[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20936-20948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
           RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Resumed

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

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

  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 1542, in the nature of a substitute.
       Byrd amendment No. 1543 (to amendment No. 1542) to provide 
     additional funding for education for the disadvantaged.
       Akaka amendment No. 1544 (to amendment No. 1542) to provide 
     additional funding for the Excellence in Economic Education 
     Act of 2001.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the 
Chamber, it would be appropriate to comment about the colloquy which 
the majority leader and I had on August 1, the last day of session 
before the August recess. As the majority leader stated, this bill 
would be the first matter taken up on September 2, which we did take 
up, and gave everyone notice.
  I made the comment at that time about the problems I have observed 
with quorum calls taking up so much time, and I stated that it was my 
hope as manager--and which was concurred in by my distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Harkin--that we would have amendments prepared to go. 
We got off to a start yesterday with two amendments. We were unable to 
find any more amendments. We have a couple lined up this morning.
  It is my hope that Members will come to the floor with their 
amendments and be prepared to go and that we can work through orderly 
time agreements and proceed, with the hope of finishing up this bill--
at least a major part of it--by the end of the week.
  As I said on August 1, I would like to see the Senate proceed to a 
third reading when there are a lot of quorum calls and amendments which 
are not prepared to be offered, especially where there is adequate 
notice, as there has been for more than a month on this bill, and as 
matter of general Senate business of what I hope would be accomplished 
here.
  I understand, after discussing the matter with the assistant leader 
for the Democrats, that there is one amendment where the Democrats may 
need to bring all of their people in who might otherwise be absent. 
That single amendment might have to go over to next week. If that is 
so, at least we should complete the bill with the exception of that 
amendment, or as much of it as we can.
  Let me urge my colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments 
and notify the managers of the bill about amendments they have so we 
can proceed in an orderly way. It is my hope that we can work into the 
evening to debate amendments, subject to the decision of the majority 
leader, and stacking votes perhaps in the morning, if we are not to 
vote in the evening, with the same procedure available tomorrow night 
because there are some 40 amendments pending. It is obvious we are 
going to have considerable work to do and considerable debate to 
address these amendments.

[[Page 20937]]

  In advance of the August recess, I conferred with the distinguished 
chairman of the full committee, the President pro tempore, the ranking 
member of the full committee, and many of the members of the Democratic 
caucus who I knew would have amendments to offer so that we ought to be 
in a position to move forward.
  Again, I urge colleagues to come to the floor with their amendments.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber, 
having heard the distinguished manager of the bill on two separate 
occasions--yesterday and today--talking about his desire to complete 
the bill, all members of the Appropriations Committee want to complete 
this bill and I would like to finish this bill. The Democratic leader 
has indicated that he wants to cooperate in any way we can to move 
these bills along.
  Having said that, we have some real problems. Today is Wednesday. 
Tomorrow is Thursday. That is my reason for asking the distinguished 
majority leader if he would respond. Does the leader have an idea about 
what we are going to do on Friday? One of the problems we have, of 
course, is even when we have votes on Friday, it is on a relatively 
unimportant matter most of the time. If we are going to work tomorrow, 
there is not a chance we can complete this bill, no matter how late we 
work tonight and Thursday.
  We have 40 amendments we have already identified. I said to the 
manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, that 
probably 25 percent of those the managers could agree on. That still 
leaves 30 amendments. There are a number of them that are quite 
controversial. If we are going to leave here Thursday night, I just do 
not think we can do it. Miracles happen.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response, I wish to 
restate what our distinguished manager just said; and that is that 5 
weeks ago, at the end of our session just prior to the recess, we did 
have a colloquy on the floor to state the importance but also the 
absolute necessity of having the time managed on the floor be 
disciplined and orderly to get the amendments and, as my request I made 
just a few minutes ago, to have our colleagues come forward.
  So far that is progressing well. And we are going to stay here and 
stay on the bill to finish it, which means--and we will have more to 
say on that, and I talked to the Democratic leader last night--I expect 
we will be voting on Mondays and Fridays.
  I think the votes we have this Friday will be important votes. We 
have a lot of people traveling, on both sides of the aisle, maybe more 
on your side of the aisle than ours. But for many different reasons it 
is absolutely critical that we recognize, as a body, that our 
responsibility is to complete this important piece of legislation, 
which means being here, and we will be here Friday. Later, as we talk, 
and people are back--I don't know how late we will be here Friday, but 
we will be voting on substantive amendments on Friday.
  It is critical we move ahead. I know the same discussion went on a 
little bit yesterday, and it went on for the week or 2 weeks on the 
Energy bill, that we have so much to do there is no way we are going to 
be able to finish it. So now I am getting used to it. It is true, we 
have to debate these amendments. Whether there are 40 or 50--and I know 
there are some very important ones--I want to share with my colleagues 
that we do need to stay here, although hopefully we will not have to 
vote at night too much because I know people have plans. We need to 
stay here, and the managers have expressed a willingness to stay here 
at night in order to continue that business as we go forward.
  As I told the Democratic leader yesterday, we will probably be voting 
on Mondays and Fridays not just this week but over the next several 
weeks. Then if there are certain days we come to an agreement that we 
don't need to vote, we can continue the business. And we will share 
that with both sides of the aisle. Just one final matter: the energy 
conferees. I will hopefully have more to say about that later. But we 
were prepared to appoint energy conferees before we left. On the 
Democratic side of the aisle the request was made not to quite yet 
appoint those. I did mention to the Democratic leader yesterday that we 
are ready to go and do those appointments as soon as possible. I am 
very hopeful that the leadership on your side of the aisle and our side 
of the aisle can announce that today.
  We are ready to go. We have our conferees in line, so I would like to 
do that. I would like to make clear that we have been ready to go for 
the last 5 and a half weeks with our conferees. People come forward and 
say this is a hugely important issue, so I hope we can address that.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through you to the distinguished majority 
leader, I was in a meeting yesterday with the Democratic leader, and I 
think we are at a point where those conferees can be appointed. I am 
very confident it can be done today.
  Mr. President, has the bill been reported this morning?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it has.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1547 To Amendment No. 1542

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1547.

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

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:
       Sec. 306. (a) In addition to any amounts otherwise 
     appropriated under this Act, there are appropriated, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated--
       (1) an additional $20,000,000 to carry out part H of title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (dropout prevention);
       (2) an additional $85,000,000 to carry out title III of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (language 
     instruction);
       (3) an additional $6,449,000 to carry out part A of title V 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Hispanic-serving 
     institutions);
       (4) an additional $4,587,000 to carry out part C of title I 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (migrant education);
       (5) an additional $11,000,000 to carry out high school 
     equivalency program activities under section 418A of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEP);
       (6) an additional $1,000,000 to carry out college 
     assistance migrant program activities under section 418A of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 (CAMP);
       (7) an additional $12,776,000 to carry out subpart 16 of 
     part D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (parental assistance and local family information 
     centers); and
       (8) an additional $69,000,000 to carry out migrant and 
     seasonal Head Start programs: Provided, That such sum shall 
     be in addition to funds reserved for migrant, seasonal, and 
     other Head Start programs under section 640(a)(2) of the Head 
     Start Act.
       (b) Of the funds appropriated in this Act for the National 
     Institutes of Health, $150,000,000 shall not be available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2004.
       (c) The amount $6,895,199,000 in section 305(a)(1) of this 
     Act shall be deemed to be $7,105,011,000 and the amount 
     $6,783,301,000 in section 305(a)(2) of this Act shall be 
     deemed to be $6,573,489,000.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment relates to programs that help 
Hispanic children. This is more than just numbers, statistics; it deals 
with real people, kids who can be helped by special programs.
  What does this mean? Does it mean we are spending more money to be 
spending more money? What it means is we will be spending more money to 
save money. For every $1 we spend in our country for these programs, we 
save $10 in welfare costs, educational costs, costs to the criminal 
justice system. These programs deal with children, I repeat.

[[Page 20938]]

  One of the programs is a program called the High School Equivalency 
Program which assists students of migrant parents who have dropped out 
of high school to earn their GED.
  Here is what Tedrel Eubanks said:

       [The high school equivalency program] exposed me to college 
     life. This was something beyond my wildest dreams. I had 
     never given any real thought to finishing high school, not to 
     mention going to college. The more I attended GED classes, 
     the more excited I became. The more time I spent on the 
     University campus taking part in various activities, the more 
     determined I became about getting my GED certificate and 
     graduating and enrolling at [Mississippi Valley State 
     University].

