in that 
direction.
  Funding for the Education Finance Incentive Grant program is good 
policy. It just makes sense. I am pleased to support the Landrieu-
Cochran amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Louisiana makes changes in the formula so that there are more funds 
targeted to poor areas, and States which have already targeted poor 
areas are going to receive more funding. Pennsylvania is a winner in 
this formula fight. I tend to support the amendment.
  Nobody has appeared in opposition to the amendment, and there are a 
number of States which are adversely affected.
  It is my hope that other Senators wishing to protect their interests 
will come to the floor to present their arguments.
  Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. If we now go to a quorum call, 
the time can't be charged against the Senator from Louisiana because 
she has no time remaining. So is the time charged against the opponents 
of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 21315]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I realize my time has expired. Since no 
one is here to speak against the amendment, would there be any 
objection to my taking an additional few minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the 
Senator from Louisiana how much additional time she wants?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would only need 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have no objection.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Then I would be happy to yield to Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be kind enough to yield 1 minute to 
the Senator from Massachusetts in opposition to the Gregg amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will accommodate the Senator from Massachusetts on 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, to go into some more detail about the 
importance to Louisiana, Louisiana is slated to receive approximately 
$212 million in title I funding. Under this amendment, that will be $21 
million more than we received last year. We spend about $600 per title 
I student. This amount will increase by almost a third for the students 
in Louisiana, increasing it by $200.
  Caddo Parish may receive a 21 percent increase in title I funding. 
East Baton Rouge, the capital parish, will receive a 16 percent 
increase. Orleans parish could receive a 24 percent increase. These are 
several examples of how beneficial this will be to the parishes in 
Louisiana, and I am sure to counties in Mississippi as well as to the 
State of Delaware.
  This is an amendment that will help all school districts by trying to 
target more of the resources to those school districts that have high 
concentrations of poor students and limited opportunities to raise 
their own funds locally. That, clearly, is a role the Federal 
Government should play.
  I will submit for the Record a more comprehensive list of what it 
will mean to all of the States, as well as the State of Louisiana, in 
terms of percentages of increase.
  Again, this is a beginning. I know Senator Kennedy will join me in 
saying that $1 billion is not really enough. But given the other pulls 
on our budget, it is what we can do this year.
  I hope to work with the Presiding Officer and the chairman, the 
Senator from Massachusetts, and others to see that this money is 
increased next year so that it will be beneficial to all of our States.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list to which I 
referred:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Landrieu/                         Increase over    Percent
            State              Fiscal year 2001       Cochran          Committee           FY01         increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................      $133,800,000      $154,808,000      $153,957,000       $21,008,000         16
Alaska.......................        23,064,000        27,995,000        28,159,000         4,931,000         21
Arizona......................       137,446,000       169,204,000       170,954,000        31,758,000         23
Arkansas.....................        83,258,000        95,772,000        96,280,000        12,514,000         15
California...................     1,155,139,000     1,417,777,000     1,432,338,000       262,638,000         23
Colorado.....................        78,563,000        98,316,000        97,204,000        19,753,000         25
Connecticut..................        83,813,000       103,824,000       104,422,000        20,011,000         24
Delaware.....................        22,221,000        26,731,000        25,879,000         4,510,000         20
District of Columbia.........        26,603,000        32,900,000        33,276,000         6,297,000         24
Florida......................       400,840,000       501,169,000       498,469,000       100,329,000         25
Georgia......................       250,856,000       304,676,000       314,986,000        53,820,000         21
Hawaii.......................        25,773,000        33,025,000        32,461,000         7,252,000         28
Idaho........................        26,557,000        32,447,000        31,664,000         5,890,000         22
Illinois.....................       357,248,000       430,003,000       432,244,000        72,755,000         20
Indiana......................       128,798,000       157,498,000       157,634,000        28,700,000         22
Iowa.........................        55,103,000        65,450,000        62,033,000        10,347,000         19
Kansas.......................        61,260,000        74,550,000        75,206,000        13,290,000         22
Kentucky.....................       130,625,000       149,864,000       148,913,000        19,239,000         15
Louisiana....................       191,576,000       212,407,000       201,954,000        20,831,000         11
Maine........................        32,489,000        37,653,000        37,393,000         5,164,000         16
Maryland.....................       124,098,000       154,435,000       152,827,000        30,337,000         24
Massachusetts................       180,987,000       217,491,000       221,497,000        36,504,000         20
Michigan.....................       349,306,000       407,508,000       407,952,000        58,202,000         17
Minnesota....................        95,313,000       117,407,000       115,332,000        22,094,000         23
Mississippi..................       124,800,000       133,668,000       124,752,000         8,868,000          7
Missouri.....................       140,579,000       163,214,000       163,875,000        22,635,000         16
Montana......................        28,243,000        33,223,000        33,876,000         4,980,000         18
Nebraska.....................        32,936,000        38,708,000        36,259,000         5,772,000         18
Nevada.......................        32,382,000        42,083,000        40,750,000         9,701,000         30
New Hampshire................        21,390,000        26,684,000        25,049,000         5,294,000         25
New Jersey...................       209,372,000       255,415,000       257,744,000        46,043,000         22
New Mexico...................        68,504,000        80,281,000        81,129,000        11,777,000         17
New York.....................       822,655,000       989,767,000     1,008,629,000       167,112,000         20
North Carolina...............       172,307,000       212,181,000       214,399,000        39,874,000         23
North Dakota.................        21,081,000        25,247,000        24,639,000         4,166,000         20
Ohio.........................       303,990,000       345,855,000       329,733,000        41,865,000         14
Oklahoma.....................       101,344,000       119,647,000       121,149,000        18,303,000         18
Oregon.......................        76,714,000        93,722,000        94,465,000        17,008,000         22
Pennsylvania.................       346,293,000       401,635,000       394,496,000        55,342,000         16
Puerto Rico..................       267,301,000       301,864,000       319,602,000        34,563,000         13
Rhode Island.................        27,057,000        33,129,000        33,875,000         6,072,000         22
South Carolina...............       112,033,000       135,117,000       137,578,000        23,084,000         21
South Dakota.................        21,251,000        25,465,000        25,248,000         4,214,000         20
Tennessee....................       137,351,000       156,990,000       149,399,000        19,639,000         14
Texas........................       692,899,000       819,583,000       817,235,000       126,684,000         18
Utah.........................        37,418,000        46,924,000        43,580,000         9,506,000         25
Vermont......................        18,016,000        21,783,000        21,324,000         3,767,000         21
Virginia.....................       138,409,000       170,508,000       172,966,000        32,099,000         23
Washington...................       118,080,000       145,491,000       144,721,000        27,411,000         23
West Virginia................        73,751,000        81,121,000        79,001,000         7,370,000         10
Wisconsin....................       129,070,000       153,714,000       148,120,000        24,644,000         19
Wyoming......................        19,059,000        23,077,000        22,383,000         4,018,000         21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the time. The Senator 
from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2056

