Jean Carnahan

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. The purpose of the amendment that Senator Collins and I are offering is to make sure that extraordinary and unexpected expenses related to home energy costs are taken into consideration in the means test. Under the bill, monthly utility expenses are calculated based on the Internal Revenue Service standards. But these standards are only updated once a year from data based on the previous 12 months. These standards do not take into account the potential for dramatic increases in home energy costs. The sharp rise in home energy costs this winter has put a tremendous strain on low- and middle-income Americans. People across Missouri and, indeed, across the country have experienced dramatic increases in their home energy costs. Therefore, I believe the potential for significant increases in home energy costs must be considered in the means test. Our amendment ensures that a debtor can include an additional allowance in his or her monthly expenses if the debtor can document a sharp rise in home energy costs. The bill already allows a debtor to include an additional allowance for food and clothing in excess of the IRS standard. The logic of this amendment is similar. It would allow bankruptcy judges to consider whether an additional allowance related to home energy costs is appropriate. But the amendment requires that an additional allowance is only permitted when it is reasonable and necessary, and when the debtor can provide documentation of the additional expenses. The added discretion provided by the amendment will enable bankruptcy judges to consider that families may be paying double or triple the price for heating their homes as they did when the IRS last calculated local energy costs. Our amendment will ensure that full bankruptcy relief is not denied to individuals and families because they have been saddled with extraordinary utility costs. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, repetitive stress injuries are a serious problem in the workplace of the 21st century. Workers affected by repetitive motion injuries range from poultry employees to nurses to the growing number of employees who spend their day in front of the computer. Repetitive stress injuries are not only extremely painful to workers, they also strain our economy due to lost productivity. According to the National Academy of Sciences, approximately one million workers a year suffer severe repetitive stress injuries that cause them to miss time at work. Given the widespread occurrence of these debilitating injuries and their impact on the economy, it is appropriate for the government to take steps to protect workers. In January, the previous Administration enacted a regulation to help prevent repetitive these injuries in the workplace. The issue before the Senate is whether Congress should enact a ``disapproval resolution'' to invalidate this new regulation. Over the course of the past few weeks, numerous Missouri workers have expressed their desire for protection from repetitive motion injuries in their workplaces. Likewise, many business leaders are concerned that the current regulation is overly broad, and that the cost of implementation will be prohibitively expensive. This is obviously a complex and difficult issue. It deserves a thoughtful approach by which all interested parties can express their views and the full range of expert opinion can be evaluated. This issue comes to the Senate under a procedure that does not allow for the type of careful and detailed decision making required for such an important topic. Under the Congressional Review Act, a vote in favor of a ``disapproval resolution'' will cancel the ergonomic regulation. Such a resolution would also prohibit the Department of Labor from developing new ergonomic regulations in ``substantially the same form'' as the current regulation. Since this is the first time the Congressional Review Act has been used, I asked Labor Secretary Chao for assurances that the Department of Labor would take steps to provide legal protections to workers from repetitive stress injuries if Congress canceled the ergonomics regulation. Secretary Chao could not provide such assurances. Secretary Chao did not assure me that the administration would issue legal protections, commit to a timetable for addressing this issue, or provide a description of the changes in policy that would be sought. Furthermore, it is clear that if Congress does not cancel the regulation, the Department still has many options at its disposal. It could suspend the current rule, conduct an administrative review, and make appropriate changes. Since this is such an important issue, the prudent course is for both workers and employers to engage in an open and full dialogue in an effort to reach consensus. I do not believe that overturning the current regulation would contribute to this process. In fact, it could prematurely end the government's efforts to protect workers from serious injuries. Consequently, I will vote against the resolution.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, every February, our Nation pauses to recognize the tremendous contributions of African-Americans to the history of our Nation. In 1926, Dr. Carter G. Woodson established Negro History Week because he saw that most of the contributions African- Americans had made to American culture and industry were being ignored by historians. We have come a long way since 1926. More and more of our history books acknowledge the contributions of African-Americans. Our schools have made it part of their curriculum, libraries and museums create exhibits, and our celebration of African-American history has been expanded to an entire month. But we still have a long way to go. We need African-American History Month because many people don't know about African-American heroes like Crispus Attucks, who led the Boston uprising in 1770 and became the first casualty of the American Revolution. Equally forgotten are African-American inventors like Garrett Morgan, who developed the traffic light and gas mask. These Americans have added to the richness and greatness of our country. It is appropriate that as we stand in our Nation's Capitol, a