  And that is what he did.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment I just 
offered be on my behalf and on behalf of the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Bingaman.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Another program that is a tremendously important program 
that is greatly affected in an adverse way by this bill we have before 
us is a program called the College Assistance Migrant Program, referred 
to as CAMP, which assists migrant students in their first year of 
college with personal academic counseling and stipends. These programs 
have been enormously successful. But rather than talk about, again, 
statistics, let me talk about a person by the name of Maria de Lurdes 
Reynoso.
  Maria said she went to the Boise State University CAMP. She said:

       [The] Boise State University's CAMP scholarship has been a 
     stepping-stone in my college career. CAMP is much more than a 
     scholarship. From academic support to career opportunities, 
     CAMP helps its students become successful individuals. One of 
     the most important goals of my life was to receive a college 
     education. But more than anything, I have always wanted to 
     travel and see new places. CAMP placed me on the right track 
     and assisted me with a career and extracurricular 
     opportunities. This summer I will be traveling out of the 
     country to do an internship in Guadalajara, Mexico with the 
     Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. 
     This Spring I will be graduating with a degree in 
     International Business and minors in Finance and Spanish, 
     thanks to the guidance and support of the people who make up 
     the . . . CAMP program [at Boise State University].

  Mr. President, this isn't a statistic that is a throwaway. This is a 
statistic that deals with a young lady who would have never, ever been 
able to go to college and then complete college.
  We have another program called the Migrant Education Program. These 
funds are used to identify and recruit migrant students, to provide 
screening for health problems, and to provide resources to enable the 
children to receive appropriate medical care.
  As to this program, I would like to take just one case history of a 
young person who said:

       At my new school, I was identified for the Migrant 
     Education Program.

  Oscar Guzman said:

       The teacher who was in charge of my class helped my mother 
     with all of the paperwork and records transfer. He also 
     arranged for a health check up for me, which I continued to 
     get every year through the eighth grade. The Migrant 
     Education Program had a special reading group for migrant 
     students, which helped me with my English.
       I am the first person in my family to go to college. My 
     parents are very proud of my decision to go to college and 
     expect me to go far. My dad always tells me that I am going 
     to [be able to] work in an air-conditioned office with a 
     secretary. My aunts and uncles are also very proud of me and 
     use me as an example for my cousins. I hope to be in a 
     position where I can make a difference in education and 
     agriculture in order to improve the lives of families like my 
     own.
       I would not be here today if it were not for the Migrant 
     Education Program in fifth grade that put me on a path of 
     academic achievement and the other migrant programs that 
     helped me succeed.

  ``Because of these programs,'' Oscar said, ``my life was made easier 
and my parents' dream of a better life for me and my brother will come 
true.''
  That is what these amendments are about. These amendments are about 
improving the lives of young people. I think we all learn a culture by 
listening to its native language, its native tongue. Every time I hear 
someone speak Russian, I think of my deceased father-in-law who was 
born in Russia. He came as a little boy. I am confident that he didn't 
speak a word of Russian but I do know that his parents spoke extremely 
broken English. I didn't know his parents, my wife's grandparents. I 
think of a series in public radio recently about trying to bring back 
people who have written books in Yiddish. Of course, both of my in-laws 
used to speak Yiddish when they didn't want me to know what was going 
on. I think we learn a lot about a culture by listening to people's 
languages.
  Among Latino Americans, ``aspirar'' has special meaning. It is 
similar to our verb ``aspire'' but it carries a greater sense of 
urgency. It invokes dreams of a better life, striving for a better 
future, among people who work hard just to make ends meet.
  Children are the hope of every culture, and it is no different for 
Latino Americans. They are the youngest demographic group in our 
country and the fastest growing. More than one-third of Latino 
Americans are under 18 years of age.
  So the great aspiration of Latino Americans, as all immigrants who 
have come to our country, is a good education for their children. We 
recognize that with this wave of immigrants, as with previous waves of 
immigrants, the parents are the ones who are uneducated and doing the 
menial work. They have aspirations, desires, wishes, and prayers for 
their children to be able to become educated so they don't have to do 
the menial work that they are doing.
  We recognize that there is an unacceptable gap in academic 
achievement between Latino students and the overall student population. 
We have agreed that it should be this Nation's policy to leave no child 
behind. Now it is time to live up to those words.
  That is why this amendment I have offered with Senator Bingaman--the 
Hispanic education opportunity amendment--to help Latino students 
achieve dreams is important.
  This amendment would invest an additional $210 million in our 
Nation's future by strengthening these programs. I have talked about 
the programs--not all of them--such as the Hispanic-serving 
institutions, the high school equivalency program, the College 
Assistance Migrant Program, the local family information centers, 
dropout prevention, bilingual education, and Head Start for children of 
migrant workers.
  These programs give Latino students a step up the ladder of education 
so they can realize their aspirations. The 252 Hispanic-serving 
institutions which have at least 25 percent Latino enrollment are the 
main bridge between Hispanic communities and higher education. Despite 
appropriations under title V, these institutions still haven't reached 
Federal funding parity with other degree-granting institutions. This 
amendment adds $6.4 million to help address this inequity.
  The high school equivalency programs provide academic instruction, 
counseling, computer-assisted teaching, and career awareness to migrant 
students studying for the GED. The Senate's bill--the one before us--
slashes funding for these programs by 43 percent and would eliminate 23 
programs to achieve a combined GED completion rate of almost 73 
percent.
  The proposed budget also cuts the College Assistance Migrant Program 
by $400,000. As I indicated with the example I gave earlier, these 
recruits are important. They are talented migrant high school graduates 
and GED recipients, and this mentors them through their first year of 
college. Before CAMP was created, there was no record of a migrant 
child having completed college. Since its inception, almost three-
quarters of all CAMP students received baccalaureate degrees.
  The existing HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 
students. Of these 15,000 students, the vast majority--about 75 
percent--will graduate from college. They will not be welfare dependent 
and will not have problems with the criminal justice system. And, of 
course, they won't be creating problems in the educational system. Over 
the next years, about 170,000 migrant children will become eligible for 
HEP, while 140,000 will qualify for CAMP. Funding for these programs

[[Page 20939]]

