Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tomorrow the Nation will bow our heads in prayer as we remember those who perished 2 years ago. As we close our eyes to remember those who perished in the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon and in the quiet field in Pennsylvania, we cannot help but recall the graphic images of the attacks that shocked the American psyche, the smoke, the fire, the pain, the falling towers. The courage displayed on television sets on September 11, 2001, brought all Americans to the scene of those attacks. Our Nation united to fight those who were responsible for those terrible acts. Since then, our Armed Forces swept through the rugged terrain of Afghanistan, deposing a government that directly aided Osama bin Laden in his mission to attack America by any means at hand. In the days following the attacks, Congress acted swiftly to provide essential funds for this military response. The appropriations committees in both Houses acted without delay. But we also included increased moneys for homeland security and the reconstruction of New York and the Pentagon. But today our fight against terrorism has lost a good deal of its focus. Our homeland security efforts are underfunded. The Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucratic catastrophe. The White House has prioritized tax cuts over protecting our airliners and securing our ports. Through carefully worded rhetoric, the administration has morphed the image of America's most wanted man from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. It is as if the President has forgotten the name of the mastermind of the attacks that killed 3,031 in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001; the attacks that killed 17 sailors on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000; and the attacks that killed 224 U.S. and foreign nationals in bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. The name of that man is not Saddam Hussein. It is Osama bin Laden, the elusive terrorist who this administration so rarely bothers to mention by name anymore. The President has now stated that the war in Iraq is the central front on the war against terrorism. But it was our invasion of Iraq that has turned Iraq into a staging ground for daily terrorist attacks against our occupation forces. If we are serious about protecting our country from terrorism, it seems to me that the central front should be the war on al-Qaida. If we are serious about protecting our country from terrorism, should not the central front be the war on al-Qaida? For that matter, isn't the violence between Israelis and Palestinians actually the root of much of the terrorism in the world? Why isn't reaching a lasting peace agreement between those two peoples the central front on fighting international terrorism? But at the White House, the subject of terrorism now means the subject of our invasion of Iraq. The President waves the bloody shirt of 9/11, and then subtly shifts the conversation to Iraq. The only problem is that the President's attempts to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks have no basis in fact. There has been no evidence of such found to date. By speaking of al-Qaida in one breath and Iraq in the next, the President has devised a construct for confusing the American people about the real threat to this country. And his strategy has worked. According to a Washington Post poll, 7 in 10 Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks. That was not the case. There is no evidence that that was the case. Amidst the confusion of the American people, it was the stated policy of White House adviser Karl Rove to use the war against terrorism for partisan electoral advantage. The White House rode that political bandwagon right through Congress in October of 2002, securing a war resolution in the weeks just before a major election. The bandwagon then bypassed the United Nations, alienating our friends and allies, and charged right into Baghdad, powered by a national security strategy that brought the first use of preemptive war in the history of our Nation. Soon Congress, we understand, will be formally presented with a request for $87 billion in additional funding for the war. The White House would prefer to call this massive spending bill the ``terrorism supplemental.'' Don't fall for that, I say to my colleagues. I say to the American people, don't fall for that. The American people should not be misled by these word games. The spending in this proposal has little to do with protecting the American people from terrorism. This request should be called what it is: the second Iraq supplemental appropriations bill in less than 6 months. It is a budget- busting, deficit-enhancing $87 billion on top of the $103.3 billion in additional funds that Congress has already provided to the Pentagon since September 11, 2001. Including this new spending for Iraq, the budget deficit for next year can be expected to exceed $550 billion. How are we going to pay for this mistake that we have made in the Middle East? I expect to support the funds that are needed for the safety of our troops, but I will not rubberstamp every spending request that comes down the pike. This $87 billion package needs to be carefully examined. Congress is not an ATM that will spit out cash on a moment's notice. I have questions. I am sure that my colleagues, most of them, certainly, or many of them, have questions about the $20 billion in nation-building funds that are contained, or will be contained, if we understand correctly what we read in the newspapers and what we hear in other areas of the media with respect to the President's request. The formal request has not reached Congress as yet, of course. But initial indications show that the administration intends to go beyond repairing the damage to Iraq's infrastructure and attempt to build a modernized country from the ground up. Congress needs to ask questions about this plan. There has actually never been a debate in Congress about postwar Iraq. Before we approve of this spending, we must know how long this nation-building plan will take and how the costs will be shared among our allies. I have some questions about the funds that will be requested for our military. The administration announced this week that it is extending the deployments of our National Guard and our Reserves in Iraq. Many of these citizen-soldiers are already exhausted from back-to-back foreign deployments. The National Guard cannot perform its important homeland security missions if it is half a world away. We are headed towards serious problems with recruiting and retention if this administration thinks that it can keep the men and women of the Guard and Reserve away from their families and their jobs for 12 months, 15 months, or even 18 months on each deployment. Most importantly, this $87 billion Iraq supplemental--remember, it is not a terrorism supplemental, it has nothing to do with terrorism here in this country--this Iraq supplemental could be the first installment in what the President's advisers describe as a ``generational commitment'' to building democracy in the Middle East. I do not recall a single word in the President's case for war in which he said that the war in Iraq would be the beginning of a decades-long engagement in that volatile part of the world. The American people ought to hear an explanation of what it means to have a ``generational commitment'' to nation building and perhaps regime change in the Middle East. Tomorrow, the American people will pause to remember those who lost their lives 2 years ago. I will long remember that fateful day, as will every Member of this Senate and every person within the range of my hearing. I cannot forget the toll exacted on Americans in those attacks, nor will I forget the courage of the firefighters and the police who rushed into burning buildings, nor will I forget those ordinary people on that airliner who fought back against its hijackers. Those people very likely saved this Capitol from another terrible attack, and, along with the Capitol, saved the lives of many of us who are in this Chamber today. But when Members of Congress return from the memorial services, we have serious work to do in addressing the crisis in Iraq and in our fight against terrorism at home. We will soon be presented with a request for $87 billion to carry out the administration's occupation and nation-building plans in Iraq. Let us take a good look at those plans. Let us be prepared to ask questions about them. There is no reason why this request will have to go sailing through Congress in a day or a day and a half or 2 days or 3. We need to ask questions. The administration should be prepared to make its case and be prepared to answer questions. It is not disrespectful to ask questions. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. Members of Congress should not be intimidated. They should not be cowed. They should not be afraid to ask questions. The people of America are not here to ask questions. The students in our schools are not here to ask questions. We are here to ask questions. Let us not act with the same haste and impatience that led our country to begin that war nearly 6 months ago.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was 35 years ago, at 5:30 a.m. on November 20, 1968, that a gas and dust explosion occurred at Consul No. 9 coal mine near Farmington WV. The force of the explosion rippled through the west side of the mine, igniting mine fires and additional explosions, blocking exits and shutting down escape routes. Large amounts of smoke, varying in color from black, gray, white, and yellow exhausted from the air shafts, with major explosions shooting flames over 100 feet into the air. After 10 days, the search and rescue operation was halted and the air shafts were sealed to put out the underground fires. Of the 99 miners underground at the time of the blast, the explosion took the lives of 78 coal miners, 19 of whom are still entombed underground. In response, the Congress passed the most comprehensive mine health and safety legislation to date--the 1969 Mine Act. The anguish caused by the Farmington disaster was expressed in the statement of findings and purpose of that legislation: . . . the first priority and concern of all in the coal mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource--the miner. In addition to a comprehensive safety enforcement regime, the 1969 Mine Act mandated limits on the coal dust levels to which miners could be exposed. The Congress' goal was to protect miners from Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis, or Black Lung--a disease that results from coal dust particles accumulating in the lungs, scarring the tissue. It is a progressive, terminal disease that is irreversible. It is not known how many miners died from black lung disease prior to 1969, but since that time, even with the stricter standards mandated by Congress, over 106,000 miners have been diagnosed with the disease, with the Federal Government receiving 5,000 new claims for black lung benefits each year. Last March, the Mine Safety and Health Administration proposed new rules to implement the 1969 Mine Act with regard to coal dust levels, and the outcry in opposition to those rules was almost deafening. Newspapers from The Courier-Journal and Lexington Herald of Kentucky, to The Charleston Gazette of West Virginia have described these rules as impractical . . . ill-advised . . . [an] assault on workers' health and safety . . . a campaign that would bring back black lung. Rallies have been organized in Pennsylvania and West Virginia--all in opposition to what experts describe as a roll back in the protections mandated by Congress in 1969 to prevent black lung. These are seriously flawed rules that would undercut long-running efforts to improve the working conditions of our nation's miners. Under the proposed rules, the levels of coal mine dust permitted in the mine environment reportedly would increase well beyond what was mandated in the 1969 Mine Act. That is a giant leap backward in the nation's work to protect the health of miners. And these proposed rules constitute only one in a series of proposals by the Mine Safety and Health Administration that are serving to erode the trust of miners in the one agency of the Federal Government charged with protecting their health and safety. Last January, an air shaft explosion killed three workers at the McElroy Mine in Cameron, WV. Later it was determined that MSHA had failed to properly inspect that mine. One news journal reported that, according to MSHA records, between December 2001 and January 2003, when the McElroy mine should have had six surface inspections, it had been inspected only once--just once. While this administration touts a low coal mine fatality rate as proof of MSHA's effectiveness, it ignores a series of accidents and near-fatalities that have occurred since last year in Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Last year's QueCreek accident alone endangered 18 miners, and, had it swung the other way, which it easily could have, the rate of recorded fatalities would have increased. This year's fatality rate continues to move higher, with 10 fatalities recorded in the last 3 months in Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. And now MSHA has proposed a rule to scale back protections against black lung. In doing so, MSHA is undermining its own credibility. Contrary to past years, miners now view MSHA as an extension of an administration that does not understand the dangers which coal miners must confront every day. That is the only way to explain how MSHA can support a coal enforcement budget that clearly does not provide MSHA with the resources it needs to properly inspect our nation's mines. That is the only way to explain why MSHA would propose a rule that rolls back miner protections against black lung. And to make matters worse, the media reports that a conflict of interest may have existed when those rules were developed and proposed earlier this year. The Charleston Gazette reported last May that MSHA Secretary David Lauriski, on several occasions, petitioned MSHA to make the same change in its rules that he is now advocating when he was a lobbyist for Energy West. The Inspector General of the Labor Department has already been asked to investigate this conflict of interest. At the very least, there is something highly questionable about how these rules were developed and what effect they will have on the miners of our states. The Congress has a responsibility to our nation's coal miners to seek certain assurances from the Federal regulators before these rules are put into place. We have a duty to our constituents to ensure that rule changes such as these are implemented appropriately. I had intended to offer an amendment to prevent the implementation of the dust rules proposed by MSHA, until the Congress could be sure of their consequences. After discussing this matter with Senator Specter, the National Mining Association, and the United Mine Workers, I have decided not to offer that amendment for the time being. Instead, I will support the amendment offered by Senator Specter, which would require the Labor Secretary to report a new rule that incorporates the use of real-time dust monitors, assuming that those monitors are tested successfully in the coming months. However, it is important that the Mine Safety and Health Administration understand that this language is binding. It must issue a new rule if the personal dust monitoring devices prove successful. And I hope that they understand that the miners of our States and their representatives in the Congress will be watching, and that we will continue to oppose any effort to circumvent the 1969 Mine Act with regard to dust levels. I urge Senators to take this opportunity to improve the credibility of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. I urge Senators to recall the findings of the Congress that were contained in the 1969 Mine Act: The first priority and concern of all in the coal mining industry must be the health and safety of its most precious resource--the miner.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, are we operating under any time constraints?