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
allowing me a minute. We have been in a markup. Everyone is pressed.
  I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment 
deals with public school construction but doesn't cut out charter 
school construction resources. I appreciate the fact that Senator Gregg 
understands that we need additional resources in title I. We are only 
reaching about 35 percent of all of the children. Even with the 
increases that we anticipate this year, with the increasing challenges 
we are facing economically, we are still only going to reach a 
relatively small percentage of children that are needy.

[[Page 21316]]

  We understand we need additional resources. The fact is, we shouldn't 
be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to invest in and increase title 
I. We need an effective program of construction, public school 
construction and charter school construction.
  Every day, until relatively recently, in my own city of Boston, when 
the temperature went below 20 degrees, we had 15 schools that closed, 
where there are a number of title I children, because of the fact that 
they didn't have the heating and because of the construction lapses. We 
were denying these children the opportunities for learning.
  This is a carefully targeted program that Senator Harkin has 
directed. It is a necessary one for needy children. I hope the Gregg 
amendment will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides on the 
Landrieu amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time on the side of the Senator 
from Louisiana. The opponents have 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator from Pennsylvania be willing to yield 
back the time? Then we could go to the vote on the Gregg amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I would. I think we should proceed with the business of 
the Senate. If I might ask my colleague from Nevada, what would happen 
then to those who want to make arguments in opposition to the Landrieu 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. They would not be able to make any argument.
  Mr. SPECTER. Then it is the suggestion that we proceed to two votes 
now?
  Mr. REID. That is right. The order that is now in place would be the 
Gregg amendment. As soon as that is completed, we would vote on the 
Landrieu amendment. For 3 days Senators have known what has been taking 
place on the floor. We announced this vote last night. We structured 
the debate so there is no reason in the world that someone who opposed 
the Landrieu amendment would not be here.
  Mr. SPECTER. With the assistant majority leader's suggestion we 
proceed to two votes, I raise no objection.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be a 
10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 316 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 2056) was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2058