should be increased, not cut. That is why this amendment adds $11 
million for HEP programs and $1 million for CAMP.
  We also need to make the Head Start Program available to more 
children of migrant workers so they have a fighting chance to do well 
in school.
  In Nevada, we have probably a thousand migrant students, and they 
make up more than half the students in Amargossa in Nye County, where 
my brother lives. These children have hard lives, and if any child ever 
deserved a head start in school, they do. Yet we have not had a single 
migrant Head Start Program in all of Nevada. People think of Nevada 
only as a place where you have the bright lights of Las Vegas and Reno 
but we have farming communities.
  In the Amargossa Valley, there are very large dairy farms. In Lyon 
County, we have the largest producer of white onions in America. 
Migrant farm workers come there in waves. Yet we don't have a single 
program in Head Start for these children. They are left behind even 
before they begin school. We need to offer Head Start to 10,000 new 
migrant children. My amendment would move us toward that goal.
  We know parental involvement is a crucial factor in a child's school 
success. That is why the local family information centers were created 
by the No Child Left Behind Act. These are community-based centers that 
provide parents of title I students with information about their 
children's schools so they can get involved in their education. An 
additional investment will strengthen the ties between Latino families 
and their children's schools. This is good for the whole community.
  This amendment also addresses the programs for dropout prevention and 
bilingual education. Senator Bingaman and I have worked for years 
together on the dropout programs. We believe there should be a dropout 
czar in the Department of Education that works on nothing but doing 
something to prevent dropouts in our country.
  In Nevada, we have 50,000 students with limited proficiency in 
English. And Latinos have the highest dropout rate of any demographic 
group in our State. These programs will help Nevada, and many other 
States, too, with growing Hispanic populations.
  In the past, we have received Federal grants for two dropout 
programs, at Pyramid Lake High School, a Paiute Indian school, and the 
Washoe County School District. But now the Senate HHS budget would 
eliminate all funding for these programs. The amendment I have offered 
would restore $20 million for dropout prevention.
  None of these programs by themselves might seem that important, but 
taken together they give Latino Americans a better chance of realizing 
their hopes and dreams. Just as important, these measures will 
strengthen the American economy by building a more productive 
workforce.
  Already, one-third of the new workers who join our labor force are 
Latino. In 20 years, it will be half. These are the workers who will 
pay taxes to keep our military strong, to educate our children, 
grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and provide our Social Security 
in the future. So, you see, our future depends on the hopes and dreams 
of our Latino neighbors.
  Esperar--to hope. No matter what language we speak, we all understand 
what that means. We all have a stake in making it possible.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished 
assistant Democratic leader, we have agreed upon a time for the vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that at noon today, the Senate proceed to a 
vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1547 with no amendments to 
the amendment in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend to modify that request 
following the word ``vote,'' that at 11:45 a.m., the amendment recur 
and that the time until 12 o'clock be equally divided and controlled 
between Senators Reid and Bingaman and Senator Specter. In effect, we 
will debate the matter from 11:45 a.m. until 12 o'clock and vote at 12 
o'clock.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada leaves the floor, and I know he has other commitments and will 
not hear my reply to his presentation, the question that I would 
address to the Senator from Nevada is how he picks a figure of $210 
million? As I will outline in the course of my presentation, there are 
quite a number of programs which are directed to this issue.
  The appropriations subcommittee has considered many programs. We have 
increased some 26 programs and decreased some 6 programs, what we 
consider to be a balance. I ask my colleague from Nevada how he comes 
to a figure of $210 million when comparing it to all the other programs 
in this bill which are directed to this generalized effort?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what we have done is meet with educators, we 
have met with members of the Hispanic community, and we have come to 
the conclusion that the programs that are included in this amendment 
are vital and should be increased and not decreased, and that these 
programs are, we think, programs that, as I indicated briefly in my 
statement, will not cost this country money but will save the country 
money in the long term.
  While the figure we have come up with may not be magically correct--I 
would like to have had more, but in working with the minority staff, we 
recognize there is a limit to what we can do, but we believe this is a 
small enough number that people should simply vote to waive the Budget 
Act. And I am confident there will be a budget point of order raised 
against this amendment on a bill such as this bill.
  I say to my friend that a few months ago we were going to give Turkey 
$6 billion to help us in Iraq. Maybe we should say that $200 million to 
help people here who are going to help our country is just as important 
as that gift we were going to make to the people of Turkey.
  I do apologize for being rude to my friend because I always 
appreciate his efficacy. I am sure not everyone in the Senate has read 
his book. I have. I know what a fine lawyer he is and the work he has 
done. But probably not listening to his response will make my day 
easier because I will then not realize all the inadequacies in my 
amendment and I would have to come back and respond to that argument. 
This way I can just speak from the high level and not have to worry 
about his--I will not say nitpicking but his really good debate. In 
this way, I will have one of my staff tell me some of the high points 
of his debate, and I will just hit the high points when I return.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada for 
those charming, complimentary remarks. He exits the Chamber with grace. 
He has to present a judge from his State. We will miss him. I would 
prefer his being here so all of the contentions I will make will be 
presented directly to him. There are many demands on every Senator. I 
understand why Senator Reid cannot be present.
  When the Senator from Nevada advanced this amendment for $210 million 
additionally for education programs for Hispanic students, I asked him 
how they came up with this figure. I do so in the context of chairing 
this subcommittee which has had many hearings and has analyzed the 
needs of Hispanic students in the context of many other needs this 
subcommittee has to fund.
  Without going through the entire list, I had referenced the fact that 
the bill contains increases for some 26 programs and decreases for some 
6 programs. In making an evaluation as to

[[Page 20940]]

what are the needs of the Hispanic community, we have taken into 
account that there are many other programs which have been funded which 
are directed to the Hispanic community or programs where the local 
education agency has funding which can be directed to the Hispanic 
community, depending upon the needs for that community in a given area. 
The needs for the Hispanic community may vary materially in San 
Antonio, TX, which is more heavily populated with Hispanics than, say, 
my hometown of Russell, KS, a small community on the plains of Kansas 
with 5,000 people where the need is different.
  One of the major education allocations of this bill is 
$12,350,000,000 on Title I grants to local education agencies. This is 
directed to take care of the achievement gap between students in low- 
and high-poverty schools. This covers to a very material extent 
communities where these funds can be allocated for Hispanics.
  Our bill also includes some $300 million for the Gear Up program 
originated by a distinguished Member of the House of Representatives 
from Philadelphia, Congressman Chaka Fattah, who coordinated the 
program with me, with the thrust coming from the House but most of the 
funding thrust coming from this subcommittee, where we now have some 
$300 million in this GEAR UP Program, and 70 percent of the 1.3 million 
students served by this program are minorities, including almost 30 
percent who are Hispanics. I point to this GEAR UP Program as 
illustrative of a program which can accommodate the kinds of concerns 
which the Senator from Nevada is talking about.
  Our bill also has some $665 million for the English Language 
Acquisition State Grant Program, which is designed to help students who 
have limited English proficiency. Here again, this funding is already 
available for Hispanics on the line where the Senator from Nevada seeks 
to add additional funding.
  There are many other programs in this bill. For example, $13 million 
in this bill is being directed to the high school equivalency program 
which can be used for Hispanic students; some $15 million directed to 
college assistance migrant programs, which again can be used for 
Hispanic students.
  On the English Language Acquisition Grant State, which was already 
identified, there is some $665 million, and with respect to Hispanic-
serving institutions, more than $93 million is being directed to 
colleges and universities which have 25 percent or more Hispanics.
  In the context of these appropriations, it was the conclusion of the 
subcommittee, and then the conclusion of the full committee, that the 
interests of Hispanic students were adequately taken care of.
  When I asked the Senator from Nevada how he picked a figure of $210 
million, his response was, it is not excessive but it would be helpful; 
that it might be good to have even more money.
  That might be said about any program which is on the agenda, to add 
more money.
  The Senator from Nevada said we were considering giving substantial 
money to Turkey. Well, why not give a portion of that money to Hispanic 
students? That is a very frequently advanced argument. If we took the 
cost of the B-2 bomber, how many items in some other line could that 
accommodate?
  The reality is that the Federal budget is gigantic. It is $2.2 
trillion. Does anybody know how much money that is? Not really. It is a 
staggering amount of money. It is said that if one took a large hall 
like the Senate Chamber there would be insufficient space to stuff 
$10,000 bills for that sum of money.
  The Congress of the United States has, as a principal function, the 
job of appropriating, figuring out where the money goes. There may be 
some disagreement about how much money should have been offered to 
Turkey to aid in the Iraq war, and we will hear a great deal of talk in 
this Chamber about Iraq, not Iraq's educational program but how much 
money is being allocated to Iraq. I submit that the long-range 
interests of the United States are very well served, and when we are 
successful--and we will be successful--in establishing order in Iraq 
and establishing, I think, a democracy in Iraq. Democracies are 
contagious.
  The only democracy in the Mideast today is Israel. The Saudis' 
leadership are in fear of democracies becoming popular, as are the 
ruling elites in all of the other Mideast countries.
  I do not intend to prolong a debate about Iraq. It is my hope that 
the President's efforts to bring in other nations, which is the banner 
headline in this morning's press, will reach fruition. I hope there 
will be people from other countries, especially Muslim countries, 
Pakistan and Turkey, to share in the responsibility and to give the 
Arab world confidence so that the United States will not carry that 
burden and our own personnel will not be subjected to the casualties 
which are currently present.
  I mention Iraq in response to what the Senator from Nevada says about 
the money which we have proposed to give to Turkey. So we are trying to 
make an allocation of a gigantic sum of money, $2.2 trillion. It comes 
to this subcommittee to make an allocation on discretionary funding of 
$137.6 billion. I think we have exercised real care and thoughtfulness 
in making these allocations.
  I would like to see additional money for many items in the line, but 
there has to be an evaluation and an assessment of priorities. I am 
aware of the political impact on having my vote, and the votes of other 
individual Senators, be against expanding this Hispanic education 
program. It is worth a brief comment on the so-called 30-second 
commercial, where individual votes are picked out and are featured at 
election time to say to one group or another, and in this case 
Hispanics, why Senator X or Senator Y ought to be defeated because 
there was a vote against a specific matter. That does not tell even a 
part of the story as to how that vote is cast in the context of other 
programs which are devoted to this very important issue, as I think 
this record shows, which I have explained, and why it is with 
reluctance that I oppose the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada.
  Yes, it would be good to have more funds here and more funds in many 
other places, but it is an overall evaluation which we have to take 
into account. I believe a fair analysis of this program overall shows 
that there are adequate funds being directed for this important 
purpose. How you pick $210 million in this amendment as opposed to $310 
million or $410 million or $10 million remains an open question, when 
we add up the millions of dollars which are devoted to programs and 
items in this appropriation bill which are directable to this important 
objective.
  I am advised other Senators will be coming to speak on this 
amendment. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has asked that 
all Republican members of the committee be available for a meeting at 
this time. So in the absence of any other Senator wishing to speak and 
in the instance of my own presence being required at another meeting, 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, we are awaiting other Senators to speak 
on the pending amendment of the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. In the 
interim I ask other Senators to come to the floor to offer amendments. 
Procedurally, as is well known, we can set aside the Reid amendment and 
proceed to debate other amendments.
  The majority leader has already expressed his intention to vote 
through Friday, so the sooner we address these issues the sooner the 
Senate will conclude its business. I urge my colleagues to come to the 
Senate floor to offer amendments.