structure which was built by the back-breaking labor of both free and slave African-Americans, we talk about the contributions African- Americans have made to this country's history and to its future. I want to take a moment to focus on the contributions of Missourians. Any Missourian can name George Washington Carver's most famous invention, peanut butter, but few realize the role Carver played in the agricultural revolution that occurred in the South in the early 1900's. Carver's work to wean the South from its single-crop cultivation of cotton and his development of commercial uses for alternate crops like peanuts and sweet potatoes helped modernize Southern agriculture, paving the way for a better life for the entire South. Scott Joplin led a revolution of a different kind. While living in Sedalia, MO he created a blend of classical and folk music that took America by storm. Ragtime, as his style came to be called, has become America's unique contribution to classical music and is a driving force behind jazz and blues. In literature, Missourians are proud of the heritage of Langston Hughes of Joplin, Missouri. One of the major American writers of the 20th century, Hughes was a poet, novelist, editor, playwright, and journalist. Another African-American Missourian became famous not only as an inventor but also as the most outstanding jockey of his time. Tom Bass, of Mexico, MO trained some of the finest race and show horses of his day. At the peak of his career he rode in the Inauguration of President Grover Cleveland and gave a command performance before Queen Victoria. In addition to being a famous jockey, he invented the ``Bass bit'' which is still used today. Missouri has borne some notable civil rights leaders as well. Perhaps the most prominent of them is Roy Wilkins. Wilkins served as executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People from 1955-1977. Appointed during the most turbulent era in the civil rights movement, Wilkins kept the NAACP on the path of nonviolence and rejected racism in all forms. His leadership and devotion to the principle of nonviolence earned him the reputation of a senior statesman in the Civil Rights Movement. All of these great Missourians, and others too numerous to mention, struggled against bigotry and violence, but each showed, through their natural talents, that racism was not just wrong, but un-American. So it is fitting that we take this month to learn more about the history of African-Americans in this country, and recognize the contributions of African-Americans to our great Nation.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mrs. Carnahan pertaining to the introduction of S. 342 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mrs. CARNAHAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about an issue that is close to my heart and one that is essential to the Nation's future--the education of our children. Education was a priority for my husband, the late Mel Carnahan, throughout his career, and it was a driving force during his two terms as Governor of Missouri. I recall that one of the things he enjoyed most as he traveled around the State was visiting schools. He would come home excited about the good things that were happening in Missouri schools. His Outstanding Schools Act, passed during his first term as Governor, brought major improvements to classrooms throughout our State. He dreamed of doing even more. As he traveled across Missouri seeking election to this body, he called for a new national commitment to the education of America's children. Though he did not live to pursue that dream, I am proud to stand here in his place in the U.S. Senate to introduce my first bill--a bill imprinted with his hopes, a bill that fulfills his pledge to the citizens of Missouri, and a bill that reinforces the President's promise ``to leave no child behind.'' Though teachers, students, and parents are trying harder than ever, schools are facing difficult times. My concern, and the focus of this legislation, is the classrooms of America: Classrooms that are severely crowded and housed in deteriorating facilities; classrooms where disorderly and sometimes violent students are disrupting learning; classrooms in need of math, science, and reading specialists. As a result of these conditions, far too many students are failing to learn and are falling behind in comparison with students in other developed nations. Increases in student population across the Nation further heighten the problems, as does the loss of teachers to retirement or other professions. According to the 1998 National Assessment of Education Progress, one-quarter of our students are still being taught in classes of more than 25 students. As we watch class sizes grow, we see the physical condition of our older classrooms fall into dangerous disrepair. In Missouri alone, we face the daunting prospect of $4 billion in construction needs for our public schools over the next decade. The threat and frequency of violence and disruptions in our classrooms remain at unacceptable levels. A recent study by the Educational Testing Service made this observation: School discipline * * * problems are critical factors in student achievement. Without order in our classrooms, teachers can't teach and students can't learn. Our national leaders have been bemoaning the condition of public schools for many years. Over 50 years ago, President Truman said: The schools in this country are crowded and teachers underpaid. One of our greatest national needs is more and better schools. Later, President Eisenhower noted: Millions of children were receiving substandard education because of unsanitary, overcrowded, and unsafe classrooms. * * * It was evident to many of us, but not all, that in view of the financial positions of many states and school districts, the federal government would have to help. Yet decades after these remarks, the Federal Government still provides a mere 7 percent of the national education budget. I understand there are many who are weary of increased Federal education funding because they fear that with such funds comes Federal control of local schools. While this is a legitimate concern, it need not be a paralyzing fear that prevents us from moving