Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask consent to use as much of the time allocated to Senator Durbin as I may use.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, allow me to tell you today about the extraordinary efforts of our youth volunteers we have across the country. Last week, there were week-long activities and ceremonies to honor over 100 young people chosen for their exceptional volunteer projects from across the nation as part of the 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program. I specifically want to congratulate eighteen-year-old Jason Koth of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and fifteen-year-old Scot Miller of Fargo, North Dakota, both from my home state. They were named the top high school and middle level youth volunteers in North Dakota last February, and were two out of 104 youth honored out of millions of youth in the United States. Jason was recognized for his fund-raising efforts for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. Scot helped raise funds for a city library expansion project and started a community recycling program. In recognition of their community involvement, they each received a $1,000 cash award, an engraved silver medallion and an all-expense paid trip to Washington, D.C., for last week's events. I am honored to have been a part of the 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards Ceremony on May 8, where Senator Susan Collins and I had the opportunity to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of this group of youth volunteers. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards were created by Prudential in 1995 to encourage youth volunteerism and to identify and reward young role models. It operates in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. We should all take a moment to feel great pride in our nation's youth. These students show exactly what type of compassion and commitment is possible at any age. With their community spirit, our future is in good hands.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. It certainly is, and it is a tax that was not a part of any public discussion and imposed in a room with the doors locked.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a meeting started 1 hour and 5 minutes ago at 20th Street and Constitution Avenue here in Washington, DC. The Federal Reserve Board is meeting in a large room in a building that takes up nearly the entire block. No one in this Chamber is allowed at that meeting. No ordinary American citizen is allowed at this meeting. The door is locked. They are meeting behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve Board to decide how much they want to raise interest rates once again. I think it is important to allow people to see who is meeting. Here are the pictures of the folks at the Fed--the Federal Board of Governors. The ones with the stars are the regional Federal Reserve bank presidents who will make the decision this morning. They increased interest rates last June, in August, in November, in February, and again in March. In North Dakota, in Idaho, in Illinois, and in California, the average American household is now paying $1,200 a year in additional interest charges as a result. If you have a $100,000 mortgage, you are paying $100 a month more for your mortgage payment. Why? Because the Federal Reserve Board feels that too many people are working in this country and that our economic growth ought to be slowed. If you ask them about the circumstance, they would say: We really have controlled inflation; it is because we have increased interest rates that inflation has been under control. That is like the weatherman taking credit for the sunshine. The fact is, this economy has worked in spite of the Federal Reserve Board. This Federal Reserve Board, under Mr. Greenspan's tutelage, has added nearly a three-quarters of 1 percent increase in the real Federal funds rate during his term versus the 20 years prior. It has added nearly a two percent increase in the real prime rate during the Greenspan years versus the prior years. They have leaned and tilted their interest rate policies towards the big banking center interests, and against the consumer's interest and against the taxpayers' interests. By what justification would they increase interest rates this morning? This morning the Consumer Price Index came out. It is flat; plumb flat. The Producer Price Index from last month was down. The core inflation rate is down. By what justification will the Federal Reserve Board decide to charge higher interest rates on the American people? They say, in a Washington Post article by John Berry, that the new theory of the Fed is that if worker productivity is up in this country, it puts pressure on the economy, and, therefore, they should raise interest rates to slow down the economy. What a prosperous notion. It used to be when I came to the floor and indicated that the Fed complained workers were getting more money, or there was a threat that they would get more money but their productivity wasn't rising, the Fed used to say that is inherently inflationary. Now what they say is that it doesn't matter how productive they are; in fact, the more productive they are, the more likely it is the Fed wants to raise interest rates. Talk about people flying blind. I learned to fly an airplane about a quarter century ago. I remember that as you do your solo cross-country flying the airplane, you have to learn to rely on instruments. How do you know where you are going? You have to read your instruments? The fact is, the Federal Reserve Board doesn't have instruments that work anymore. To the extent you could picture a group of bankers in gray suits and wearing goggles, with a leather helmet and a silk scarf--to the extent you could picture them flying and flying blind--I respectfully say they are flying in the wrong direction and are perfectly happy to do so even when told. The thing that I find interesting is this: We have an economy that has been remarkably strong. The Fed has been remarkably wrong all along. They have said our economy cannot grow more than 2\1/2\ percent, and if it does we are going to have more inflation. It has and we haven't. They have said that unemployment can't go below 6 percent. If it does, we will have more inflation. Unemployment has been below 6 percent for 5 years, and inflation has been down. The Federal Reserve Board has been wrong about the performance of this economy. Yet as they write about the Fed, they simply take what the Fed says, print it, and they print no discussion about the alternatives. So we have no real debate about this. The interesting thing is 30 years ago a one-quarter percent increase in interest rates proposed by McChesney Martin caused an outcry in this country. It was front-page headlines. Lyndon Johnson was President. He called this guy down to the ranch in Texas