[[Page 20941]]

  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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in 
favor of the amendment that Senator Reid of Nevada has offered relating 
to funding for various programs in this appropriations bill that are of 
particular importance to the Hispanic community. I strongly support 
Senator Reid's amendment and believe that it would be a very important 
step for us to take in keeping the commitment that we have made to the 
people of this country when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.
  I have just completed spending 4 weeks in my State, most of the time 
in my State, and much of that time I was talking to people who were 
involved in education and were preparing for the new school year. It is 
clear that one message comes through in those discussions. That message 
is, What is the Federal Government going to do to keep its share of the 
bargain?
  The Federal Government has imposed all sorts of new requirements on 
States and school districts about how they are to reform education, how 
they are to improve instruction in the schools, how they are to improve 
student performance in the schools. Unfortunately, when those educators 
see that the administration, first, in its request to Congress, and 
then the Congress itself, does not put forward the money which was 
committed in the No Child Left Behind Act, the cynicism on the part of 
many people working in education is understandable.
  The amendment the Senator from Nevada has offered is an effort to 
correct some of that. I strongly support it. Let me talk about one 
particular aspect of it that I know better, perhaps, than I know some 
other parts. That relates to the dropout prevention program. This is a 
subject that has been debated and discussed and talked about in 
Washington and at the national level for a great many years. I remember 
when President Bush senior, the former President Bush--not this 
President Bush but this President Bush's father--convened all the 
Governors of the country to have a first and only, as far as I know to 
this day--first and only national summit on education. That was in 
Charlottesville, VA. It was in 1989, I believe. At that time the 
Governors and the President committed the country to a series of goals 
in education, things that we would all agree, jointly, to work on and 
accomplish over the coming 10 years. That was in 1989. That 10 years 
has come and gone. But one of those goals was that we would ensure that 
at least 90 percent of the students who started high school actually 
completed high school; that we would reduce the dropout rate very 
substantially in this country. That was one of the goals the President 
and the Governors signed onto.
  I should say one of those Governors was former President Bill 
Clinton. Of course, there were many others who are still in key 
positions in our Government who were part of that group. The 
unfortunate reality is that after we adopted that set of goals, 
national education goals, there was no strategy to achieve them.
  There was absolutely nothing done here in Washington and in many 
States, I fear, to actually get us to where we had committed to travel. 
Particularly in this area of dropout prevention, there was no Federal 
money committed. The first Federal money that was committed was a 
demonstration program in fiscal year 2001. I believe we committed $10 
million to a demonstration program so that for the first time the 
Department of Education at the national level would have some funds 
available to help local school districts reduce the number of students 
who were leaving school without graduating, and to reduce the number of 
students who were dropping out.
  This is of particular importance in my State because in my State we 
have a very high dropout rate. Unfortunately for everyone involved, 
that dropout rate is concentrated in the Hispanic community. Over 40 
percent of the students in my State are of Hispanic background, and a 
great many of those students--particularly young Hispanic males--leave 
school without graduating from high school. That is not only 
unfortunate for them, but it substantially reduces their ability to be 
productive citizens, to earn a good income, to raise a family, and to 
do the things we all aspire to do. But it also is an unfortunate 
reality for our State's economy.
  We do not have the ability to generate the wealth because we lack 
some of the skilled workforce we need, and that we could have if we 
keep those people in school longer.
  In fiscal year 2001, the Congress stepped forward. This was before 
the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted. We stepped forward and said, 
OK, we will commit $10 million nationally to try to deal with this 
problem. That funding can be used to help school districts that have 
strategies which they want to pursue to reduce the dropout rate. That 
was an appropriate thing to do. When we had the debate and the hearings 
and the markup on the No Child Left Behind Act, we talked long and hard 
about this problem of the dropout rate and how to come to grips with 
it. In the final bill, I was very pleased to see the administration 
agreed with the Congress, and that we authorized $125 million a year to 
be spent to reduce the dropout rate. That bill was signed in January of 
2001. Since then, we have had two budget requests from this President. 
In both of those budget requests--in 2001, and again this year--in each 
of the budget requests we have received, there has been zero funding 
proposed for dropout prevention. Absolutely nothing was requested for 
dropout prevention at the Federal level. The Congress stepped in last 
year and corrected some of that. Instead of putting in $10 million, the 
Congress put in $10.9 million. I appreciate that. That was a step the 
Congress took in spite of the fact there was zero funding requested by 
the administration.
  This year, there are zero funds requested by the administration for 
dropout prevention. Unfortunately, this year, the bill we are 
considering on the Senate floor today follows the administration's 
recommendation and contains zero funds. The House bill follows the 
administration's recommendation and contains zero funds.
  We are going from a situation where we committed $10 million to this 
program before we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to a situation 
where we are committing zero funds now that we have passed the No Child 
Left Behind Act. Understandably, people in the education community 
doubt the sincerity of those of us in Washington who keep talking about 
how important it is to reduce the dropout rate.
  Why is this dropout rate issue relevant to a discussion, or 
particularly relevant to a discussion of No Child Left Behind? The main 
thrust of the No Child Left Behind Act was to increase accountability, 
raise standards, require more of teachers, and require more of 
students. The great concern which I heard in my State, and which I 
think lots of us heard, was if we are going to do that--which is a good 
thing because we all favor higher standards, we all favor better 
performance, we all favor better trained teachers and better performing 
students--but if we are going to do that, let us not kid ourselves and 
allow the students who are not keeping up to just go away and forget 
about it. That is the concern. That is why we also put a provision in 
the No Child Left Behind Act for some funding for dropout prevention. 
It is not a major amount. It is $125 million a year. But it was at 
least a commitment at the Federal level to help deal with the problem. 
It was a commitment that the Hispanic community--at least leaders of 
the Hispanic community who focus on education issues in my State, and 
virtually all the leaders of the Hispanic community in my State who 
focus on education issues because they understand the importance that 
education holds for their community--all of those leaders would know 
this was a priority

[[Page 20942]]

