The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004--Resumed” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S10991-S11003 on Sept. 3, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
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.
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 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.
Aspirar--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 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.
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 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 at 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 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 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.
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.
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 have 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.
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 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.
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:
YEAS--46
AkakaBaucusBayhBidenBingamanBoxerBreauxByrdCantwellCarperClintonCorzineDaschleDaytonDoddDomeniciDorganDurbinEdwardsFeingoldFeinsteinHarkinHollingsHutchisonInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKohlLandrieuLautenbergLeahyLevinLincolnMikulskiMurrayNelson (FL)Nelson (NE)PryorReedReidRockefellerSarbanesSchumerSmithStabenowWyden
NAYS--48
AlexanderAllardAllenBennettBondBrownbackBunningBurnsCampbellChafeeChamblissCochranColemanCollinsConradCornynCraigCrapoDeWineDoleEnsignEnziFitzgeraldFristGraham (SC)GrassleyGreggHagelHatchKylLottLugarMcCainMcConnellMurkowskiNicklesRobertsSantorumSessionsShelbySnoweSpecterStevensSununuTalentThomasVoinovichWarner
NOT VOTING--6
Graham (FL)InhofeKennedyKerryLiebermanMiller
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.
____________________