ahead with much needed classroom improvements. There is a way for us to fund public schools without adding redtape, burdening our school districts, or enabling Federal bureaucrats to dictate local education policy. The legislation I introduce today--the Quality Classrooms Act--will do just that. It calls for a new commitment of $50 billion over the next decade to our local schools. These funds would flow directly from the Federal Government to local schools districts and would be dedicated exclusively to helping schools provide what parents, teachers, and students most desire--more intensive, individualized, face-to-face instruction in the classroom. It recognizes that different school districts have different needs. Some may need to reduce class size, others to improve classroom conditions. In an attempt to provide more flexibility to each school district and to keep decisionmaking at the local level, this bill allows school districts to use the funding for one, or a combination of purposes. Each of the five options addresses class size or conditions-- a formula that has led to improved student performance in the past. Funds under the Quality Classrooms Act would be used to do one or more of the following: Hire new classroom teachers to reduce student- teacher ratios; build or renovate classrooms to relieve overcrowding; hire experienced teaching specialists, focusing on basics such as reading, science, and math; establish alternative discipline programs for the education of chronically violent and disruptive students; and provide a year-round schedule. This menu of choices allows schools to retain flexibility, yet leaves parents and taxpayers with the comfort of knowing that resources are being spent on measures with proven success. The bill provides added flexibility and innovation by setting aside 10 percent of the available funding for a competitive grant program. These ``Innovation Grants'' would encourage schools to develop creative approaches to quality instruction. Grant recipients are required to evaluate these newly developed programs to determine what approaches enhance student performance. Aside from this evaluation, however, school districts will not be required to file burdensome reports or abide by new Federal mandates. This proposed legislation makes sure that money goes to schools, teachers, and students, not the education bureaucracy. It requires the Department of Education to spend only the bare minimum necessary to operate the grant program. Funds flow directly from the Federal Government to local school districts. I present this legislation knowing that education improvement is going to be one of the predominant themes in the 107th Congress. An important part of this theme is the discussion about how to make our schools more accountable. These discussions are centered around proposals by the President, my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Lieberman, and others. Accountability must be a part of our education debate, and I look forward to participating in those efforts. But even as we pursue that goal, we must make sure that all our public school students are learning in modern facilities, with skilled teachers, in classrooms with an appropriate number of well disciplined students. To achieve these goals, we need a greater Federal investment in education. Families wanting to provide a better future for themselves and their children know the wisdom of investing in a home, a savings account, or a pension plan. It is a lesson worth noting as we ponder the future of public education. To shortchange America's children not only disheartens educators, parents, and communities, it violates our national interests and the vision that has marked us as a people. I strongly urge my colleagues to consider this legislation designed to strengthen student achievement by promoting quality classrooms all across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about an issue that is close to my heart and one that is essential to the Nation's future--the education of our children. Education was a priority for my husband, the late Mel Carnahan, throughout his career, and it was a driving force during his two terms as Governor of Missouri. I recall that one of the things he enjoyed most as he traveled around the State was visiting schools. He would come home excited about the good things that were happening in Missouri schools. His Outstanding Schools Act, passed during his first term as Governor, brought major improvements to classrooms throughout our State. He dreamed of doing even more. As he traveled across Missouri seeking election to this body, he called for a new national commitment to the education of America's children. Though he did not live to pursue that dream, I am proud to stand here in his place in the U.S. Senate to introduce my first bill--a bill imprinted with his hopes, a bill that fulfills his pledge to the citizens of Missouri, and a bill that reinforces the President's promise ``to leave no child behind.'' Though teachers, students, and parents are trying harder than ever, schools are facing difficult times. My concern, and the focus of this legislation, is the classrooms of America: Classrooms that are severely crowded and housed in deteriorating facilities; classrooms where disorderly and sometimes violent students are disrupting learning; classrooms in need of math, science, and reading specialists. As a result of these conditions, far too many students are failing to learn and are falling behind in comparison with students in other developed nations. Increases in student population across the Nation further heighten the problems, as does the loss of teachers to retirement or other professions. According to the 1998 National Assessment of Education Progress, one-quarter of our students are still being taught in classes of more than 25 students. As we watch class sizes grow, we see the physical condition of our older classrooms fall into dangerous disrepair. In Missouri alone, we face the daunting prospect of $4 billion in construction needs for our public schools over the next decade. The threat and frequency of violence and disruptions in our classrooms remain at unacceptable levels. A recent study by the Educational Testing