and that we would be able to move ahead and begin to deal with it 
systematically.
  I hope very much we can adopt Senator Reid's amendment so we can add 
some funding and do something. I am not of the view that we are going 
to add $125 million. Senator Reid's amendment proposes to add $20 
million. That is inadequate, but it certainly is much better than 
nothing, which is what we are now proposing.
  There are other provisions in Senator Reid's amendment which I think 
are also very meritorious. He indicated in his description of the 
amendment funding for the Hispanic-serving institutions. That is 
important funding as well. Clearly, I support the effort to add some 
reasonable increase to that. There are 157 Hispanic-serving 
institutions which have received money from title V. A third of those 
institutions that are eligible have received no assistance. These 
grants are made on a competitive basis, and there are not enough funds 
to award grants to each of the institutions that meet the criteria.
  The migrant program: Again, this is an area in which I think the 
Federal Government has a peculiarly important responsibility. You 
cannot expect each local State to have in place the kind of support 
system for migrant children of migrant families which is needed.
  We are requiring in the No Child Left Behind Act that school 
districts raise the performance and the achievement level of all 
students. That includes those students who are students of migrant 
families who come into that school district for a few months, perhaps, 
and then leave. But the school district is held accountable for the 
performance of those students, as it should be held accountable for the 
performance of those students.
  The number of those students is increasing. It has grown from 624,000 
in fiscal year 1999 to over 800,000 this year. That growth, combined 
with the new mandates from this No Child Left Behind Act, will require 
that additional funding be made available. So I urge all Senators to 
support the amendment by my colleague from Nevada.
  These are important programs. They need to be adequately funded. We 
have committed to fund these programs at an adequate level and, 
unfortunately, the bill before us does not do that. I hope very much 
this amendment will be adopted. It is a very modest amendment, frankly, 
compared to the size of the budget we are dealing with, compared to the 
size of the appropriations in this bill itself. So I hope this modest 
amendment to assist those most in need of educational services in our 
country can be supported.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through you to the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, the Senator from New Mexico has worked on these issues 
for many years, and he keeps referring to this as the Reid amendment. 
This is the Reid-Bingaman amendment. It is offered in that way, and it 
was meant to be offered in that way because of the work he has done for 
the many years prior to this.
  The question I would like to ask the Senator: One of the provisions 
in this amendment calls for more money for afterschool programs for 
Hispanic children. Does the Senator from New Mexico have the same 
problems in New Mexico that we have in Nevada with respect to Hispanic 
children dropping out in larger numbers than non-Hispanic children?
  And would the Senator also agree, for every child we are able to keep 
in school, we save the Government--State, local, and the Federal 
Government--money as a result of these children being able to be 
educated rather than being out on the streets, so to speak?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in response to the question, let me say, 
I do very much agree we have the problem in New Mexico of way too many 
of our students leaving school before they graduate. Unfortunately, a 
disproportionately large portion of those students who leave school are 
Hispanic students.
  Now, on the second point the Senator raised, that every time one of 
those students leaves school before he or she graduates, it may, in 
fact--and probably does--cost the Government something in various ways, 
the main thing that I see it does is it robs the society of the benefit 
of having a better educated citizen and a more productive citizen for 
the rest of that person's life because each of those people, if they 
will stay in school and complete high school, has a much greater 
ability to earn, a much greater ability to provide for their families. 
And all of that, of course, inures to the benefit of the entire 
society. They pay more taxes. They are able to contribute more to their 
community.
  It is a very well-chosen investment of public funds to keep these 
students in school. That is all we are trying to do, to say that the 
Federal Government should do something to assist school districts which 
want to work on that problem. That is all we are saying.
  The Federal Government cannot take the place of the school district, 
and should not be trying to, but it can, in some small way, assist 
local school districts which want to deal with the problem.
  This last year, with the $10.9 million which was appropriated--this 
is in the current year, I should say--with the $10.9 million that was 
appropriated, my understanding is the Department of Education was able 
to make 24 grants to individual school districts in 19 different States 
to try to help them reduce the dropout rate. Two of those grants went 
to school districts in my home State of New Mexico. These are grants to 
assist those districts which have come up with a plan, a way to reduce 
the dropout rate, that they want to try to implement in their own 
district.
  There are some proven strategies that have been shown to work. We 
need to give school districts more opportunities to implement those 
strategies. And that would be a major thrust of the amendment the 
Senator from Nevada has proposed. So I again urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at the outset, I agree with the argument 
made by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico about the importance 
of school dropout and combating that problem. This is an issue which 
has concerned me for many years. When I was district attorney of 
Philadelphia, the dropout problem was a major factor and a major cause 
of juvenile delinquency. When a child is not in school, not only is the 
child not getting the education, but the child is likely to be engaged 
in not only no productive activity but in counterproductive activity, 
frequently crime.
  So this is an issue that I think has to be addressed. I think the 
committee has addressed it through the funding which we have made 
available in this bill, although not on a categorical grant. The 
categorical grants are where the Government makes a specification as to 
saying a given amount of money is to be used for a specific purpose.
  It is true we had a program called the Dropout Prevention Program for 
slightly under $11 million in the current fiscal year. But we have in 
Title I a requirement that 1 percent of the total funding be allocated 
for dropout or related activities, and that 1 percent amounts to some 
$80 million. So there is a very considerable sum of money which is 
available under Title I.
  There is also a considerable sum of money which can be used for 
dropouts under the $345 million for innovative educational programs. 
What we are trying to do is put funding at the local education agency. 
So in Title I they have a very substantial sum of money--$12.3-plus 
billion--but not to tell them exactly what to use for each specific 
item but to leave it to the local school district.
  When I addressed the amendment of Senator Reid earlier today, I made 
a comment about the needs in San Antonio of Hispanics would be 
considerably different than the needs of say, Russell, KS, my hometown, 
a small town of 5,000 on the plains of Kansas, where it

[[Page 20943]]

is a very different issue. And where the Senator has Albuquerque, which 
has a much higher Hispanic proportion of population, it would be very 
different.
  So the thrust of what the subcommittee has done in this bill is to 
try to provide funding which leaves discretion in the local districts 
to use money for dropouts. When the Senator from New Mexico says that 
$20 million is a start, but inadequate--if I can get his exact 
language--that really is a characterization which might apply to so 
much of the funding anywhere in this Education bill. There is always 
more that can be added. It is hard to find a figure which is generally 
regarded as adequate, education being such a high priority.
  But in structuring this bill, the Senator from Iowa and I, as 
managers, have tried to make the allocations within a budget and within 
our 302(b) allocations. I think we have made an allocation which 
addresses the needs which the Senator from New Mexico expresses. The 
Senator from New Mexico said $20 million was inadequate but better than 
nothing. Well, that characterization, I think, might be applied just 
about anywhere in this bill or in so many other bills.
  When the Senator from New Mexico talks about the afterschool 
programs, that is an item of special concern to this Senator as well. 
Again, during that lull between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock, we find so 
much delinquency occurring. The subcommittee increased the allocation 
on afterschool programs to $1 billion. The figure that had been in the 
President's budget was $600 million. We had extensive hearings.
  It might be of some interest that Arnold Schwarzenegger had a 
longstanding interest in this and he made a very compelling argument. I 
don't want to get involved in the California primary, but there was a 
very protracted hearing devoted to this subject.
  We took the figure of $600 million, which was in the President's 
budget, and I don't have to tell the Senator from New Mexico that 
finding $400 million over and above what the President asked for was 
very difficult. We recognize the things we agree on--afterschool 
programs and dropout. I believe we have made an appropriate allocation 
of funds. It is true that $210 million is modest when you are looking 
at a $53 billion education budget. But we have tried to make 
allocations on many, many lines--for student loans, Pell grants, and 
many other items. I think we have taken into account the concerns the 
Senator from New Mexico has articulated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and assure him 
that I appreciate his commitment to trying to do what is right in this 
area. I know he has been substantially supportive on a lot of these 
efforts over many years. I very much appreciate that.
  Let me try to be clear as to my understanding, and he can correct me 
if I am wrong. He has indicated that, yes, there is no money for the 
program that we authorized for dropout prevention--the $125 million per 
year authorization; there are zero funds in there for that. Although 
there was nearly $11 million in the current year funding, there is 
nothing in this upcoming year.
  He has indicated that there are a couple of other places where school 
districts can use funds for this purpose if they choose to. One is that 
they can spend up to 1 percent--or they are required to spend 1 percent 
on either failing schools or dropout prevention, as I understand it.
  Mr. SPECTER. The 1 percent is for dropout, and the term used is 
related activities. So it is focused on dropouts. Some $80 million is 
available for dropouts.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do not doubt that there is funding 
available for this if a school district can find it within its budget 
to use it for that purpose. The problem we have in my State--and I 
think all over the country--is that these school districts are under 
greater and greater pressure to increase their test scores, to 
demonstrate improved student performance. That is where the pressure 
is. That is where the money is going to be spent, unless we have some 
funds cordoned off that are available only for this kind of purpose--
this dropout prevention.
  Clearly, everyone is well-intentioned here. A school superintendent 
or a school board will decide, OK, we have a lot of needs but the 
pressure we are feeling is to get these test scores up; we have to 
concentrate on getting these test scores up. Once that is done, a few 
years down the road we will be able to give more attention to the kids 
who are dropping out.
  In the No Child Left Behind Act, we tried to say, no, we are going to 
cordon off some portion of the Federal funding that can only be used 
for this purpose. That doesn't mean every school district has to take 
that money or even has that need. If Russell, KS, doesn't have a 
dropout problem, they don't need to apply for one of these grants. A 
lot of communities in New Mexico have that problem and would love to be 
able to get one of these grants so they can deal with that problem. If 
it is left to them to take some of the funds they get under title I, or 
some other basket of funding, and devote it to that purpose alone, it 
is much less likely to happen.
  So that is why we made provisions for dropout prevention as a part of 
the No Child Left Behind Act. That is why this Senate and this Congress 
were persuaded to add nearly $11 million to that line item last year 
and in the current year, even though the President requested nothing. I 
think the least we can do is do something similar in this Congress--
perhaps $20 million is the right figure--to ensure that this program at 
the Department of Education level, the Federal level, does not just die 
at the very time we are going around giving speeches about what a great 
thing No Child Left Behind was. That seems to me contrary to logic, and 
it is also contrary to what we told the American people we were about.
  I see the manager wishes to speak again. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as I understood the comment of the 
Senator from New Mexico, it was that the money would be available in 
title I if the local school board wanted to use it for dropout. That 
isn't precisely the statutory construction. The Department of 
Education, in delineating its 2004 budget request, specifies that 
States would reserve approximately $88 million from their allocations 
that are title I, part A, to support dropout prevention programs in 
local education agencies. So the figure, more precisely, according to 
their budget request, is $88 million. It is to be directed to the 
dropout program.
  So that is money for this specific program. That is why the 
administration, in submitting the budget request, did not include the 
slightly under $11 million for a categorical grant because it is taken 
care of in other places. The Department of Education budget request 
also specifies the dropout funding availability innovative programs, 
which I mentioned earlier, of some $345 million. In the innovative 
programs for $345 million, there is not a direction for dropouts, as 
there is a direction for dropouts for $88 million under title I.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. My understanding is that this funding--in reference to 
students who have dropped out--contemplates what many States are doing, 
which is to use some of their title I funds for students who are in the 
criminal justice system. This is not dropout prevention; this is taking 
students who have dropped out. Maybe they have dropped out because they 
have been thrown in jail, but whatever the reason, they are no longer 
in the school system.
  My understanding was that essentially the administration was saying 
you are required to use at least 1 percent of the title I funds that we 
provide to you to deal with these students who have left the system and 
are in the criminal justice system primarily. That is what States are 
doing.
  What we were trying to do in the provision I am arguing for and 
Senator Reid is arguing for here in the No Child