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 2 
minutes for debate evenly divided prior to the vote on the Landrieu 
amendment No. 2058.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, we only have 1 minute. I yield 30 
seconds to my colleague from Connecticut and 30 seconds to my colleague 
from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am proud to have joined Senators 
Landrieu, Cochran, and DeWine in offering a truly historic amendment, 
which will for the first time specifically target new title I funding 
directly to our nation's poorest communities and schools. In doing so, 
this amendment will help us move closer to realizing the original 
promise of title I and, more importantly, help us move closer to 
realizing the promise we have made to give every child in America a 
high quality education.
  The compromise reached today will provide $1 billion for the targeted 
grant formula under title I, which was enacted into law by Congress in 
1994 but unfortunately has never actually been funded by appropriators. 
This agreement ensures that no state, or local school district will 
lose any funds, but at the same time ensures those school districts 
with the greatest need and with the greatest challenges will receive a 
significant boost in resources.
  For example in my own State of Connecticut, this would mean our three 
communities with the greatest poverty and educational needs including 
Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven would receive increases of 25, 35, 
and 31 percent, respectively, over their current funding levels for a 
combined increase of over $12.4 million. That is $12 million more worth 
of educational services provided and high quality teachers hired to 
ensure that title I children may achieve academic successes. I would 
also mean substantial increases in investment for many other 
communities serving low-income students.
  This agreement is by no means perfect. It leaves in place a 
distribution system that remains badly diluted and seriously 
inefficient. However, it represents a dramatic change in policy, one 
that Senator Landrieu and I, and the members of the Senate New Democrat 
Coalition have been fighting for for some time. And we are optimistic 
that we can build on his breakthrough in the future to really put our 
education money where our mouth is, and concentrate our resources and 
our resolve on lifting up our most disadvantaged schools.
  Most immediately, this amendment makes a strong statement, 
acknowledging that title I is just not working as it was intended. The 
original goal of this critical program was to compensate for local 
funding inequities within States and help level the playing field for 
low-income children. But the 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.
  As my colleagues know, Federal funds for poor children are currently 
distributed through two grants, basic and concentration. In order to be 
eligible for basic grants, which comprise the bulk of current title I 
funds, local districts only need to have 10 school-age children from 
low-income families, and these children must constitute only 2 percent 
of the total school-age population. Under the concentration grants, 
districts with a child poverty rate of 15 percent are eligible to 
receive funding. As a result of these low threshold, title I funding 
has been spread too thin and too wide. In fact, according to a 1999 CRS 
report, title I grants are provided to approximately 90 percent of all 
local school districts, and 58 percent of all public schools. Even 
worse, because title I has not been close to fully funded, these 
diluted formulas have left little aid available for many of the 
country's

[[Page 21317]]