Service made this observation: School discipline * * * problems are critical factors in student achievement. Without order in our classrooms, teachers can't teach and students can't learn. Our national leaders have been bemoaning the condition of public schools for many years. Over 50 years ago, President Truman said: The schools in this country are crowded and teachers underpaid. One of our greatest national needs is more and better schools. Later, President Eisenhower noted: Millions of children were receiving substandard education because of unsanitary, overcrowded, and unsafe classrooms. * * * It was evident to many of us, but not all, that in view of the financial positions of many states and school districts, the federal government would have to help. Yet decades after these remarks, the Federal Government still provides a mere 7 percent of the national education budget. I understand there are many who are weary of increased Federal education funding because they fear that with such funds comes Federal control of local schools. While this is a legitimate concern, it need not be a paralyzing fear that prevents us from moving ahead with much needed classroom improvements. There is a way for us to fund public schools without adding redtape, burdening our school districts, or enabling Federal bureaucrats to dictate local education policy. The legislation I introduce today--the Quality Classrooms Act--will do just that. It calls for a new commitment of $50 billion over the next decade to our local schools. These funds would flow directly from the Federal Government to local schools districts and would be dedicated exclusively to helping schools provide what parents, teachers, and students most desire--more intensive, individualized, face-to-face instruction in the classroom. It recognizes that different school districts have different needs. Some may need to reduce class size, others to improve classroom conditions. In an attempt to provide more flexibility to each school district and to keep decisionmaking at the local level, this bill allows school districts to use the funding for one, or a combination of purposes. Each of the five options addresses class size or conditions-- a formula that has led to improved student performance in the past. Funds under the Quality Classrooms Act would be used to do one or more of the following: Hire new classroom teachers to reduce student- teacher ratios; build or renovate classrooms to relieve overcrowding; hire experienced teaching specialists, focusing on basics such as reading, science, and math; establish alternative discipline programs for the education of chronically violent and disruptive students; and provide a year-round schedule. This menu of choices allows schools to retain flexibility, yet leaves parents and taxpayers with the comfort of knowing that resources are being spent on measures with proven success. The bill provides added flexibility and innovation by setting aside 10 percent of the available funding for a competitive grant program. These ``Innovation Grants'' would encourage schools to develop creative approaches to quality instruction. Grant recipients are required to evaluate these newly developed programs to determine what approaches enhance student performance. Aside from this evaluation, however, school districts will not be required to file burdensome reports or abide by new Federal mandates. This proposed legislation makes sure that money goes to schools, teachers, and students, not the education bureaucracy. It requires the Department of Education to spend only the bare minimum necessary to operate the grant program. Funds flow directly from the Federal Government to local school districts. I present this legislation knowing that education improvement is going to be one of the predominant themes in the 107th Congress. An important part of this theme is the discussion about how to make our schools more accountable. These discussions are centered around proposals by the President, my colleagues, Senators Bayh and Lieberman, and others. Accountability must be a part of our education debate, and I look forward to participating in those efforts. But even as we pursue that goal, we must make sure that all our public school students are learning in modern facilities, with skilled teachers, in classrooms with an appropriate number of well disciplined students. To achieve these goals, we need a greater Federal investment in education. Families wanting to provide a better future for themselves and their children know the wisdom of investing in a home, a savings account, or a pension plan. It is a lesson worth noting as we ponder the future of public education. To shortchange America's children not only disheartens educators, parents, and communities, it violates our national interests and the vision that has marked us as a people. I strongly urge my colleagues to consider this legislation designed to strengthen student achievement by promoting quality classrooms all across America. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue that I know is a critical concern for all of my constituents the significant rise in natural gas prices in Missouri. As we are all aware, recent brutal temperatures and energy shortages have contributed to a dramatic rise in home heating bills. In Missouri, regulators recently approved a 44 percent rate increase for natural gas purchased from one Missouri utility. The increase, from $6.81 to $9.82 for a thousand cubic feet of natural gas, is expected to continue into the summer and has posed serious problems for consumers. Imagine your gas bill doubling almost overnight. People tell me that they are putting off needed purchases because they don't have any extra money--it's all going to pay the gas bill. I am especially worried about the impact of high heating bills on our retirees who already have tight budgets. My phone lines have been barraged with distraught constituents who don't know how to make ends meet this winter. Just yesterday I heard from James Baldwin, an Army veteran and retired autoworker from Independence, MO. Mr. Baldwin, father of four and grandfather of five, worked at the Ford Assembly Plant in Kansas City for almost 36 years. Like most constituents, Mr. Baldwin