[[Page 20944]]

Left Behind Act is to get ahead of the problem and say we don't want 
these students leaving the school system. We want to help the school 
district to keep those students in school.
  That is what we wanted to see funds devoted to, dropout prevention 
rather than assisting students who had already left the school system. 
Am I confused about that? Let me ask that question.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will be glad to respond to the question, which was in 
the nature of a debate, but I understand our processes here. I say to 
the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, these funds are not for 
students who have left the education program and entered the criminal 
justice system. There are other funds for people who are out of the 
education system and in the criminal justice system.
  These funds specifically are directed to dropout prevention programs. 
That is the language which is included in the budget request for the 
Department of Education which supports their request for $13 billion 
plus for title I and has the requirement for 1 percent, and the 
language prevention programs is specifically here. They are using these 
funds, as the Senator from New Mexico appropriately says, to get ahead 
of the program.
  The long and short of it is that these are funds to prevent dropouts.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. May I ask one additional question, Mr. President?
  Mr. SPECTER. Sure.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee has indicated that 
these are funds which, in the request from the Department of Education, 
are to be allocated for this purpose. Is there language in the bill 
before us which specifies that a portion, some percent, is to be used 
for dropout prevention? I am just not aware of that. If there is 
language to that effect, I have not seen it.
  Mr. SPECTER. The bill does not duplicate the requirements which have 
been set forward in the budget request. We could put in additional 
language. If the Senator would like to have that language, I would 
certainly consider that, but I think it would be duplicative and 
unnecessary. Under existing law, under title I, the 1-percent 
requirement is present for dropout prevention. That is the law.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will review this language and then 
perhaps be in a position to discuss further with the chairman what the 
language of the bill ought to provide to ensure that funds can be made 
available in grants to school districts in a way that they would 
actually use them for this purpose.
  My concern is, the way the bill now stands, I do not see the 
opportunity being there for school districts to pursue these 
strategies. For that reason, I would like to review it a little further 
and then get back in touch with the Senator.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will be delighted to work with the 
Senator from New Mexico to provide whatever assurances he would like, 
additional assurances, that the $88 million will be for dropout 
prevention. That is the law, but, again, I will be glad to work with my 
distinguished colleague to satisfy the concerns he has raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the two Senators have been discussing 
this amendment, we should not be diverted from the fact that this 
amendment is related to specific programs that help Hispanic children 
in America today. Dropout prevention, of course, is one of those 
programs. We cannot lose the goal we are attempting to accomplish in 
this amendment, and that is that we help people, and there are various 
programs I discussed earlier today that are set forth in detail in the 
amendment before the Senate. There is nothing more important than the 
dropout prevention program, but there are programs that are just as 
important to which this amendment is directed.
  We are talking about, of the tens of billions of dollars in Federal 
programs that go to education, $200 million that will be directed to 
specific programs that will save our country huge amounts of money. It 
is estimated by some groups that for every dollar we spend in these 
programs which are the subject matter of this amendment, the Government 
will save up to $10.
  I appreciate the discussion that has been held this morning between 
the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New Mexico dealing 
with dropouts, but this amendment deals with far more than just that 
program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief recapitulation, the 
thrust of the amendment by the Senator from Nevada on Hispanics I think 
has been covered by the enumeration of programs I outlined earlier 
during the course of this debate. There are very substantial funds 
available in the bill, as it stands now, which can provide assistance 
for Hispanics.
  I concur with the Senator from Nevada that this is an important item, 
but I do believe the Education appropriations accommodate this very key 
interest for the specified reasons given earlier in the course of this 
debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor to commend the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada for his sponsorship of this 
amendment. There has been some discussion already about the importance 
that we as a country need to put on the extraordinary challenges we 
face with regard to the education of Hispanic children.
  The number of school-age Hispanic children has actually grown by 61 
percent in the last 2 years, a rate faster than any other American 
community. One out of every 6 children who attends public school today 
is Hispanic.
  Hispanic children continue to perform below their non-Hispanic peers 
in reading, math, and science. By age 9, more than one-third of Latino 
students in high school are enrolled at below grade level today. 
Hispanic youths suffer from the highest dropout rate of any group. 
Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as likely to drop out 
of school as African American students and four times as likely to drop 
out today as white students.
  In the Nation's 17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts, 
Hispanics lag behind white students in reading achievement by an 
average of 30 points and in math achievement by an average of 27 
points. Yet the bill before us cuts $21 million in bilingual education, 
$11 million in dropout prevention programs, $10 million in high school 
migrant education, and $15 million in college migrant education.
  What Senator Reid has done is simply propose to reverse these 
proposed cuts and enhance English instruction for non-native speakers, 
dropout prevention, and migrant education funding.
  This really sets the tone for a series of amendments that I know my 
colleagues will be offering over the course of the next several days. 
It is important for us as a country to make the investment in education 
perhaps more than in any other endeavor in Government. If we empower 
our youth--Hispanic, African American, Asian American, Native American, 
in addition to European American--we give them the opportunity to be 
the productive, capable, and contributing citizens we know they can be.
  It is so much easier to build a child than to repair an adult. We are 
talking about building children. The only way we are going to build 
those children is to give them opportunities in education by funding 
these programs at a level that will allow us to meet the expectations 
and, I would say, the obligations our country holds today.
  This is a very good amendment, and I hope the Senate will support it 
on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with much of what the Democratic 
leader has said about the importance of education. In fact, I agree 
with all of what he has said about the importance of education. But 
again, for the reasons which have been advanced during the course of 
this debate yesterday and today and on this amendment specifically, I 
believe we have accommodated a good balance.

[[Page 20945]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Reid-
Bingaman amendment which addresses Hispanic educational opportunities. 
This is an extremely important measure.
  Over the August recess, I had the opportunity to put together a 
summit of Hispanic elected officials, families, interested people, in 
my home State. There was an overwhelming turnout that day. We had 
everyone from elected officials to people who are active in the 
community or members of the Hispanic community who just wanted to come 
and find out what we were doing at the Federal level on issues that 
affected them. The No. 1 issue people talked about that day was 
education and opportunity for the young Hispanic students in our 
schools, in their communities, and across the country.
  I was astounded to listen to leaders in the community, elected school 
board members, city council members, who told me that when they were 
growing up, very few people, if any people, looked at them and said: 
You can be a success. You can pass first grade--many of them had 
flunked first grade. You can go on to college. You can become something 
in this country.
  I think it is so important that this amendment pass so we can put the 
education in place that says to these young students in our country 
today that we need them, we need them to be the next generation of 
engineers; we need them to be the next generation of teachers; we need 
them to be the next generation of CEOs. We are missing out on an entire 
young population and what they can give back to this country someday in 
leadership, in economics, in paying taxes, in being viable members of 
this community, if we do not fund opportunities for them today.
  So I am very proud to be a sponsor of the Reid-Bingaman amendment and 
I encourage my colleagues to support it. It is really critical.