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1543 Mr. President, when President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, he promised to give schools the funding they needed to help every young person in this country succeed in the classroom. That promise has not been kept. And there is no better example of that broken promise than the education funding levels in this appropriations bill. The most glaring example is the title I program. Title I helps the students who need help the most--the millions who are being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable for improving student performance. We did not have this program in my day and schools did not have to be held accountable, either, for improving student performance. It was a given that students went to school to learn and that they were expected to study hard. That is why we had our schools. We were there to get an education. That is why, when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2004 is $18.5 billion. That is enough to fully serve 6.2 million needy children, according to the Congressional Research Service. How much does this bill provide? This bill provides just $12.4 billion. That is enough to fully serve only 4.1 million children. The amendment I am offering would increase title I funding by $6.1 billion, for a total of $18.5 billion, the fiscal year 2004 authorized level, and it would extend the full educational benefits of title I to 2.1 million children who otherwise would be left behind. This would allow us to keep the promise we made in the No Child Left Behind Act. I have to my left a chart. This chart shows what this amendment will mean for schools in all 50 States. I know that their listing here creates a chart on which it is difficult to read from any distance virtually. But here they are, 50 States. Let's take a few examples. Take for example New Hampshire. Under my amendment, New Hampshire schools will receive $19.5 million more than they would receive under the Senate bill. That is a 66-percent increase over the fiscal year 2004 level. Let's take a look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania schools will receive $223.4 million more under my amendment. That represents a 51-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 level. In Maine, schools will receive an additional $24 million for a 50- percent increase. In my State of West Virginia, schools will receive $47 million, $46.8 million more under my amendment than they would receive under the Senate bill, also for a 50-percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 level. There are other schools. All of the States on this chart--and there are 50 of them--under my amendment every State receives an increase over the Senate bill. Massachusetts will receive $129.3 million more under my amendment than it would receive under the bill. Alaska would receive $18.4 million more. New York would receive $682.2 million more. California would receive $899.5 million more than it would receive under the Senate bill. That is the way it goes all the way down the line. The District of Columbia would receive $27.8 million more. The State of Ohio would receive $203.8 million more. So every State would gain under the Byrd amendment. This amendment is fully offset for fiscal year 2004. It achieves this by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and reappropriating those moneys in fiscal year 2003. That is the exact same mechanism that Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter are using to add $2.2 billion to the base bill--the same mechanism. My amendment simply builds upon their mechanism and adds $6.1 billion more for title I. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion over this point. I was disappointed last week to hear a Senator from the other side of the aisle refer to my amendment as a gimmick. Yes, referred to my amendment as a gimmick. Think of that. That Senator on the other side of the aisle said my amendment was a gimmick. The exact words were ``a gimmick of classic proportions.'' Well, I would like to call the Senate's attention to page 76 of the base bill. Lines 1 and 2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending. Now read exactly what is in the bill, lines 1 and 2, ``by striking $4,651,199,000 and inserting $6,895,199,000.'' So you see, lines 1 and 2 add $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2003 spending. Now just drop two lines; just go down the page two lines and read lines 3 and 4; 3 and 4 offset that increase by rescinding $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. So my amendment uses the same funding mechanism as has been used in this bill. Mr. Specter, chairman of the subcommittee, can verify that. Mr. Stevens, chairman of the full committee, one of the finest chairmen there have been since that committee was created in 1867, will verify that. He will verify that I am reading this accurately and that that is what is being done. So my amendment uses the same funding those two illustrious gentlemen used in writing the bill. And if my amendment is a gimmick--hear me--if my amendment is a gimmick, what does that say about the base bill? Is it also a gimmick? I ask, is the base bill also a gimmick? Opponents of my amendment have also argued that the Congress is under no obligation to fund title I at the authorized level because authorizations are just guidelines. Well, title I is not your average authorization program. Most education authorizations don't put mandates on States. The title I program in the No Child Left Behind Act puts more Federal mandates on our Nation's schools than any law in 35 years. This law requires every State to develop a plan for helping all students reach a proficient or advanced level of achievement within 12 years. That is all students--all students, not just those in the wealthy suburbs but poor students, students from Appalachia to Alaska, children with disabilities, students of all races and ethnicities. Schools must leave no child behind, and if schools that receive title I funds fall short of this goal, they face serious consequences. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress in raising student performance for 2 consecutive years have to give the students the opportunity of transferring to another public school. That means the school has to take money it would have spent for instruction and use that money instead for transportation. The penalties get more severe as time goes on. Ultimately, if a title I school fails to make adequate progress for 5 years in a row, it can be taken over by the State or the entire staff can be fired and replaced. These are serious penalties, Mr. President, and I support them. I believe it is high time we held schools accountable for their performance, but I also believe if we are going to threaten schools with penalties--and these are severe penalties--we have a responsibility to provide those schools with the resources they need to improve. Senator Kennedy and President Bush agreed on what those resources would be when they negotiated the No Child Left Behind Act. Senator Kennedy and President Bush agreed that title I should be funded at $18.5 billion in fiscal year 2004 and Congress voted overwhelmingly to endorse that figure when it passed the law. When President Bush signed that law a few weeks later, he said: We are going to spend more money, more resources, but they will be directed at methods that work. But this appropriations bill which mirrors the President's budget request falls more than $6 billion short. Let me take just a moment to explain what schools could do with that $6 billion. The amendment I am offering would provide enough funding to hire more than 100,000 highly qualified teachers for the students who are most at risk of being left behind. That means over 2 million disadvantaged students would be taught in smaller classes, and they would receive the full range of instructional services called for under the No Child Left Behind Act. It is no wonder students and teachers across the country are clamoring for this funding. In West Virginia, the Department of Education announced this summer that 326 of the State's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State. In many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress. So I ask my fellow Senators: Where is the money going to come from to help these schools improve? State governments are facing a fiscal crisis. So State governments are not in a position to respond to the needs. Where will the schools turn? State governments are in no position to make up a funding shortfall from the Federal Government. Yet this appropriations bill underfunds title I by more than $6 billion. This bill is a betrayal of the No Child Left Behind Act. It is unfair to all the people in this country who are working so hard to implement it. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child to succeed. They are holding up their end of the bargain. Where is the President? What happened to his commitment to education? I will tell you what happened. Once the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act and the cameras stopped rolling and the sound bites faded away, the President walked away from the job of funding education. Sadly, we have seen this picture before. This January in his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a 5-year, $15 billion global AIDS initiative. Later he signed a law promising to fund that initiative at $3 billion a year. Then this summer, he went to Africa and promised to do all in his power to make sure Congress fully financed that law. But when it came time to put the money behind that promise, where was the President? The President fell short. And he is doing the same thing with education. The Congress is being asked to provide billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq--the Appropriations Committee, I hope, will conduct hearings on that request--for what we are told is Saddam Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs, including schools. So the President wants money for Iraq. He wants to make up for Saddam Hussein's willful neglect of all major infrastructure needs, including schools. Mr. President, if the United States Government is to address infrastructure needs in Iraq, why can we not find the money to support our own domestic education system in the form of funding the No Child Left Behind Act? Where are our priorities? I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law, but schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind. I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. So let us, Mr. President, keep our word.