and put pressure on him all the weekend. It was front-page news. Today the Fed can go behind closed doors and raise interest rates one-half percent, and nobody seems to mind. All of these chairs are largely empty in the Senate. I wonder where people are. What if someone were to bring to the floor of the Senate a proposal that said, what we would like to do is increase taxes on the average household in this country by $1,210 a year. If there were a proposal to increase taxes in the amount of $1,210 a year, all of these chairs would be full. There would be a raging debate, and all of the folks would come to the floor to talk about taxes. They would be hollering and bellowing. But guess what. You can increase interest rates five, six, or seven times by the Federal Reserve, and impose an additional $1,210 a year interest charge on the average household, and there is not a whimper. Again, let me give credit where credit is due. All of these folks look alike. They largely think alike. All of them wear gray suits. All of them have a banking background. When they close the doors and lock the American citizens out down at the Federal Reserve Board, they are going to make a banking decision. What is the banking decision? They increase interest rates on the American people in order to protect the big banking center interests. The point is this: There is no inflation. There is no evidence of inflation. It is going to be uncomfortable for the Fed. But of course they do not deal with comforts. Once they close the doors, they have all the comforts at hand. Just this morning the Consumer Price Index was announced, and it is flat; no inflation. Just this morning--a little over an hour ago--they went into the room, closed the doors, and locked everybody else out. Guess what they are going to decide. They will announce that they have decided, despite the fact there is no inflation, because American workers are more productive that justifies an increase in the interest rates. Why if the American worker is more productive should the American worker not be entitled to a better share of income? Of course, they should. That is not inflationary. But the Federal Reserve Board has now concocted this goofy new theory that says if the American worker is more productive, they must impose an added charge on the average American. You talk about people who can't think. I don't understand. Maybe they need to loosen all those neckties. But there is something wrong at the Fed. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. We will know in 5 minutes that it was a mistake. If these folks at a time when there is no additional inflation raise interest rates once again to try to slow down this economy and penalize the American workforce for being more productive, we will know in 5 minutes that is a mistake. I hope with this announcement that will apparently be made at about 2 o'clock this afternoon this group of folks perhaps might exhibit some good sense for a change.

Mr. DORGAN. No representation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I thought I had seen some fairly unusual and Byzantine proposals around this town, but one that was described in last Friday's Washington Post almost takes the cake. Going back some years, there was a proposal by the U.S. Post Office that would allow people to file change of address forms in the event of a nuclear war. I thought that was rather bizarre. One can imagine being under nuclear attack and trying to find the road to the post office to leave a forwarding address. That is not very likely. There is a proposal even goofier than that. On Friday, May 12, John Berry, a Washington Post staff writer-- someone for whom I have respect and he is an excellent writer and thinker--wrote an article about ``Rate Forecasts Climbing.'' He was talking about interest rates. John describes the thinking of some members of the Federal Reserve Board and the Open Market Committee about what they intend to do with interest rates. I wish that this story, however, included an analysis of opposing views and there are some. Here is the situation: Tomorrow morning at 9:30, there will be a meeting in this town of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and regional Fed bank presidents--five of them--who will make decisions about interest rates. The speculation is they will increase interest rates by one-half of 1 percent despite the fact there is no evidence of inflation that suggests they should do this. It is the same as deciding they are going to tax the American people. In fact, the rate increases last June, August, November, February, March, and now tomorrow--we will have another, mark my words--those rate increases have added about $1,210 in interest charges to the average household. If one has a $100,000 home mortgage, one is paying $100 more a month because of what the Federal Reserve Board has done. Every household is paying on average some $1,210 more per year in interest charges. That is from the folks who meet in secret and effectively impose a tax on every single American. The only difference is, when it is done in this Chamber in the form of taxation, there is a debate and then a vote. It is done in the open. Tomorrow, the Federal Reserve Board will deal with interest rate questions in secret. At 9:30, if those who are paying attention to C-SPAN want to go down to the Federal Reserve Board and say, I want to be involved in this discussion, they will be told: No, you cannot be involved; this is secret; the doors are locked; we intend to make decisions about your life and you can have no involvement. Here is what the Washington Post article said about what these folks are going to think tomorrow which I think is bizarre. They are saying that American workers are becoming more productive and because the productivity of the American worker is up, they believe that justifies higher interest rates. It used to be the same economists who cannot remember, in most cases, their home telephone numbers and their home addresses but who can tell us what is going to happen 5 years or 7 years from now, would say our problem is we have inflation pressures in this country because we do not have increases in productivity. If we have increases in productivity, that will deal with all of the other pressures that come to bear on the economy and offset them. Now they are saying, but if workers become more productive, we are going to have to raise interest rates. You see, they are concerned about workers' pay. If workers in this country receive more pay, they say that is inflationary. So the workers are kind of stuck, aren't they? The Fed has already said, if workers receive more money, that is going to drive up inflation. But in the past they have said, if workers' productivity goes up, that will be all right, because you can receive more money if you have greater productivity, right? You ought to. American workers ought to expect they