                           Amendment No. 1543

  Mr. President, I also want to talk about the Byrd amendment that was 
offered yesterday. As we all know, children across the country this 
week are returning to school. We in the Senate now have a choice to 
make that will determine whether they are successful in school and, 
ultimately, in life. The choice is, really, will our country's most 
vulnerable children get the education they need? When we vote on the 
Byrd amendment, that is really what we are going to be voting on: Are 
we going to help low-income children succeed in school or are we going 
to leave them behind?
  I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership on this amendment and on so 
many other important debates. This particular fight is one that will 
impact many children across the country. I am not talking about a few 
kids in a few classrooms. I am not talking about kids who are well off. 
I am talking about millions of children who are growing up in poverty 
today. These are kids who are in the most danger of falling behind 
right now, and they are the kids who most need our help.
  Today, it is estimated that there are 9 million needy children in 
America. For many of them--in fact, for all of them--education is the 
only way out of the poverty they see before them. Often these children 
need extra help before and after school. They might need tutoring or 
mentoring or one-on-one attention from somebody who cares, from 
somebody who looks at them and says: You can be somebody; you can 
succeed in school; you can go on and be a success in this country. That 
kind of tutoring and mentoring and one-on-one attention needs to come 
from somebody they see in their everyday lives, and that is why this 
amendment is so important.
  Fortunately, in this country today we try to provide that one-on-one 
help with a program called title I. That is a program that targets 
funding directly to disadvantaged children and to low-income schools, 
and it makes such a critical difference for so many of our vulnerable 
children today.
  Unfortunately, this year, once again, the President has offered a 
budget that falls exceedingly short of what these kids need. The budget 
that has been proposed by the President and is now before the Senate 
would serve only 4.1 of those 9 million needy students in our country. 
That means we are helping fewer than half of those kids who need help 
in this country today. I think we can do better. I think we must do 
better, and the Byrd amendment provides $6.15 billion in additional 
funding for title I.
  Let me help put that number into context for everyone. The Byrd 
amendment is going to help 6.2 million children. That is a huge 
improvement over the President's plan. If we just go with the 
President's budget, 2.1 million disadvantaged kids are going to be left 
behind. So I ask all of my colleagues, how do we leave behind 2 million 
children in this country? Do they not deserve a road out of poverty? Do 
they not deserve an education that will help them rise above tough 
circumstances? Of course they do. These kids will get the support they 
need if we pass the Byrd amendment.
  The Byrd amendment is not asking us to do something new or 
extraordinary. It is asking us to do what Congress and this President 
said they would do nearly 2 years ago when we passed the No Child Left 
Behind Act.
  That education act was passed on two related ideas, two promises: 
First, that we would hold schools accountable for their progress; 
secondly, we promised we would provide schools with the resources to 
meet those new requirements we were putting in place.
  Both accountability and funding are needed to make progress. Since 
that act was passed 2 years ago, the second part of that promise has 
simply been abandoned.
  I have been across my State, as I know all Senators have over the 
August recess, and I have talked with educators and visited classrooms. 
It is really clear that schools need help meeting these requirements. I 
think it is important to not forget that our States today, in this 
economy, are in no position to provide the extra funding that Congress 
promised but has not delivered. Most of our States, including mine, are 
facing huge deficits and are cutting back on education and other 
priorities. So it is clear that the Federal Government needs to step in 
and provide this funding for our most vulnerable kids. It is not 
something new. It is something we said 2 years ago we would do.
  I should also point out that this debate in the Senate is taking 
place as many schools are now getting the results of their State tests. 
In Washington State, a number of schools have been labeled as failing 
because of these test results. These schools need the resources now to 
improve. They want to improve. They want to be held to high standards. 
They want to meet the accountability standards we have put in place, 
but they cannot do it with the resources that have been provided.
  Before I conclude, I commend Senator Byrd for the way he has chosen 
to fund this amendment. The Byrd amendment uses the exact same funding 
method that our Republican colleagues have used to fund their 
priorities. So if anyone criticizes the Byrd amendment, I do not see 
how they could argue against the funding source because it is exactly 
what has been done already.
  With no real challenge on the funding size, that leaves us to debate 
the substance of this amendment. I do not see how anyone could vote to 
prevent millions of low-income children from getting the help they need 
in school.
  So let me make the choice before us as simple as possible. A vote 
against the Byrd amendment is a vote to leave 2 million poor kids 
behind. A vote for the Byrd amendment will help those 2 million poor 
kids get a great education and lift them out of poverty. So I urge my 
colleagues to hear the voices of more than 2 million children who are 
depending on us as their lives hang in the balance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of reply, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Nevada as to Hispanic students is adequately covered 
in other specific programs.

[[Page 20946]]

  For the reasons which I have specified earlier in the course of this 
debate, and the issue raised by Senator Byrd, seeking to move the 
funding for title I to the fully authorized amount, is 
characteristically not a matter of the appropriations process to meet 
the full authorization.
  Yesterday, in response to the Senator from West Virginia, I had 
referenced the appropriations bill for the year 2002 when Senator Byrd 
chaired the Appropriations Committee and the appropriated amounts were 
less than the authorized amount. In title I, the authorization was 
$13.5 billion. The appropriation was $10.35 billion, $2.850 billion 
under. Similarly, the appropriation for improving teacher quality 
education was $325 million under the authorized amount and the century 
community learning centers was $250 million under the authorized 
amount.
  In the analysis as to the increases requested by President Bush, on 
the 3 years of his budget request, increases have been made from $40 
billion to some $53 billion for a 33 percent increase. That contrasts 
very fairly with the 3 years of President Clinton's budget increases 
for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 which went up from $26 billion to 
$32.5 billion or 23 percent. Picking a higher sequence, the budget 
requests for 1999, 2000, and 2001 went from slightly under $30 billion 
to slightly over $40 billion, here 33 percent.
  I believe on the record it is demonstrable that the support in the 
budget increases requested by President Bush has been at least as good 
as or better than the years of President Clinton and no one ever said 
that President Clinton had shortchanged the education budget. Similar 
credit is due to President Bush that his budget requests have not 
shortchanged the education budget.
  To repeat what I said yesterday, my preference would have been to 
have had a larger allocation for this subcommittee. I would like to 
have had more money. I would like to have seen more funds in title I, 
but on the allocation which this body passed, the Congress passed on 
the budget resolution, the allocations which we have received on the 
so-called 302(b) allocations, an appropriate appropriation has been 
made in these accounts.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. We will be voting 
on the Reid amendment at noon. The plan is to vote on the Byrd 
amendment shortly after we reconvene from the policy luncheons. It is 
our hope Senators will come to offer amendments and advise us where 
they stand on the amendments. More than 40 amendments have been listed 
for possible argument. If we are to complete this bill in a timely 
manner, again, it is necessary for Senators to come to the floor to 
offer their amendments with the intent, at least of the managers, this 
manager, to proceed to third reading and not to sustain long-term, 
long-range time-consuming unproductive quorum calls.
  In the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment we will vote on at 12 noon 
that has been offered by the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from 
New Mexico has the support of many groups around America. I will 
mention just a few: National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, National 
Council of La Raza, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, 
League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, Migrant Legal Action 
Program, National Association for Bilingual Education, National 
Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, National 
Association of State Directors of Migrant Education, National Migrant 
and Seasonal Head Start Association, National Puerto Rican Coalition, 
Inc., National HEP-CAMP Association, ASPIRA Association, Inc.
  These are just a few of the groups. I would say when this matter is 
voted on at 12 noon today, there are no excuses. In effect, what has 
happened is the President has recommended these programs to be 
eliminated in general, dropout programs specifically. This is the 
opportunity for the Senate to speak that this is wrong. This is the 
opportunity for the Senate to recognize that there are programs that 
are important to the safety and salvation and security of this country 
other than those addressing things that explode.
  One of the things that is important to protect the security of this 
Nation is an educated population. That means educating all young 
people, no matter their background, their ethnicity, their religion, 
where they come from, because it is better for us all when that occurs.
  We will shortly begin the final 15 minutes of debate on this matter, 
and I ask that everyone realize that there are groups who believe this 
amendment is important. They believe it is important because their sole 
function is to protect children. This amendment will help children.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are now in the 
time where there will be 15 minutes equally divided for the proponents 
and opponents of this amendment; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I would reserve the final 3 minutes, in that we are the 
movers of this amendment, for Senator Bingaman. That would be 3 minutes 
before the hour that Senator Bingaman have the final 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. When my time is up, which would be in 4\1/2\ minutes, would 
the Chair so advise me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, I will.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, some of my distinguished colleagues have 
asked whether we can afford to give this helping hand to a select group 
of students, namely Hispanic students. I say we cannot afford to ignore 
them. Take, for example, Clark County, which is in Las Vegas, in 
Nevada. In the Clark County School District, which is the fifth or 
sixth largest school district in America with more than a quarter of a 
million students, about 30 percent of the students are Latinos. This 
amendment would apply to those students. We need to give a helping hand 
to the Clark County School District through additional moneys.
  It is unfair that the President of the United States has recommended 
eliminating the dropout prevention program for Hispanic students--
eliminated it. He has cut other programs to which this amendment 
applies. It is simply not right. People in Nevada will suffer as a 
result of that.
  Latino children have the highest dropout rate of any ethnic group in 
America. It is nothing they are proud of; it is something they are 
trying to work on. Hispanic leaders talk about education. For the Latin 
Chamber of Commerce in Las Vegas, and it is a huge organization, that 
is their No. 1 priority: What are we going to do to keep our children 
in school? They have a scholarship program to send kids to a community 
college, to our colleges in Nevada. It is working well. But we need to 
do something to help the public school system keep these children in 
school.
  We know for every dollar spent on preventing dropouts, we save more 
than $9 in the future. Today, one in every three new workers in our 
labor force is Hispanic. In 20 years, half of our new workers will be 
Hispanic. That means the money to pay for Social Security in the 
future, and our national security in the future, will come from 
Hispanic workers who are starting in school today. If we shortchange 
these children, we shortchange ourselves and our children in the 
future. But if we invest in these children, we invest in our future.