Mr. BYRD. I will be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who has been a leader in this field, and who is a leader in this field, remembers very clearly and accurately the purposes and the debate on the No Child Left Behind Act. I have never wanted to just throw money at anything. I never felt that just throwing money at education was going to educate our students, but I have been in favor of the reforms that are in this act. I believe we ought to do everything we possibly can to utilize those reforms, to put them into effect, enforce them, and at the same time have the money available to these schools so the reforms can be made, will be made, and will be enforced. They are pretty tough reforms. As I indicated in my remarks, we have an obligation to provide the monies to those schools. When I was going to school, I started out in a little two-room schoolhouse in Algonquin, WV, in the southern part of West Virginia. I entered school long about 1923. Of course, we did not have Federal aid to education then. We had good teachers, although they were not paid a lot. During the Depression, many of them had to take a reduction on their paychecks to get those checks cashed, but we had teachers who cared. I had foster parents who cared. Our schools were not much, but we studied hard and we tried to make a better life for ourselves and our parents. So I know something about the disadvantaged children and disadvantaged schools. I came through that Depression. I am proud to say I was alive in that Great Depression. I am proud to say I lived through it because it taught me a lot of lessons. It taught me the worth of an education. Benjamin Disraeli, who was Prime Minister of Great Britain, said in the House of Commons in 1874--the reason I remember the date easily is it was the year before my foster father, Titus Dalton Byrd, was born. So it was 1874. Benjamin Disraeli said: Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends. I think the Senator will join me in saying we ascribe to that; that upon the education of the people of our country the fate of this country depends. So this is a vote to improve the education of disadvantaged children. It is a vote to keep our word that we gave when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. I congratulate the Senator from Massachusetts. I said he has been a leader. I said he is a leader and he was a leader on this bill. He spoke with President Bush and he worked this approach out with President Bush. I congratulate him for it, but we have to do what we can to live up to it, and that is what we are doing here.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator reads it as I intended it to be read and as other Senators who are cosponsoring this amendment intended likewise. There is no question about the fact that we were trying to give our children smaller classrooms. The Senator might know--of course he would not know how many students were in my graduating class. I was valedictorian of that class in 1934. If there had been one more student in that class, I might not have been valedictorian. There were 28 graduates. What a large class. But it was not by virtue of the kind of legislation that we have been supporting. That was the number of students in those southern Virginia coalfields. We had good teachers. They were not paid a good deal, but we knew the worth of a good teacher. They were dedicated. What we are trying to do today is give our children smaller class sizes so they will get from the teachers the kind of attention they need. We are trying to give them good teachers. We are holding the teachers to high standards, also. Yes, I am somewhat amazed and offended by the fact that our President is wanting $87 billion now for Iraq. That is $87 billion for Iraq. That is not counting the $69 billion the Congress has already appropriated, no questions asked, by the way, for Iraq, making a total of $166 billion for Iraq. So we are going to be asked to consider a supplemental for Iraq. I am going to consider that. But why not consider more moneys for our own students, for our own teachers, for our own schools? That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to live up to the word the President and Senator Kennedy and I and others in Congress gave to the American people, to the students of our country, and to the parents, and to the teachers.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no question about it. I want to thank the distinguished Senator for his work in this field. I want to thank him for his work on the Armed Services Committee. And I want to thank him for his leadership in making laws that will better prepare our young people for the future, for what lies ahead of them. Of course, we need better educated people in our Armed Forces. Of course, we have to have better educated people if we are going to keep this country as the superpower of the world. I want to thank him for what he has done in this respect. I know he must feel very proud of the record that has been established by his schools up there, to which he referred a little while ago. Those performances were in English and math. They are not easy subjects, as I recall--not the easiest. But there is no subject matter that is more important than that of English, grammar, mathematics. He must feel justly proud of the performance those schools have made, that has been made possible, to a considerable extent, by his work on this legislation. So I thank him for his contribution here to our debate today also.

Mr. BYRD. I took a piece of plastic clay And idly fashioned it one day, And as my fingers pressed it still, It moved and yielded to my will. I came again when days were past-- The bit of clay was hard at last; The form I gave it, it still bore, But I could change that form no more. I took a piece of living clay And gently formed it day by day, And moulded with my power and art A young child's soft and yielding heart. I came again when years were gone-- It was a man I looked upon; He still that early impress wore, And I could change him nevermore. That is what we are talking about. That little piece of clay. That little piece of clay. Just a closing thought about our teachers: A builder builded a temple, He wrought it with grace and skill; Pillars and groins and arches All fashioned to work his will. Men said, as they saw its beauty, ``It shall never know decay; Great is thy skill, O Builder! Thy fame shall endure for aye.'' A teacher builded a temple With loving and infinite care, Planning each arch with patience, Laying each stone with prayer. None praised her unceasing efforts, None knew of her wondrous plan, For the temple the teacher builded Was unseen by the eyes of man. Gone is the Builder's temple, Crumpled into the dust; Low lies each stately pillar, Food for consuming rust. But the temple the teacher builded Will last while the ages roll, For that beautiful unseen temple Was a child's immortal soul. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be added as cosponsors to the amendment I have offered: Senators Harkin, Dodd, Dorgan, Kohl, Bingaman, Lieberman, Dayton, Pryor, Corzine, Mikulski, Schumer, Kennedy, Johnson, Edwards, Murray, Rockefeller, Lautenberg, Lincoln--the first name of the Senator who graces the chair and presides over this August body at this moment, with a degree of dignity and skill that is so rare as a day in June-- Leahy, Graham, Kerry, Levin, Clinton, Jeffords, Reed, Sarbanes, Cantwell, Landrieu, Stabenow, and Durbin.