would be able to share in their increased productivity and increased output. Now the Fed is saying: That is not right either. Workers can be more productive, but we don't intend to see them get more money. We intend to continue to raise interest rates to slow down the American economy. If workers in America become more productive, the Fed wants to go into a room tomorrow and penalize them--all of them. Talk about a goofy idea. I was going to go through the entire article. I will not. But let me do this, as I conclude. The folks who are going to do this, they all have gray suits, they all look like bankers, and they all think like bankers. They all have worked there for 100 years. These folks are confirmed by the Congress. To be appointed to the Board of Governors, they have to be confirmed by the Senate. But these other folks also serve on that Open Market Committee on a rotating basis-- tomorrow five of them will be in a room with the Board of Governors. They are not confirmed by us. They represent their regional Federal Reserve Banks. They are all presidents of the regional banks. They are going to be voting. I could have described what they said in that article. I could have described what Cathy Minehan said in that article. Strange. I don't understand this at all. Workers are more productive, and therefore you must penalize them? It used to be that people would say, if workers were more productive, they would be able to expect to receive more wages. None of you folks down at the Fed has ever given a whit about the top executives in this country who earn $1 million, $5 million, $10 million, $100 million, or $200 million a year. You all have seen those numbers. I have spoken about some of them on the floor. It does not matter to these folks if the upper crust is getting a lot of money. But let the American workers get a gain in productivity and an increase in wages, and then you have these folks running in a room, closing the door, and, in secret, deciding they want to impose another higher interest rate on the American people. There is no justification for it at all. The core Producer Price Index is up only three-tenths of 1 percent over the past 6 months. Retail sales are down. Auto sales fell seven- tenths of 1 percent--the second straight monthly drop. Building material sales are down 1.6 percent. These are the last monthly figures. There is no justification at all. The only thing I can conceive of is these people just do not sleep. They see things that do not exist. Imagine how they must feel when the lights are turned off. They see inflation that does not exist. For nearly a year they have been worried about inflation that does not exist. They have been willing to impose a penalty on the American economy and the average American household to the tune of $1,210 a year. What do you think people would say if this Congress said: We have a proposal; let's increase taxes on the American people $1,210 a year on the average household? They would have apoplectic seizures around here. But these folks are doing it in secret, with no justification at all. Why? Because they tilt on the side of money center banks on the question of monetary policy. They always tilt that way. It is funny they can stand up, they tilt so far. It seems to me this country deserves a monetary policy that allows workers in our factories, on our main streets, in our towns, to be more productive and to be able to receive the rewards of that increased productivity. If these folks close that door tomorrow--and they will; mark my words--and increase interest rates another full one-half percent--and that is likely what they are going to do--they are going to continue to injure this economy and injure the American workers. I said before that Mr. Greenspan has sort of used himself as a set of human brake pads. His only mission in life somehow is to slow down the American economy. He has always insisted we could not grow more than 2.5 percent without more inflation and that we couldn't go below 6 percent unemployment without more inflation. He has been wrong on both counts. We have been below 6 percent unemployment for 5 years, and inflation has gone down. We have had more than 2.5-percent economic growth for some long while, and inflation has gone down. At some point, the American people, through this Congress, ought to ask the tough questions of this Federal Reserve Board: How do you continue to justify this? How do you justify this at a time when there is no evidence of real inflationary trouble in this country, risking ruining our economy, ruining continuous economic growth for some while and imposing on the backs of the American citizen, on the backs of the average families in this country, such a significant penalty? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. I will have more to say about this tomorrow, after the Federal Reserve Board meeting. Madam President, I guess that ends the business for today. I yield back my time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the report accompanying S. 2507 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk. I understand this has been agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, over the past several days, more than 1,200 students from across the United States are in Washington to compete in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program. I am proud to announce that the class from Wyndmere High School from Wyndmere, North Dakota represents my state in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The names of these students are: Brian Boyer, Mandy David, Julie Dotzenrod, Elizabeth Foertsch, Alissa Haberman, Lindsey Heitkamp, Lori Heitkamp, Daniel Hodgson, Jesse Nelson, Kari Schultz, Amy Score, John Totenhagen, and Bobbi Ann Ulvestad. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Dave Hodgson, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the class, Phil Harmeson, North Dakota's dedicated state coordinator, district coordinator Dan Vainonen, and Kirk Smith, who serves as a judge for this year's competition. One of the most memorable experiences of my life was when I was one of 55 people chosen to represent all Americans at a ceremony in the Assembly Room in Constitution Hall in Philadelphia to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the writing of the Constitution. Our Constitution was written by 55 white men, including some of the most revered men in our nation's history. In the Assembly Room, George Washington's chair is still sitting at the front of the room where he presided over the Constitutional Convention, along with Ben Franklin and James Madison. Two hundred years later, the gathering was noticeably different--this time it was 55 men, women, minorities. I got chills sitting in this room because I had studied in a very small school the history about Ben Franklin, Madison, Mason, George Washington--just like those students participating in the We the People . . . program are doing now--and there I was sitting in the very room where they wrote the Constitution of the United States. I wish every American could have the same opportunity to visit Constitution Hall the way I did, but at the very least, every young American student should learn about the history and importance of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Columnist David Broder described the national finals as ``the place to have your faith in the younger generation restored.'' The class from Wyndmere High School has worked hard to become ``constitutional experts,'' and on behalf of my fellow North Dakotans and my colleagues in the Senate, I want them to know we are proud of their hard work and dedication.