[[Page 20947]]

  This amendment, offered by Senator Bingaman and this Senator, would 
provide a helping hand to Hispanic children by investing an additional 
$210 million in Head Start, dropout prevention, bilingual education, 
college assistance for children, and other programs. The fact is, there 
is an unacceptable gap in academic achievement between Latino students 
and the overall student population. We have made a promise to all 
children in America that we will leave no child behind. It is time to 
live up to those words.
  I spoke today about this being more than statistics and numbers, more 
than cuts and percentages of cuts, but of programs that actually help 
children. I, today, spoke about Maria de Lurdes Reynoso, who is a 
better person today as a result of these programs. I spoke about 
another young person by the name of Oscar Guzman, who is now in a 
program so that he is going to graduate from college. That is what this 
is all about--helping children.
  Tedrel Eubanks of Mississippi Valley State University--one of these 
programs allowed her to get a high school diploma and then go to 
college, something her family never dreamed that any one of them could 
do.
  We have learned this morning from actual cases about one child in the 
family who is not only making a tremendous impression on his siblings 
but on all of his cousins.
  For every dollar spent here, we save our country $10. We are talking 
about spending $200 million and saving the country $2 billion. My math 
may be a little bit wrong there, but you get the point.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Reid-Bingaman amendment would provide 
an additional $210 million for Hispanic education. I am pleased to 
support it.
  Since 1990, the number of school age Hispanic children has grown by 
61 percent. This means that one out of every six children who attends 
public school is Hispanic. Yet, only about 60 percent of them graduate 
from high school. Hispanics over the age of 16 are more than twice as 
likely to drop out of school than African-American students and four 
times more likely to drop out of school than white students. In the 
Nation's l17 largest Hispanic-serving school districts, Hispanics lag 
behind white students in reading achievement by an average of 30 points 
and math achievement by an average of 27 points. And according to the 
2000 census, only 8.5 percent of Hispanics between the ages of 25 and 
34 had earned a bachelor's degree.
  These statistics are troubling, and we need to address them. After 
all, education gives individuals the tools that they need to succeed. 
But education programs are underfunded, and the bill before us cuts $21 
million from bilingual education, $11 million from dropout prevention 
programs, $10 million from high school migrant education, and $15 
million from college migrant education.
  The Reid-Bingaman amendment would reverse these proposed cuts and 
would increase funding for English instruction for non-native speakers, 
dropout prevention, and migrant education.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this very essential and worthwhile 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of the bill isn't here. I have 
asked unanimous consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized for the 
last 3 minutes. No one is here for the majority to respond, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time run against the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the distinguished manager of the bill and 
others need additional time, I will be happy to agree to that. I just 
want to make sure there is no time wasted.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum under the previous condition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time is reserved for me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me use my 3 minutes to make the 
point that this is a very important amendment which the Senator from 
Nevada put forward to provide some additional funding for the programs 
that are most important in assisting Hispanic students and school 
districts that are serving Hispanic students around our country.
  I believe very strongly that we need to adopt this amendment. One of 
the key provisions in it, which I spoke about earlier this morning, 
would add $20 million for dropout prevention. That is $20 million out 
of the $125 million that is authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. 
The President asked for zero funds for that dropout prevention 
initiative.
  I believe we in Congress should add something in the current year. We 
are providing nearly $11 million. I believe this amendment would allow 
us to provide at least $20 million, which is a start and which is a 
help. I hope very much it will be adopted.
  In my home State, the Farmington public schools received a grant 
under the funding this last year for dropout prevention. It is funding 
they are using to assist students through individualized school reentry 
support activities, an alternative for remediation, transition-based 
life skills and career awareness, adult advisory and intensive 
mentoring services. They are working with these individual students who 
are at risk of dropping out.
  My colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, 
said, Well, there are already funds in the bill that can be used for 
these purposes. The funds he is referring to are funds which are 
allocated on the basis of the percentage of children and youth residing 
in locally operated correctional facilities. This is funding which is 
used by school districts to deal with this element that winds up in 
correctional facilities or are at risk of winding up in correctional 
facilities.
  What I am advocating, and what I think the Senator from Nevada is 
advocating, is that we get out ahead of the problem and assist students 
who are at risk of leaving school. We try to help school districts keep 
those students in school and not wait until they get involved with the 
correctional system. We do not think it should be simply said, OK, if a 
kid gets thrown in jail or gets in trouble with the Department of 
Justice or the judicial system, then we will come to assist in some 
respects.
  This is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
support the Reid amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I raise a point of order under section 504 
of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004 that 
the amendment exceeds discretionary spending limits specified in this 
section and is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, pursuant to the Budget Act, I move to 
waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes 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 question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) 
is necessarily absent.

[[Page 20948]]


  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 322 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Graham (FL)
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Miller
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
48. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I know the hour is 12:30 and we will recess for the weekly 
caucuses. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Levin, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.


               united nations security council resolution

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this morning's newspapers brought the 
welcome news that the administration is finally waking up to the need 
to seek greater international support for and participation in our 
stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq by seeking a new U.N. 
Security Council resolution. There has been a tragically long overdue 
recognition of the importance of doing so.
  While this welcome news was attributed to an unnamed administration 
spokesman, hopefully some named spokesman will soon confirm it. The 
delay in arriving at this new approach, along with too much lone-
ranger, bring-them-on rhetoric, will make the effort to 
internationalize the situation in Iraq more difficult and perhaps more 
costly in terms of the conditions exacted by the international 
community for its participation.
  The word games that have been played by administration officials who 
have stated that they would ``welcome'' the participation of troops of 
other nations but refused to request that participation have also not 
been helpful.
  While the need to internationalize this effort and obtain a U.N. 
mandate has been apparent to many of us from the beginning, the recent 
report of the Congressional Budget Office, requested by Senator Byrd, 
concerning the difficulty of sustaining a large U.S. military force in 
Iraq reinforces the need to reach out to the U.N. for support in this 
effort. There will not and should not be any need to compromise with 
respect to command and control of U.S. troops. There is ample precedent 
for the nation that provides the bulk of military forces to provide the 
senior military commander and for the senior military commander to 
exercise overall command of all the troops participating in a U.N.-
mandated mission.
  A recent example of that approach was the case of East Timor, where 
Australia led a coalition of the willing pursuant to a U.N. resolution 
and provided the senior military commander for the operation. Once 
circumstances permitted it, the Australians turned over control to a 
U.N. blue helmeted peacekeeping force. The first gulf war was an 
earlier example where one nation, the United States, led a coalition of 
the willing with U.N. sanction. There will, however, be a need for 
compromise with respect to the control of civilian reconstruction and 
political development of Iraq. We should be willing to agree to a 
reasonable sharing of decisionmaking with respect to the physical and 
political reconstruction of Iraq. If we are willing to do so, Germany 
and Russia will proudly go along and France would then have little 
choice, I believe, but to go along as well.
  Statements by administration officials, when we went to the U.N. 
before the war, which denigrated the importance of U.N. support and the 
work of U.N. inspectors, were counterproductive to acquiring U.N. 
backing at that time. We must avoid a repetition of that attitude. 
Given the pressures that have been brought to bear that were necessary 
to get the administration to seek support from the international 
community, I am afraid it will be necessary to keep the pressure on the 
administration to make the appropriate compromises to work out a new 
U.N. resolution.
  Yesterday, three more U.S. soldiers lost their lives in Iraq, two due 
to hostile action and one in an accident. While internationalizing the 
effort in Iraq will not prevent all loss of life in the future, it 
should help to reduce the risks and ease the burdens on U.S. forces and 
will help convince Iraqis of international backing and support for our 
military presence there, and hopefully will increase the sharing of 
intelligence that is so critical to stopping terrorists in other 
attacks.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________