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. My friend, you are living in a dream world if for a moment you think this President doesn't know what he is doing. You are living in a dream world. I hope to be with you in your dreams at some point.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his position on this matter, for his words today on this subject. I will always remember Senator Tom Harkin for standing up for the working people of this country. Through the years that I served with him, he has never deviated from that course. He has never veered from that course: standing up for working people, the common people, the men and women of America who work with their hands, who get their hands dirty, whose hands show the horns of toil and working. I will never forget him for that. He has always been that way. I think he has a streak of that coal miner in him. He doesn't want to go back to the 1930s. What would have happened to me in the 1930s? I was married in 1937. I worked as a produce boy. I don't mind being called boy. I was a produce boy in a company store in the mining camp where my foster father was a coal miner, where my wife's father was a coal miner. I was a produce boy, produce salesman. I got out on some Sunday afternoons. I am a Baptist. I was a man who revered the Bible long before George Bush ever got to this place. When he was running around in knee pants, I believed in the old time religion. I wasn't a Christian to the left or to the right. I believed in the old time religion that comes from the King James version of the Bible. If you want to stir up the churches, take me. We will sing ``Amazing Grace.'' We will get them out into the aisles, those who are not afraid to say: Amen, amen. So he speaks the language of the working poor. No, he is not mistaken about President Bush. I respect President Bush. He is President of the United States, but he came from the other side of the tracks. He didn't come from the side of the tracks I came from, or where the Senator from Iowa, I would venture, came from. I didn't come from the corporate boardrooms of this country. I came from the coal camps. I lived during those days the Senator is talking about, back in the 1930s. I worked 6 days a week. I was glad to have a job. I remember when I was making $70 a month working in a butcher shop. I was a butcher. I was a produce boy. Yes, we worked long hours. We didn't get paid time and a half when I was in the butcher shops in southern West Virginia, but we were glad to have a job. I made $70 a month. Imagine living on $70 a month. Of course, things were cheaper then. But we didn't get time and a half. We had to work whatever time was required to hold our jobs. My dad had to clean up his ``place'' back in the coal mines. They would shoot down the slate and the coal, and he was expected to clean that up before he went home. He was glad to have a job. There was always someone else there waiting on his job. If he didn't want to clean up the place, somebody was waiting to take his job. I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership, and count me as one who stands with him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, after reading about the Bush administration's proposed rules with regard to overtime pay, there should be no question that American workers are under assault by the Bush administration. The Denver Post reports that since President Bush's election in 2000, the Labor Department has repealed 41 worker-safety regulations in development, including two aimed at addressing hazardous chemical dangers. Within 2 months of taking office, President Bush sought to repeal the Labor Department's ergonomic standard to prevent repetitive stress injuries, and has issued four Executive orders to curb the rights of labor unions. It is not enough that the Bush administration has sought to prevent Federal workers from unionizing or that the White House has blocked an increase in the minimum wage. It is not enough that over 3 million jobs have been lost under the Bush administration's watch or that over 9 million workers are unemployed. The administration now wants to take away the right of millions of workers to receive overtime pay. America's workers should be very concerned about the overtime changes being proposed by the Bush administration. These rule changes would force workers in executive, administrative, and technical fields to labor for longer hours and could make as many as 8 million salaried and hourly workers, many of whom have grown to depend upon overtime pay, ineligible for it. It is not just hourly workers in factories and restaurants who will be affected by these rules. We are talking about roughly 14 million U.S. workers who are considered to be eligible for overtime pay--from computer engineers, paramedics, and paralegals, to secretaries, grocery clerks, and delivery route drivers. We are talking about the policemen, firefighters, health care officials--the heroes of the September 11 attacks who worked around the clock. These are the workers from whom the administration wants to take overtime pay. These are not innocuous rule changes. The Labor Department has been flooded with more than 80,000 letters and e-mails debating the merit of its proposed overtime changes, the most mail the agency has received on any wage-and-hour topic in at least a decade. The Washington Post quoted a number of these letters in a story last July: ``Shame on you, President Bush,'' read one letter. ``Please do not take away our overtime pay,'' wrote a Marylander, who said that her husband works overtime so that she can afford to stay at home to take care of their infant daughter. ``Deplorable,'' ``unfair,'' ``absurd;''--these are the words used to describe this administration's proposal. To these I would add callous, hard-hearted, and out-of-touch. Overtime pay is about more than just making ends meet. In many cases, it is the money used for unexpected health care costs, to pay medical bills, to care for elderly parents. For many families, it is the money carefully squirreled away to pay for a college education years in the future--those things that make life more than simply going to work to survive. I don't believe that the administration has any real appreciation for how important these extra wages are to a family in these tough economic times. After graduating from high school in the midst of the Great Depression, I sought employment wherever I could find the opportunity-- pumping gas at a filling station, working as a produce salesman, and becoming a meat cutter. It was difficult to make ends meet. So I and my wife, Erma, can well appreciate the willingness to work extra time to provide for a better life for the family. Such willingness to go the extra mile should be rewarded. Earlier this week, Americans celebrated Labor Day to show our appreciation to this Nation's workers. If we really want to show our appreciation, the Senate should stand up for America's workers against the assaults of this administration and support the amendment by Senators Kennedy and Harkin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of that amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, am I at liberty to speak out of order? I do not intend to speak on that amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the question before the Senate?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank both of these illustrious Senators, the Senator from Pennsylvania who is managing the bill before the Senate, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his courtesy and kindness. I will be brief. I do intend to speak out of order. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the park boundaries for the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Harpers Ferry, located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, is one of West Virginia's jewels. Its place in American history, coupled with the natural scenic beauty of the park and its surroundings, make for a one-of-a-kind experience for local residents and visitors alike. Now is the time to move forward with that effort. Harpers Ferry has been the backdrop for remarkable historic events. Here, in one setting, several themes in America's story converge: exploration, industry and transportation, the question of slavery, the Civil War, and the natural splendor of our Nation. We are taught that the Lewis and Clark Expedition began in Wood River, IL, on the Mississippi River in 1804. But, in fact, Harpers Ferry also contributed to that important historic expedition by providing a cache of supplies that helped sustain these brave explorers as they traveled to the Pacific Ocean and back. One of Harpers Ferry's most famous incidents occurred in 1859 when the fierce abolitionist leader John Brown and a small band of raiders held Federal troops at bay in the Federal arsenal. John Brown's capture fueled the growing tensions on the issue of slavery. The property includes the operational Baltimore & Ohio train station, and it borders a part of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both the railroad and the canal made Harpers Ferry a key transit point during the Civil War. In September 1862, 37,000 Union and Confederate troops wrestled for the control of Harpers Ferry. Over the course of 4 days, a famous West Virginian, GEN Thomas Jonathan ``Stonewall'' Jackson, battled Union troops that were under the leadership of COL Dixon Miles in the area of Schoolhouse Ridge and Bolivar Heights. When it was over, the largest surrender of Union soldiers, 12,500 in all, occurred. Jackson's victory allowed GEN Robert E. Lee to carry his fight further to Sharpsburg, MD, where the bloodiest single day battle of the Civil War the Battle of Antietam--was fought. Harpers Ferry's rich history is matched only by its great natural beauty. Throughout the year, residents and visitors alike can be seen enjoying fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and much more in this scenic park. In the summer of 2001, the Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project began at the park. Since that time, 12 peregrine falcon chicks have been released across the Potomac River on Maryland Heights. This and other efforts are underway to restore these incredible raptors to their native nesting sites in the Appalachian region. Today, the park is home to a vast array of outdoor and recreational opportunities. The historical, recreational, and ecological significance suggests that the time is right to expand the boundaries of Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. The boundary expansion has the support of a number of groups, including the Friends of Harpers Ferry, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, and the Civil War Preservation Trust. Harpers Ferry became a part of the National Park System in 1944. My legislation would expand its boundary by 1,240 acres, from its current 2,505 acres to 3,745 acres. In order to educate local residents about the expansion process, I directed the National Park Service, in the year 2000, to conduct a public outreach program. As part of that program, the Park Service asked for public response to potential expansion. Since the publication of the study, some lands have been purchased under the current acquisition ceiling. Further, the larger expansion proposal, which would be authorized by the passage of my legislation, has the strong support of 94 percent of the responders. So, Mr. President, we must do all that we can to protect such very special places. Therefore, I am proud to introduce this legislation that I hope will protect an important place for West Virginia and the Nation as a whole. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to expand the park boundaries for the Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Harpers Ferry, located at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, is one of West Virginia's jewels. Its place in American history, coupled with the natural scenic beauty of the park and its surroundings, make for a one-of-a-kind experience for local residents and visitors alike. Now is the time to move forward with that effort. Harpers Ferry has been the backdrop for remarkable historic events. Here, in one setting, several themes in America's story converge: exploration, industry and transportation, the question of slavery, the Civil War, and the natural splendor of our Nation. We are taught that the Lewis and Clark Expedition began in Wood River, IL, on the Mississippi River in 1804. But, in fact, Harpers Ferry also contributed to that important historic expedition by providing a cache of supplies that helped sustain these brave explorers as they traveled to the Pacific Ocean and back. One of Harpers Ferry's most famous incidents occurred in 1859 when the fierce abolitionist leader John Brown and a small band of raiders held Federal troops at bay in the Federal arsenal. John Brown's capture fueled the growing tensions on the issue of slavery. The property includes the operational Baltimore & Ohio train station, and it borders a part of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Both the railroad and the canal made Harpers Ferry a key transit point during the Civil War. In September 1862, 37,000 Union and Confederate troops wrestled for the control of Harpers Ferry. Over the course of 4 days, a famous West Virginian, GEN Thomas Jonathan ``Stonewall'' Jackson, battled Union troops that were under the leadership of COL Dixon Miles in the area of Schoolhouse Ridge and Bolivar Heights. When it was over, the largest surrender of Union soldiers, 12,500 in all, occurred. Jackson's victory allowed GEN Robert E. Lee to carry his fight further to Sharpsburg, MD, where the bloodiest single day battle of the Civil War the Battle of Antietam--was fought. Harpers Ferry's rich history is matched only by its great natural beauty. Throughout the year, residents and visitors alike can be seen enjoying fishing, hiking, biking, horseback riding, rafting, canoeing, kayaking, and much more in this scenic park. In the summer of 2001, the Peregrine Falcon Restoration Project began at the park. Since that time, 12 peregrine falcon chicks have been released across the Potomac River on Maryland Heights. This and other efforts are underway to restore these incredible raptors to their native nesting sites in the Appalachian region. Today, the park is home to a vast array of outdoor and recreational opportunities. The historical, recreational, and ecological significance suggests that the time is right to expand the boundaries of Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. The boundary expansion has the support of a number of groups, including the Friends of Harpers Ferry, the Harpers Ferry Conservancy, and the Civil War Preservation Trust. Harpers Ferry became a part of the National Park System in 1944. My legislation would expand its boundary by 1,240 acres, from its current 2,505 acres to 3,745 acres. In order to educate local residents about the expansion process, I directed the National Park Service, in the year 2000, to conduct a public outreach program. As part of that program, the Park Service asked for public response to potential expansion. Since the publication of the study, some lands have been purchased under the current acquisition ceiling. Further, the larger expansion proposal, which would be authorized by the passage of my legislation, has the strong support of 94 percent of the responders. So, Mr. President, we must do all that we can to protect such very special places. Therefore, I am proud to introduce this legislation that I hope will protect an important place for West Virginia and the Nation as a whole. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Senators and Representatives are now returning to Washington, D.C., from their sojourns to their home districts. With the turn of a page on a calendar, the dog days of summer draw to a close, and our Nation's Capital City returns to life from its annual slumber. The business of government is set once more to spring into high gear as the oppressive heat of August turns to the cooler days of September. Many of those who carry out the work of the American people were fortunate to escape the worst days of the oppressive Washington summer. But as policy makers return to their hectic schedules, we must remember that there are many thousands of Americans on the other side of the globe who were not afforded any relief from sweltering temperatures or allowed any bit of relaxation from their life-threatening missions. There was no summer vacation for the 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the 34,000 soldiers in Kuwait, or the 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. These Americans sweated through all 31 days of August under their Kevlar helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. Many had no opportunity to enjoy the luxury of air conditioning or even a simple glass of ice water, for they were kept on high alert during every waking moment watching for snipers, booby traps, and assassins. As the cost of our occupation of Iraq continues to grow, it is increasingly apparent to the American people that the White House has gotten the United States more deeply involved in Iraq than the administration's pre-war rhetoric