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The message is pretty clear. We talk about education, but then if the schools are in disrepair and adults do not seem to care about it, students feel that education and they themselves do not matter. I toured a school about a week ago with 150 kids. It had two bathrooms and one water fountain. It was in terrible disrepair. The teacher said, ``Children, is there anything you would like to ask Senator Dorgan?'' One of the little kids who was in about the third grade raised his hand and said, ``Yes. How many bathrooms does the White House have?'' Do you know why he asked that? I think it was because that is an issue in their school. They have long lines to wait to go to the bathroom--150 kids and two bathrooms. Why is that the case? Because these kids are sent to an old school. The school district has no tax base. When we send them through the classroom door, we cannot, as Americans, be proud of that school. We must do better than that.

Mr. DORGAN. I sure am. The GAO reported about the disrepair of schools, on Indian reservations, in inner cities, all across the country. You go to poor school districts that don't have a large tax base, and you find that we are sending kids into classrooms in poor shape. We can do better than that. The GAO documents that very carefully in study after study. We must, as a nation, begin to make investments in our schools.

Mr. DORGAN. Schools are certainly more important than prisons and jails when it comes to the subject of renovation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to be opposing the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Lieberman. He, I know, has thought a great deal about education issues. I admire his commitment to education. But we come at this from slightly different perspectives. I want to speak not so much about the amendment that is before us but a bit more about the underlying issue that brings us to this intersection of the debate on this bill. We know that in this country the education system needs some repair and adjustment. I happen to think many schools in this country perform very well. As I have said before on the floor of this Senate, I go into a lot of classrooms, as do many of my colleagues. I challenge anyone to go into these classrooms and come out of that classroom and say: Gee, that was not a good teacher. I have deep respect and high regard for most of the teachers I have had the opportunity to watch in the classrooms in this country. But there is almost a boast here in the Senate by some that we do not want to have any national aspirations or goals for our education system. I do not know why people do that. Our elementary and secondary education system is run by local school boards and the State legislatures. That is as it should be. No one is proposing that we transfer control of school systems to the federal government. But we are saying that, as a country, as taxpayers, as parents, as a nation, we ought to have some basic goals of what we expect to get out of these schools. Yet there are people who almost brag that we have no aspirations at all as a country with respect to our education system. I would like to aspire to certain goals of achievement by our schools and by our kids across this country, so I am going to later offer an amendment, part of which is embodied in the Bingaman amendment, dealing with accountability, saying that every parent, every taxpayer ought to get a report card on their local school. We get report cards on students, but we ought to get a report card on how our schools are doing. It is one thing to tell the parents the child is failing. We certainly ought to know that as parents. But what if the school is failing? Let's have a report card on schools, so parents, taxpayers, and people in every State around this country can understand how their school is doing compared to other schools, compared to other States. The issue of block granting, with all due respect, I think is ``block headed.'' Block granting is a way of deciding: Let's spend the money, but let's not choose. We know there are needs, for example, for school modernization. I heard a speaker the other day at an issues retreat I attended who made an appropriate point that I know has been made here before. Not many years ago, we had a debate in the Senate about prisons and jails. Some of the same folks who stand up in this Chamber and say, we cannot commit any Federal money to improve America's schools, were saying, we want to commit Federal money to help State and local governments improve their jails. Why is it the Federal Government's responsibility to help improve jails and prisons for local government, but when it comes to improving schools, we say that is not our responsibility? I do not understand that. Jails and prisons take priority over schools? I do not think so. It seems to me there is a contradiction here. All of us have been to school districts all over this country. We have seen young children walk into classrooms we know are in desperate need of remodeling and repair. Some of them are 40, 50, 60, 80 years old. I was in one the other day that was 90 years old. The school is in desperate disrepair, and the school district has no money with which to repair it. What are we going to do about that? Are we going to say those kids don't matter? Are we going to say that we are going to commit Federal dollars to education, but we don't want to know where those dollars are going? Are we going to say we don't want to direct funding to deal with the issues we know are important, such as school renovation and repair or decreasing class size by adding more teachers? Are we going to say we don't want to reach some sort of national goals because we are worried someone will mistake that for Federal control of local schools? Hear it from me. I do not think we ought to try to have Federal control of local schools. The school boards and State legislatures do just fine, thank you; but there are areas where we can help, and school modernization is one of them. We were perfectly willing to jump in and renovate prisons and jails for State and local governments, but now it comes to schools and we say, no, that is not our job. It is our job.