has tried to cut down on energy usage by dressing warmer and weatherproofing his home, as he is on a fixed income and doesn't have much room in his budget to accommodate large increases. Mr. Baldwin paid $99 for his gas bill in December 1999. He was shocked, however, when, one year later, he received his bill and realized that his heating costs had almost tripled to $269. The skyrocketing increases continued last month as well. He doesn't know what he will do if increases of this size continue. Mr. Baldwin called my office to let me know about the hundreds of neighbors and autoworker retirees he hears from every day about this problem. He worries that many will fall through the cracks. The Mid-America Assistance Coalition, an agency that coordinates emergency assistance for the Kansas City metro area, where Mr. Baldwin lives, has reported getting 100 to 200 calls per day. Many of the calls are from single moms, the elderly and the ``working poor,'' or those who earn too much to qualify for standard energy assistance but cannot afford to pay their bills. According to the Coalition, this is the first time most of the callers have ever had to ask for assistance with their utility bills. Another constituent, Mrs. Doris Hill from Albany, Missouri, recently wrote to share her plight. Mrs. Hill is a low-income, 83-year-old widow. She wrote that she cannot afford to call even her own family long-distance. She lives on $460 a month from Social Security and a small interest income from savings. She struggles month-to-month and cannot afford large increases in her utility bills. This problem is not just limited to certain geographic areas or segments of our population. One letter I received was from Jeremy Lynn, a Boy Scout from Sikeston in Southeast Missouri. Jeremy wrote to share his concern about the effect that the high cost of gas is having on his family. Jeremy states that his father and other farmers are struggling to cope with fuel and natural gas price increases at a time when the prices they are being paid for their crops are the lowest they have received in 14 years. He is worried that many farmers will be forced out of business as a result. These and many other stories I have heard over the last couple of months have touched me deeply. Unfortunately, these stories are much too common in Missouri. We hear that the cause of these record increases are due to problems associated with supply, demand, industry deregulation and, possibly, price gouging. But this is a complicated issue, and I have yet to meet anyone who has an easy solution. The only thing that is clear right now is that we need to learn what has caused these sharp increases and quickly develop an appropriate response. This is why I have decided to cosponsor Senator Boxer's amendment that would require the National Academy of Sciences to submit a report to Congress within 60 days on the causes of the recent increases in the price of natural gas, including whether the increases have been caused by problems with natural gas supply or by problems with the natural gas transmission system. The study would identify federal or state policies that may have contributed to the recent spike in prices and determine what federal action would be necessary to improve the reserve supply of natural gas. We don't know what the results of this study will be, but I am hopeful that they will help us to determine a course of action at the federal level to relieve the current crisis that is harming so many people in so many ways.

Mrs. CARNAHAN

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, encircling the Great Seal of the State of Missouri are the words ``United We Stand; Divided We Fall.'' It is a motto that has guided our people well over the last 180 years. In that same spirit, President Bush, at the onset of this new century, has declared that he wants to be ``uniter not a divider.'' I am deeply encouraged, for I want to join with him and the Congress to reach across the chasm of our political differences to do some hard work for the American people. Within the Senate, we have already reached out in a spirit of bi- partisanship in structuring our committees. So far I have had the opportunity to vote in favor of all of the President's Cabinet nominees. This was the beginning of a conciliatory course--a fragile alliance-- but, nonetheless, one that I believe must mark any real progress in the 107th Congress. But I do not believe that the nomination of John Ashcroft furthers the conciliatory tone that President Bush has set. Senator Ashcroft has a long record of public service--a record that I brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee when I introduced him. But in the end, I must determine if that record makes him suitable to be the United States Attorney General. Had Senator Ashcroft been nominated for any other Cabinet post, I could have easily supported him. His credentials or faith are not in dispute here, nor should they ever be. Rather, it is the conflict that his words and deeds have generated throughout his public career. Given the sweeping discretionary power of this position, I do not believe that the office of Attorney General of the United States is the right job for Senator Ashcroft. When asked by my colleagues about this nomination, I urged them to ignore their personal relationships and political considerations. Instead, I called on them to vote their conscience. I must do the same. Regrettably, I am unable to provide my consent for this nomination. I am compelled by principles and beliefs I shared with my husband for over forty years in public life, including the belief that we should do all in our power to bring people together rather than drive them apart. The call of conscience must supersede all others. It is the only reliable anchor in the tempestuous sea of public life. In casting this vote, I do so knowing that John Ashcroft will likely be confirmed. I wish him every success. I hope he will take these votes of dissent as they are intended: not as acts of spite or recrimination, but as pleas for healing and harmony. While I must withhold my vote on his confirmation, I pledge my support on all matters that he and the President pursue in the interest of a more just and peaceful nation.