poorest students. CRS found that one fifth of all schools with 
concentrations of poverty between 50 and 75 percent do not receive a 
dime of title I funding.
  In examining these inequities we also cannot ignore the growing 
impact that concentration of poverty is having on the academic 
achievement of our nation's school children, particularly those who 
live in disadvantaged communities. America's top 150 highest poverty 
cities have 40 percent of our all title I students. Students in these 
cities face many challenges, none greater that the pervasive poverty 
that surrounds them. Studies show that, even after controlling for 
student's socioeconomic background, concentration of poverty has an 
important negative effect on student achievement.
  For example, a U.S. Department of Education study found that ``The 
relationship between family poverty status and student achievement is 
not as strong as the relationship between school poverty concentrations 
and school achievement averages.'' An Urban Institute study of public-
housing students in Albuquerque, NM found that, after controlling for 
home environment, if a poor child lived in a neighborhood and attended 
school with 20 percent poverty rather than 80 percent poverty, that 
child's standardized test scores were likely to improve by 13 
percentage points.
  Concentration of poverty does create a barrier to educational 
achievement, but that barrier is not impenetrable. University of 
Tennessee's William Sanders found that high concentrations of poverty 
do not on their own preclude or prevent schools from raising student 
achievement. Low-achieving students are often the first to gain, and 
experience the greatest gains, from quality instruction. Unfortunately, 
only a small share of our federal resources are getting to the 
districts most in need of critical funds, which limits the ability of 
those districts to hire the most qualified instructors and provide the 
best services.
  The Federal Government alone cannot solve this grave inequity. We can 
only supplement state and local funding, but cannot supplant those 
resources, and states and localities must do more to target their own 
resources. A recent Education Trust analysis of funding inequities 
reveals that school districts with the greatest numbers of poor 
children have less money to spend per student than districts with the 
fewest poor children. And a growing body of research shows, according 
to the Education Trust report, that additional dollars, if directed at 
the most critical activities, can significantly raise the achievement 
of poor and minority students.
  But the Federal Government can make a real and consequential 
contribution, both in terms of leadership and of leverage of national 
resources, and this amendment aims to do both. As I have noted, it will 
significantly improve the targeting of Federal dollars. But it also 
includes a second piece that will help reduce the inequities within 
states. In addition to funding the targeted formula for the first time, 
this amendment also funds the State finance and incentive grant formula 
for the first time, a formula intended to reward states that have made 
real strides in eliminating funding gaps with their own resources.
  The amendment calls for channeling $500 million through this fourth 
formula, which is commonly known as the ``Effort and Equity'' formula. 
Although I share the concerns raised by many that the current design of 
this formula has substantial flaws and should be modified so that truly 
meets its intended goal, I also share the belief of my colleague from 
Iowa that we should do more at the federal level to prompt states to 
better equalize their own funding.
  That is why I am committed to seeing improvements made to the effort 
and equity formula through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
conference that is currently pending. I commend Senator Harkin for his 
willingness to reexamine and overhaul this formula so that it better 
targets funds within states to the districts with the highest 
concentrations of poverty. And I look forward to working with him and 
with a common focus to improve the fairness and the performance of 
title I. In achieving this goal, I believe that we can further work 
together to see even more funds appropriated to the targeted formula as 
the appropriations process moves forward.
  The compromise we have struck today might not be politically popular 
or perfect, but it is a great beginning and a way to draw our attention 
back to the original intent of the ESEA and the primary function of the 
Federal Government in education. It is a bold step forward, one that I 
believe that we can only enhance as the appropriations process as well 
as the ESEA conference moves forward, and I urge my colleagues to join 
us in supporting it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah may proceed.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, as the Senator from Connecticut has 
said, title I is not working as well as we had anticipated. One of the 
rules of life is that if you want to keep getting the same results, you 
keep doing the same things.
  This is the first significant change in title I in its philosophy and 
approach that we have had in many years. It rewards effort and it 
brings equity. If we want to have true education reform, we vote for 
the Cochran-Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute in opposition.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in 
opposition be yielded back and we begin the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Members should be advised this is a 10-minute vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2058.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Allen
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Carnahan
     Clinton
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Kyl
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2058) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I say to Senators that the Chair has 
been trying to get order. The Chair has been trying to get order. The 
Chair has been trying to get order.
  I think it is about time that Senators pay some respect, show some 
respect toward the Chair.

[[Page 21318]]

  Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank all Senators.
  I have sought the floor at this time to urge that we get on with 
action on this bill. I believe today is the beginning of the period 
allotted by the fourth CR.
  Mr. STEVENS. Right.
  Mr. BYRD. Which extends from November 1 to the 16th. It is not a very 
pretty picture when we pause to reflect on the work that remains to be 
done--remains to be done on appropriations bills. Here we are on 
November 1. We have 2 months left in this year, in this calendar year, 
and we are far into the fiscal year: Two conference reports have passed 
the House and Senate and are pending at the White House, the Interior 
bill and the military construction bill.
  Three conferences have been completed with floor action pending--the 
House will act on these three conference reports and may have already 
acted on them by this time; I am not sure--on Treasury, on energy and 
water development, and on legislative branch. The Senate could proceed 
quickly to finish those. If the Senate is able to finish those 3 
conference reports by the end of the day, that will make a total of 5 
out of 13.
  There are five conferences that are expected to be completed by 
Tuesday, November 6. They are these: VA-HUD, foreign operations, 
Transportation, Agriculture, and Commerce-State-Justice. That will make 
a total of 10 if those conferences can be completed.
  Senator Stevens and I have talked with the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee and urged that we get our conferees together 
and get these conferences going. So there is a lot of effort being 
expended. A lot of time is being expended that isn't seen on this 
floor.
  We do a lot of work off this floor. We are here in the evenings. We 
are here when darkness has fallen over the city. It is not a safe city 
to be in. It has not been for a long time, for that matter. But that is 
an aside.
  We need to get this work done on the floor. We have a bill here that 
we ought to move. I urge all Senators who have amendments not to put 
them off until next week thinking they can do better next week. They 
are not going to do as well next week. I urge Senators to call up their 
amendments and let the managers know. Both managers are here. They have 
been here. Let's get on with this business.
  Let me remind Senators how important this bill is. If any Senators 
are here expecting to increase the amounts of money for anything in 
this bill, or to add moneys, let me tell you what you are doing. If 
there is any effort here to alter the 302(b) allocation, you had better 
forget it because I am here ready, as one Senator, to move to table any 
such amendment. Just as quickly as I can get the floor, I will move to 
table it.
  I have discussed this with my counterpart, my distinguished friend, 
Mr. Stevens. He is here to speak for himself. But I can tell you one 
thing. You had better forget it if you are thinking about adding money 
to this bill.
  Let me tell you what you will be doing. You will be creating problems 
for items that are vital to you and your constituents. You will be 
creating problems in the House if you do that because the House 
Appropriations Committee and subcommittees have the same allocation 
that we have over here in the Senate.
  This bill includes $51 billion for the Department of Education, $4 
billion above the President's request. I fought to get that additional 
$4 billion. We wrestled like Jacob with the angel overnight to get that 
additional $4 billion for education in this bill.
  Let some Senator come on this floor and try to alter the allocation. 
They are going to have a fight. You might as well get ready when they 
come here. I fought to get that additional $4 billion for education. It 
wasn't easy. All of us agreed on it. The four appropriators--the 
chairman of the House committee, the chairman of the Senate committee, 
the ranking member of the House committee, and the ranking member of 
the Senate committee--agreed to the $4 billion.
  I say to all Senators that I don't mean to be mean spirited, but I am 
trying to be realistic. We have to get this work done. If you are 
counting on coming here and adding moneys on this bill and calling the 
addition an emergency, forget it, because we included in that agreement 
among the four House and Senate chairmen and with the President that 
there would be $2.2 billion for emergencies. Please don't come on this 
Senate floor with the idea that you are going to add something and you 
are going to designate it as an emergency. We are going to fight you 
over that, if you do it, because we have fought over this and we have 
worked over there. There is no point in going through the motion just 
so you can get a headline in your papers.
  It is $4 billion above the President's request and nearly $6.4 
billion for education. That is an increase of 15 percent over last 
year.
  Also in this bill is $1.549 billion, an increase of $136.4 million 
for dislocated worker programs. These funds are used by States for 
rapid response assistance to help workers affected by mass layoffs and 
plant closures. These fund are critical now more than ever with layoff 
figures increasing across the country. That is a very important item in 
this bill.
  There is $1.343 billion for community, school, homeless, and migrant 
health centers, an increase of $175 million. That is doing pretty well. 
These centers provide primary health care to over 12 million Americans, 
the majority without health insurance. By providing access to basic 
health care, health centers save the health care system billions of 
dollars in reduced use of costly emergency room, specialty, and 
hospital inpatient care.
  What an important bill this is. That is important.
  Senators and staff should not contemplate coming here messing with 
this bill. If you can really improvement it, we will be for you. But we 
think this bill is the best that can be done with the limited resources 
we have. Of course, we would like to spend more money for all of these 
things--some of us would.
  There is $4.419 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. That is an increased of $300.6 million, including funds for 
childhood immunization, HIV prevention activities, epidemic services, 
funds to strengthen the ability of State and local health departments 
to respond to bioterrorism, and to maintain the pharmaceutical 
stockpile.
  This deals with bioterrorism. What can be more important to the 
American people? The Centers for Disease Control has played a primary 
role in responding to the recent anthrax attacks in Washington, New 
York, and Florida.
  In addition, there is $23.695 billion for the National Institutes of 
Health.
  If Senators want to come in here and add moneys for something, what 
are they going to offset the addition with? Who wants to take moneys 
out of the National Institutes of Health?
  That is an increase of $3.4 billion over last year. This increase is 
the fourth year of a 5-year effort to double the funding for NIH. Saved 
lives, new cures and treatments, and a thriving biomedical research 
industry are the result of substantial Federal investment in medical 
research.
  Also in this bill is $2 billion for substance abuse treatment 
programs.
  Who wants to take money out of that to offset something else?
  That is an increase of $80 million. Studies have shown that substance 
abuse treatment is effective at reducing primary drug use by 50 
percent, criminal activity by 80 percent, and drug- and alcohol-related 
medical visits by 50 percent.
  There is $2 billion in here for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program.
  Who wants to take money out that for an offset?
  This program is more important than ever, given the weak economy and 
the shortfalls experienced by State programs last year.
  There is $1.209 billion for aging programs, an increase of $107 
million, including an increase of over $5.5 million for home-delivered 
and congregate