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes under the time allotted to the manager of the bill on our side.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this has been an interesting and certainly a thoughtful debate about education. This is exactly the topic we ought to be discussing in the Senate. We have a lot of folks in this country who care about the state of education and the condition of America's schools. They say America's schools are failing its children. What shall we do about that? Before us is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We debate this law every 6 years, and at that time we talk about what kind of policies we believe will work for America's schools and what kind of policies will give us the kind of education system we can have pride in. Are our children walking through classroom doors that give them the best opportunity for a good education? Let me also say that I am a little tired--not only in Congress but in politics and in discussions generally--of the notion in this country of blaming America's teachers first. I visit a lot of classrooms. I see a lot of teachers and a lot of students. In most cases, the teachers I see in America's classrooms are extraordinary men and women who do a wonderful job with our children in America's schools. They have a very tough job. Their students come to schools all over this country with problems that affect how well they will learn. There are children who are hungry, without a caring parent, who are regularly faced with violence, guns, behavior issues. All sorts of issues come to school with children. We have to respond to those and deal with those issues. But this notion of somehow blaming America's teachers is wrong. Let me talk for a moment about who has new ideas. I was listening a while ago to a speech that I thought was interesting. But the notion was that only the majority party had new ideas, and somehow the Democratic caucus in the Senate was offering proposals that are just the same old thing. The majority party offers, as its version of how to fix our education system, to provide block grants. Is there anything new about block grants? Block grants aren't new. In fact, this is the oldest idea in politics, and it is an idea that doesn't work. We have very serious problems with our schools that we need to help solve. A lot of schools are in radical disrepair. I was at a school Monday in North Dakota. It is a school whose student population is almost exclusively Native American. These young Indian children are attending a school that is not in good repair. They know it. I know it. The teachers know it. The school board knows it. This is a school that doesn't have much of a tax base because it is on an Indian reservation. It is a public school district, but does not have much of a tax base. This is a school that doesn't even have an athletic field. Is there a place for these children to go out and run? Is there a place for them to play football or to practice soccer? No. This is a school without an athletic field. As we were going through the classrooms in this school, the principal said to me: Senator, is there any chance you could help us try to get an athletic field for these kids? They have too much energy. They have so much energy and want the opportunity to go out on an athletic field to play football, or play soccer, or perhaps run track. But we don't have the money. Again, this is a school without a tax base so they don't have the money. As I was touring the school, the teacher said: Now, children, are there any questions you would like to ask the Senator? One little kid in the third grade raised his hand real high, and he said: Yes. Mr. Senator, I would like to know how many bathrooms there are in the White House. I thought: Gosh, that is a funny question. How many bathrooms are there in the White House? One little kid on the other side of the room said: I think there are 18. Another little boy said: I think there are 46. I said: You are both probably right. It is probably between 18 and 46. Do you know in that school, with 150 kids, they have only two bathrooms, a boy's bathroom and a girl's bathroom? I guess he was thinking it would be a luxury to have a lot of bathrooms. That is the sort of question that comes from a third grader. But it relates to the condition of the school. The third grader knows that he is not walking into the same kind of school that other kids are. This school needs repair. One of the new ideas we proposed--that has been opposed, incidentally, by the majority party--is to provide the opportunity to repair, renovate, and rebuild America's schools that are in disrepair all around this country. But there is not much interest in that. Instead, the response is, let's send them block grants, and then pray that someone will use it for the right thing. We have some experience with block grants. In fact, title I started out as a block grant a long time ago. However, Congress quickly learned that the funding was not helping the poor children who were intended to be the beneficiaries. Let me give just a couple of examples of what title I was used for: They bought three tubas in one school. Another one used it for band uniforms. Another bought 18 portable swimming pools. That is block grants. Of course, these block grants won't go directly to the schools. The block grant funds will go to the Governors. Then the school districts are going to have to go begging to the States asking: Can we get some of that Federal money you have back there in block grants? We think maybe a new idea would be to say, let's renovate, remodel, and rebuild those schools that are in disrepair around this country, and let's help the local governments that do not have the resources to accomplish that task. We think a new idea might be to say, let's help those schools that are radically overcrowded, with kids sitting with an inch between their desks in a classroom, with 35 students taught by 1 teacher. We know better teaching goes on in the classroom when you have 1 teacher and 15 students or 1 teacher and 20 students, so let's decide to help schools reduce the size of their classes. When someone says there are no new ideas, it is just that they have not heard them. We have talked about them. They have not heard them. They have not been willing to vote for them. There are a lot of things we can do to improve education. I agree that we cannot throw money at problems, but I also believe we cannot withhold the resources necessary to fix this country's schools. We cannot send kids to inferior schools and ask why we didn't get a good student out of that school. We cannot send kids into crowded classrooms and wonder why test scores are not higher. As I said before, some of the most wonderful, dedicated people I have met are the teachers in classrooms, spending their days with our children. We