would ever have led us to believe. As of Friday, August 29, we have lost 282 Americans during the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and nearly 1,400 have been wounded during that time. The news today is of two more soldiers killed in a roadside bomb attack. The number of American lives lost is quickly approaching the total number of Americans killed during 1991's Operation Desert Storm, when 292 troops lost their lives to hostile fire and accidents. The dangers of Iraq have shown no signs of abating. The August 19 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad claimed the lives of 23 international aid workers, and the August 29 bombing of a mosque in Najaf appears to have killed more than 80 worshipers. Only a handful of Iraqi leaders who are pictured on the military's most-wanted deck of cards remain at large, but the perpetrators of the attacks seem to be broadening their set of targets. It appears that the violence is not just perpetrated by Iraqis, but that Iraq is becoming a new stage for terrorists to strike at the United States. The top Army officer in charge of ground troops in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, spoke in July describing our occupation forces as a ``terrorist magnet, where America, being present here in Iraq, creates a target of opportunity.'' While the sons and daughters of America continue to patrol the shooting gallery in Iraq, progress toward bringing reinforcements from our friends and allies has proceeded at a miserable pace. For every foreign soldier in Iraq, there are nearly nine American troops. Other countries with sizable militaries, such as France, Germany, and India, have flatly refused to participate in the occupation of Iraq without a U.N.-authorized peacekeeping mission. Turkey, our staunch ally on the northern border of Iraq, has announced that it will delay a vote on sending peacekeepers until some time in October. Does it really come as a surprise to anyone that many of our allies are reluctant to commit their own troops to the aftermath of a pre- emptive war, considering how the Administration tried to bully them during our headlong rush to war against Iraq? While the White House was furiously trying to twist arms in Berlin, Paris, Ankara, and Moscow to gain acquiescence to a war in Iraq, millions took to the streets to protest the President's policy toward Iraq. According to polls released by the Pew Research Center on March 18, 2003, the day before the war began, opposition to a war in Iraq was at 69 percent in Germany, 75 percent in France, 86 percent in Turkey, and 87 percent in Russia. Yet the White House scoffed at this opposition and belittled the need to unify the world in confronting Saddam Hussein. Could it be that our troops are now paying the price for the Administration's bullheaded rush to war without the broad and active support of the international community? But even if more international troops arrive under the Administration's plans, Americans should not be lulled into thinking that the threat to our troops will be over. Pentagon planners are now working to divide the occupation of Iraq among the British, an unidentified foreign force, and U.S. troops. It appears that this plan will continue to have American troops bear the responsibility of patrolling the ``Sunni triangle,'' where the bulk of the guerrilla attacks have been occurring. Our men and women in uniform will continue to walk through the dangerous back alleys of Baghdad, Tikrit, and Fallujah, facing daily attacks. For so long as U.S. troops continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the occupation mission in Iraq, our troops will remain overburdened and under fire. Let there be no doubt, our troops are stretched thin. On June 24, 2003, I requested a study by the Congressional Budget Office on how a protracted mission in Iraq could affect our military readiness. In particular, I asked how many troops our armed forces can devote to a long-term occupation of Iraq, what stresses this might place upon the National Guard and the Reserves, and what costs and risks may be associated with the strain upon our forces. The results of the CBO study, which will be released tomorrow, is quantified evidence that the long-term occupation is straining our forces close to the breaking point. According to the advance copy of the CBO report that was delivered to my office today, if we are to rely primarily on the active duty Army to carry out the occupation of Iraq while maintaining our presence in Korea, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and elsewhere, we can only maintain 38,000 to 64,000 soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait over the long term. Even if the Pentagon takes extraordinary measures, such as depending on large deployments of the National Guard and the Reserves and using Marines as peacekeepers, the CBO report estimates that we could still only sustain 67,000 to 106,000 troops in Iraq for the long term. The annual incremental cost for a continuing deployment of this size, assuming that the security situation becomes stable, could be up to $19 billion per year. Some have suggested that the strain on our soldiers in Iraq could be relieved by adding 2 new Army divisions to the existing 10. The CBO report estimates that this option would cost up to $19.4 billion in one-time costs, would add another $9.5 billion to $10.1 billion to the annual defense budget, and would take from 3 to 5 years to field those troops. The CBO report also analyzes how a large commitment of troops to Iraq would affect the ability of our armed forces to respond to a crisis elsewhere in the world, such as a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Not surprisingly, the larger the commitment the U.S. maintains in Iraq, the fewer troops we would have ready to respond to other threats. The statistics contained in the CBO report prompts more questions about the readiness of our military during a sustained occupation of Iraq. The CBO also reports that our troop levels in Iraq will have to start declining by March 2004 if we hope to preserve readiness in our armed forces. Indeed, the Army has already drafted a plan to start rotating units in and out of Iraq by that time. But this plan also anticipates that foreign troops will arrive to take up the slack in the occupation mission created by a declining number of U.S. troops. So far, however, administration efforts to line up countries to join in this mission have been less than impressive. That the White House failed to prepare the American public for the demands of post-war Iraq on our troops is painfully evident. Now there are rumblings that the administration may be ready to swallow its false pride and seek a new U.N. resolution to encourage foreign participation in the occupation of Iraq. This would be a positive development, one that the administration should have embraced a long time ago. We have heard grandiose claims of international cooperation from this administration before. On April 8, 2003, President Bush promised a ``vital role'' for the U.N. in rebuilding Iraq. When pressed about what he meant, the President responded: When we say vital role for the United Nations, we mean vital role for the United Nations in all aspects of the issue. Let us hope that reality begins to match rhetoric. I sincerely hope that the talk of a rapprochement with the U.N. is not more rhetoric or posturing by the administration. Our sons and daughters cannot be asked to bear the heavy burdens in Iraq essentially alone. The report that will be issued by the Congressional Budget Office tomorrow demonstrates that even our overwhelming military technology cannot offset the toll of maintaining a huge commitment of troops in Iraq for the long haul. We can no longer afford to deliberate on whether to put a formal request for peacekeepers before NATO and the United Nations Security Council. Every day frittered away by the administration is another day that our troops will bear the staggering burden of the dangers of occupation virtually alone. Every month that goes by without more help from our friends and allies means billions more taxpayer dollars spent on our occupation of Iraq, and most sadly, more grieving American families. For the sake of the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform on the dangerous streets and in the back alleys of Iraq, the administration should do now what it failed to do before the war. The United States must ask for the support of NATO and the United Nations to share not only the burdens but also the decisions regarding post-war Iraq. That appeal must be genuine and must be made now. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his accommodations that have been extended at this point. I send the amendment to the substitute to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am delighted to see my friend. I have several friends in the Senate, but there is one very special friend of mine who is presently in the chair. He is the President pro tempore of the Senate and a man who is well equipped for that position. He has had a long service in the Senate and, of course, long service on the Appropriations Committee. He has been chairman. He has been ranking member. He is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee now. I speak of course of my dear friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is the Man of the Century for the State of Alaska, and rightly so. I also am very proud to say I have another friend in the Chamber at the moment, among several friends in the Chamber, and this friend of whom I speak is the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that has in its jurisdiction the bill that is before the Senate at this time, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Senator Specter is a man--I speak of Alexander Pope, who said about another gentleman: ``Thou art my guide and friend.'' Arlen Specter is a man after my own kidney, as Shakespeare would say. And he recognizes the needs of the country, as I think I do. His heart is in the right place when it comes to the education of our young people, and I am very proud to call him my friend. I thank him for his courtesies always, which are characteristic of him. He is one of the special people who have served in this Senate with me. Amendment No. 1543 Now to the business at hand. I have an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, let me make a brief statement. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a deal with the American people. I am speaking of a time which was nearly 2 years ago when we made this deal with the American people. We said that from now on we will hold schools more accountable--more accountable-- than ever before; we will require them to make sure that all children succeed academically, not just the wealthy, not just those who live in the nicer parts of town, but all children--poor students, students from Appalachia, across the prairies, across the Great Plains, across the Rockies, to the Pacific coast--yes, all the way to Alaska--children with disabilities, and students of all races and ethnicities. Schools must leave no child behind. But, in return, we promised to give schools the resources they need to make these improvements. This bill does not fulfill that promise, and there is no better example of that broken promise than the title I program for disadvantaged students. Title I helps the students who need help the most, the millions who are being left behind. It is also the program that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, will hold schools accountable for improving student performance. That is why, when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012. Now, I went to school--many years ago, of course; I started in 1924-- and it was a little two-room schoolhouse in a coal camp in southern West Virginia. It was at Algonquin, WV. That is the mining camp in which I started school. That is the mining camp in which my foster father worked in the mines. We did not have the Government support in those days that students have now. I was one of the students who today would be considered a disadvantaged child. Of course, about all the children in that coal camp were disadvantaged. But we had caring teachers. We had good teachers. I remember being in the primer, starting out in the primer, and the leading character in the primer was Baby Rae. I studied about Baby Rae. But those were disadvantaged children. All of us were disadvantaged. We all came from poor families, but we studied hard. We had caring teachers, as I say, and they encouraged us to study. Mine were foster parents, I having lost my mother when I was 1 year old in the great influenza epidemic in 1917 and 1918. But those foster parents cared for me, and they loved me, and they encouraged me to study and to study hard. So I am a supporter, a strong supporter, of education. I come here as one who has supported Federal funds for education practically all the years I have been in Congress. And this is the 51st year I have been in Congress. There was a great debate in the early years when I was in the House about Federal aid to education. Well, it is an accepted factor now in our thinking. So today I have come to support an amendment which I will offer shortly. Let me say again that when Congress wrote the No Child Left Behind Act, it authorized specific funding levels for title I for every year through fiscal year 2012. The authorized amount for fiscal year 2004 is $18.5 billion. That is enough to fully serve 6.2 million needy children, according to the Congressional Research Service. This bill before the Senate today provides just $12.4 billion. That is enough to fully serve only 4.1 million children. The amendment I am about to offer would increase title I funding by $6.1 billion for a total of $18.5 billion, the fully authorized level for fiscal year 2004, and it would extend the full educational benefits of title I to 2.1 million children who otherwise would be left behind. This would allow us to keep the promise we made in the No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment is fully offset, may I say, for fiscal year 2004, and it achieves this by rescinding fiscal year 2004 advance appropriations in the fiscal year 2003 Labor-HHS appropriations bill and reappropriating those monies in fiscal year 2004. This is the exact same mechanism that Chairman Stevens and Chairman Specter are using to add $2.2 billion to the base bill. My amendment simply builds upon this and adds $6.1 billion more for title I. Students and teachers across the country are desperate for more funding. In West Virginia, the Department of Education announced this summer that 326 of the State's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State. May I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, Mr. Smith, that in many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress. Let me repeat: In my own State, 326 of West Virginia's 728 schools failed to make adequate yearly progress. That is 45 percent of all the schools in the State, almost half. But in many other States, more than half of all the schools failed to make adequate progress. I ask my fellow Senators: Where is the money going to come from to help these schools improve? The State governments, as we all know, are facing a fiscal crisis. Yet this appropriations bill underfunds title I by more than $6 billion. This bill, indeed, is a bit frail on the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is unfair to all the people in this country who are working so hard to implement the provisions of that act. Parents and teachers want their schools to be held accountable. They want every child to succeed, and they are holding up their end of the bargain. Now is the time for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain. As students all over the country return to their classrooms this month, it is important to remember that this amendment is not just about dollars; it is about hiring good teachers. It is about improving the curriculum; it is about reducing class sizes; it is about buying educational materials--all the elements that are key to helping students reach their academic potential. I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act. I support the reforms in that law. But schools need more funding if we are truly going to leave no child behind. I urge my fellow Senators to approve this amendment. We gave our word to the people when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act. We must keep our word. Everything I have said is certainly meant to be no criticism of the chairman of the subcommittee or the ranking member or the members of the subcommittee. They have all done the best they could do. Mr. Specter has done the best he could with what he had, and so has the ranking member. I offer this amendment not in criticism of them or the members of the subcommittee. They simply did the best they could with what they had. I fully support the chairman and ranking member and the subcommittee. I simply offer this amendment because I think the Nation's children deserve it. I hope Senators on both sides will support it to the fullest. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.