[[Page 21319]]

meals. Last year, almost one out of every six Americans was over 60 
years of age. While the total population of the US increased by 13 
percent since 1990, those in the age category 75-84, increased at twice 
that rate.
  There is $10.2 billion for Title I grants to local education 
agencies, an increase of $1.4 billion. These grants provide funds to 
schools, especially in high-poverty areas, to help low-income, low-
achieving students learn to the same high standards as other students.
  There is $3.039 billion for State grants to improve teacher quality, 
an increase of $440 million. States and local educational agencies use 
these funds to reduce class size, reform teacher certification 
requirements, recruit teachers, provide existing teachers with 
professional development opportunities, and implement teacher mentoring 
programs.
  The Senate bill includes sufficient funds to increase the maximum 
Pell Grant to $4,000, the highest ever and an increase of $250 over 
last year. Pell Grants are the foundation of postsecondary student aid, 
allowing millions of low- and moderate-income students to attend 
college and other postsecondary educational programs.
  That is all I have to say, except, please, let's get on with this 
bill. We are fast approaching Thanksgiving. We ought to be home with 
our families. Let's not be tied up here.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this bill, in my judgment, is as 
important in this period of time with the war on terrorism as the 
Defense Department bill. It is a bill that must be finished as rapidly 
as possible. It contains money to assist all of the agencies dealing 
with the problems of chemical and biological warfare, as well as all of 
the items Senator Byrd has mentioned.
  I am told we are very near an agreement. That may mean we can finish 
this bill tonight. I encourage all parties to join in that effort 
because this bill is going to take a long time in conference. If I 
count correctly, we have but 8 days in which we can conference this 
bill within the timeframe of the next continuing resolution. We have a 
holiday on the 12th. I think it is imperative we get this bill to the 
President as rapidly as possible.
  I also want to state to the Senate that I have agreed to join Senator 
Byrd on any effort to table an amendment that would violate the 
agreement we have with the House and with the President with regard to 
the limitation on expenditures and the allocations within that 
limitation of $686 billion. It is an agreement we made, and we hope the 
Senate will enable us to keep that agreement.
  Madam President, I do not know where the people are who are going to 
enter into this agreement or take the steps that will be necessary to 
ensure we finish this bill today, but I very much hope the Senate will 
agree and follow the suggestion of the chairman of the committee and 
get the bill done as rapidly as possible.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend, the 
former chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  I wonder if we might raise a question here concerning the DC 
appropriations bill. This is another bill that we could act upon, I 
would think, today. I wonder if we might be able to make some 
arrangement that will allow us to complete the DC appropriations bill 
today.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I understand 
the negotiations are underway to try to pursue the concept that we 
previously discussed. That would be a means of trying to report the 
bill from committee with an amendment. That has not been agreed to yet, 
but I hope it will be soon. I personally will support that concept. It 
would be a matter of putting one amendment on the bill as it comes out 
of committee; and that amendment would be in conference. It is not an 
amendment that is in the House bill.
  So I would hope we would have an opportunity to take that path.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. REID. If the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee will yield, there have been conversations with the 
distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. The only way out of 
the problem we have is what I talked about with the chairman. If the 
committee were limited to one amendment, that could happen very 
quickly. It could come to the floor, and we could finish the bill 
rapidly at that time.
  I also say to my friend from West Virginia that during the votes, 
significant progress has been made on this bill. I think the light at 
the end of the tunnel will be able to be seen in a little while.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank all Senators who have spoken. I 
particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens. 
And I thank the majority whip. I am available if I can be of assistance 
to him in pursuing this matter. I believe, as he says, we can see the 
light at the end of the tunnel. There seems to be a willingness on the 
part of Senators who have an interest in the DC appropriations bill to 
come to some agreement. As chairman of the committee, if I can be 
helpful in engineering a reporting from the committee of the House bill 
with an amendment, I will be happy to be of help.
  I thank all Senators for listening. And I particularly thank the 
managers of the bill for the progress that has been made on the bill 
thus far.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Iowa, I will 
be just 2 or 3 minutes.

                          ____________________