can and should make some changes on the question of the teacher certification process. We ought to have alternative certification programs for people who later in life want to go back into a classroom and teach kids. They shouldn't have to go through a teacher's college or a curriculum that is long and difficult. Let me give an example. There was a rather wonderful major league outfielder who played ball for the Baltimore Orioles who was going to teach physical education at a school in New York. Wouldn't you want your kid being taught how to hit by a major league outfielder? But he didn't have the proper teacher certificate so he wasn't kept in the school system. What if Bill Gates decided he wanted to come into your school and teach a class on computers? He doesn't have the certification. What if Michael Jordan was willing to teach your child to play basketball in a physical education program? Do you think Michael Jordan and Bill Gates are not qualified? Of course they are. We can find mechanisms by which we provide alternative certification for professionals and others who want to go into the classroom to help in this country. We can and should do that. But to those people who spend all of their time beating up on America's schools, I wonder how they think we got to where we are in this world with our education system? How on Earth did we do that? Is there a place in the world anyone wants to trade places with? I don't think so. Do we want to trade our education system for the one in Haiti, Zambia, or Bangladesh? I don't think so. How about Germany? How about France or Italy? Do we want to trade it? I don't think so. This country has invested a substantial amount of money in something called universal education. We did it because we don't believe in segregating kids and deciding some kids have talent to go here and other kids have the talent to go there. We decided all kids ought to have the opportunity to make the most of their education. I have two children in school this morning. They are both the most wonderful children in the whole world. I love them to death. I want them to have the best education possible. I don't know what they will be when they grow up. My son, when he was 10 years old and we were going over an English lesson together, that he didn't need to study English because he was going to be a miner. I said: A miner? He said: I'm going to mine gold and I don't need to read and spell. I said: When mining gold, you have to be able to read and sign contracts. Over time, he changed his occupation choice, and he has had several other choices since then. We spend time every night with our children doing homework because we believe education is a priority for them. I want them to go through a classroom door I am proud of. I want them to go into a school I am proud of. I want them to have teachers I am proud of. Dating back to my great-grandmother who homesteaded on the prairies of North Dakota and raised children who raised children who raised me, this education system has been a wonderful boon to most Americans, including our family. My father had to quit school in the sixth grade because his mother died and his father was in an institution for tuberculosis. In sixth grade, he quit school in order to go to work to help his uncles raise his sisters. The proudest day of his life, it seems to me, is one day when, without ever having given us a hint, he told us at the supper table that he had, at age 55, just passed the GED test. Then he gave us a big smile. He didn't even tell us he was taking it. This meant a lot to him. Education has enormous value. Every American family who cares about its kids understands that. This debate is not about two sides, one of which has new ideas and the other which has no ideas. It is a discussion about a range of approaches with respect to the education system and how we make it better. I don't think our public school system is awful. I disagree with those who do. Go to school. I have been to schools that are awful schools, but do you know why? Because of all the other influences from which those kids come. I have been to schools with metal detectors at the front door. Shortly after I visited one of those schools, a kid was shot at the water fountain because another kid bumped him. The student who shot him got a gun through the metal detector, even though a security guard was sitting there. That school has a crowd control problem as much as it has education problems. It is not because they are bad people running the school. It is because that school inherits all of the other problems of its surroundings. I think we need to understand that and help change it. We can do better in education. I am not suggesting everything is great. We can do better in education. But I know my kids do more homework than I did. I graduated from a tiny high school class of nine in Regent, North Dakota. I am enormously proud of the education I received in that school. Are the kids there getting a better education today than I did? Yes, of course they are--more homework, more opportunities, bigger libraries, the Internet. They have access to any library in the world through the Internet. As we look at what we do to improve our schools, I think the most important thing is to improve those crumbling facilities, reduce class size, and then require accountability. I am all for accountability. There is a provision in Senator Daschle's substitute, which I will also offer as a separate amendment, to provide parents with a school report card. I get a report card about how my son and daughter are performing. I want a report card for the public school they attend, a report card that every parent and every taxpayer in this country should get, comparing their school to other schools in their district, in their state, and in other States. How is that school doing? Is it passing or failing based on a series of criteria--student performance, graduation and retention rates, professional certification of teachers, average class size, school safety, parental involvement--which is critically important--student dropout rates and student access to technology. How is that school doing? We deserve a school report card as parents and as taxpayers. That ultimately will provide the accountability we should get. Yes, we ought to hold our education system accountable. We will have an opportunity to vote on school report cards as part of the Bingaman amendment, and if the Bingaman amendment fails, on an amendment I will offer separately. The secret to education is not such a secret. Successful education comes from teachers who know how to teach, students who want to learn, and parents who are involved in their child's education. When all three of these elements are present, education works and works well. Evaluate this country--where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going--and ask yourself if we have accomplished things through our education system of which we are proud? You bet we have. We have spliced genes, we have invented plastic silicone and radar, built rockets, and developed vaccines to prevent polio and small pox. Have we done something significant, all of it coming from our education system? You bet your life we have. Can we improve it? Sure. But we will improve it with new ideas--not tired old ideas called block grants. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield to the two Senators from New York to use their 10 minutes of time now to speak about the death of Cardinal O'Connor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Wellstone told our caucus of the health challenges Mike Epstein has been facing. I am someone who knows Mike. Am I his closest friend? No. But Senator Wellstone had his office next to mine in the Hart Building. Every day-- during votes, and coming and going in the Senate--I would see Mike Epstein and see my colleague, Senator Wellstone, moving back and forth. I watched, with some wonder, at the work he did for Senator Wellstone. I know he is now facing a health challenge that is difficult. I know there are times in this fast-paced world of ours--especially here in the Senate, with the travel and the hearings and the moving about quickly--that it is easy to forget what makes this work and what has real value in our lives. This is a moment, as Mike faces this challenge, to say to Mike: Our thoughts and prayers are with you today as you face this serious health challenge. But we also want, as we think of you, to say thanks for what you have done here. The people who serve here, especially my colleague, Senator Wellstone, know how important personal relationships are. The only thing we really have, as we try to deal with public policy, is our work. Personal relationships are everything. But it is not just personal relationships between Senators; it is also the relationships that exist around here between Senators and some talented, dedicated people who help make this institution work. One of those is Mike Epstein. Each of us aspired to serve our country in different ways. That is what persuaded us in the Senate to seek public office. It is what inspires some of the most talented, dedicated men and women in our country to want to come and serve and work in these Senate offices. Mike Epstein has worked with Senator Wellstone for many years. I know Senator Reid just talked about at the end of considering pieces of legislation. I say to Senator Wellstone, at the end of the consideration of pieces of legislation that are long, torturous trials, trying to get all the amendments in, Senator Reid and I have always tried to figure out, how do we get these amendments compressed? In almost every case, at the end of the process, it has been Senator Wellstone who has had three or four amendments. The reason: I know Mike Epstein would be sitting behind Senator Wellstone, and Senator Wellstone would be exhibiting this passion, saying: No, we have to do these. This is important. It has been because he shares Mike's commitment to give voice to the voiceless, and hope to the hopeless, and to not let the big things obscure things that are important to average Americans and people who are struggling out there every day. That is the legacy of the service of someone such as Mike Epstein to this Senate. As he struggles with this health challenge, I just wanted to comment, as a member of this caucus, and to say to Senator Wellstone, and say directly to Mike Epstein, our thoughts and prayers are with you. This country is better because of your service in this Senate. We wish you well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on February 10th of this year, the Senate passed S. 1287, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments of 2000. I commend the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy Committee for the time and effort they have dedicated to this issue. However, I did not vote for this bill, because it contains many of the same flaws as in past bills, including safety and licensing issues, inadequate delivery schedules, and a failure to address specific storage problems of some companies. One of the companies in our region of the country that has such a storage problem is Northern States Power, NSP. Minnesota state law prevents NSP from expanding its nuclear waste storage capacity. As a result, NSP will be forced to shut down its Prairie Island nuclear power plant when it runs out of storage space in January, 2007. Mr. President, this is an issue of critical concern. NSP serves 1.5 million electricity users in five states, including 84,000 customers in my own state of North Dakota. If NSP is forced to close its Prairie Island plant, the resulting impact on electricity customers in our region would be devastating. Grid reliability could be compromised, and the energy costs of many North Dakotans could increase substantially. In a cold-weather state such as mine, any increase in electricity costs is a matter of great concern. In short, this utility is caught between a state law and federal inaction--and we need to address the problem. While I agree with the Administration's decision to veto the nuclear waste bill, I am also disappointed by its failure to proactively work with Congress to reach a compromise on nuclear waste storage, particularly in light of the fact that North Dakotans have invested nearly $14 million to pay for the construction of a permanent waste storage facility with little to show for it. In the coming weeks, I will be working with the Appropriations Committee to craft a solution to the problems brought on by state laws that limit or restrict the storage of spent nuclear fuel. I encourage the participation of the Administration and my colleagues in the Senate in this effort. I hope that this will be one of many efforts to address the outstanding issues that have, up to this point, prevented comprehensive nuclear waste legislation from becoming law.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in a recent article in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof, a reporter, posed the question why this country should care about the fate of family-based agriculture in this country. Many people are asking that question today. For part of the answer, I suggest they read a short essay by Elizabeth Haugen, a high school senior in Butte, North Dakota, a town of 129 people in the central portion of my state. Elizabeth has grown up on a family farm. As her grandmother put it, she ``helps with the cows, drives truck, cleans granaries, and maintains an A+ grade average.'' She sings in the State Choir and competes in statewide speech contests. Elizabeth is a member of the last graduating class in Butte Public School--one of two seniors. After she leaves the school will close. The school will not close because it has failed. It has been a success, and Butte too has been a success. For generations, the school, and the town, have produced the kind of traditional community values that we hear so much about in this Chamber and that this Nation desperately needs. The Butte Public School will close because family farms are failing, and family-based agriculture is the economic base of Butte--as it is for thousands of small communities like it across America. This is not rural romanticism of Jeffersonian nostalgia. It is real. If we want the kind of traditional values in this country that people here in Washington preach so much about, then we have got to show some concern for the kinds of economic arrangements that promote those values--including the family farm. Family based agriculture is not failing in this country because it is unproductive or inefficient. It is failing because it cannot survive in a marketplace in which big grain companies, food processors and the rest are permitted to stomp on family farmers with impunity. It cannot survive when the federal government favors these corporate interests at every turn. To begin to understand why we need to act, I commend this essay by Elizabeth Haugen to my colleagues. ``The little town of Butte, North Dakota is the positive evidence that the small, trustworthy, and simple lifestyle still exists,'' she writes. How would we replace those values, once they are lost? I include for the Record a copy of the essay. The essay follows: The Little World All By Itself (By Elizabeth Haugen) We live in a world of advanced technology, increasing violence, and the rush of people running through their lives in an attempt to conquer their busy schedules. What has happened to the silence? The beautiful grazing land? The simple pleasures of life? It once was all people knew. Let's dig deep. This lifestyle has been preserved somewhere. I've grown up on a farm with the closest neighbor one and a half miles down the road. I have attended a public school that has endured a startling decrease in the student body of 100 to 34 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. I ask myself if I have been sheltered and deprived--or fortunately been forced to dig into the soil where I've found what really matters? Butte, North Dakota. It has a population of a dwindling number of 129 people, but it is a place of great happiness and memories for many. Art Meller, 93 years young has never lived anywhere else. He remembers when the old people used to call Butte, ``the little world all by itself.'' Butte was founded as Dogden in 1906. Since then the cornerstone, and the town's greatest asset, has been the school. I'll never forget that first day of kindergarten when I walked into school and met my nine classmates. Now, I will finish my senior high school with only one classmate. We are excited for the typical reasons just like any other senior, but there is something that is unique about our class. Not only are we the only two seniors, but also we will be the last graduating class of Butte Public School. The cornerstone of Butte will be closing its doors. ``It's sad to see Butte School end because when the school closes, the town closes,'' said Matthew, one of seven juniors. It is sad, and everyday as I drive down Main Street, the only paved street in town, I gaze at the sights--the Cafe, the grocery store, the Farmer's Union, and the small town bar--that have given me hope. On a normal day I hear the sounds of wind blowing, children playing outside, and the murmur of people talking. It's not the sounds of loud sirens, or construction machinery, or traffic jams. It is simply, for the most part, a safe and comforting environment--``the little world all by itself.'' People living only an hour away haven't heard, or even know that a town named Butte, North Dakota exists. Every morning I drive down the four blocks of Main Street to school, and every morning I slow down as two elderly women cross the street. They are on their daily walk to the Butte Post Office and then to the Cafe for a cup of coffee. Oh, and don't forget the small town gossip. It's the chatter of figuring out all 129 people's lives in Butte. When the town is so small, shouldn't everybody know everything? It's a different life, ``the little world all by itself.'' As I walk in the school doors there are no metal detectors, no locks on lockers, just the smiles and solemn faces of the small student body ready to put in another day at Butte school, knowing that there won't be many more at Butte. We aren't about violence or competition. Students have developed cherished friendships. We are proof that school isn't all crime and violence. It isn't a scary place. The wonder of ``will a bomb blow up today?'' isn't a thought. It's a place where every student shares the common bond of simple pleasures: seeing deer running in the open country, or not having to worry about locking the doors or turning on the alarm system. Everybody has gone outside at night and been able to enjoy the bright, shining stars. The little town of Butte, North Dakota is the positive evidence that the small, trustworthy, and simple lifestyle has been dug up and still exists. Don't lose heart. Pick up your shovel and start digging deep.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was a statement that says, we don't know what you might negotiate. It has not yet been negotiated; a proposal does not yet exist. But whatever it is and whatever it might be, we intend to kill it. It will be dead in my committee. That is not what this country ought to be doing with the subject of arms control. As we meet in the Senate discussing a range of things, and especially discussing, more recently, the case of Elian Gonzalez, which seems to have co-opted so much attention in this country, other countries around the world aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. The spread of nuclear weapons is a very serious matter. Will more and more countries have access to nuclear bombs and the means by which to deliver those nuclear weapons, or will this country provide leadership in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons? Arms control agreements have worked. Those in this Congress who have stopped arms control agreements and who have said any future agreements will be dead in our committee or in this Congress are wrong. It is the wrong policy for this country. Our country should instead be saying we embrace thoughtful, reasonable, arms control agreements that make this a safer world. This picture shows some of what the Senate and the Congress have done in the past on arms control agreements and why they work. This is a picture of a missile silo. This used to hold an SS-19, a Soviet and then Russian missile. The missile in this silo had several warheads aimed at the United States of America. The threat from those warheads doesn't exist anymore. The missile is gone. The silo was filled in. The ground is plowed over and there are now sunflowers on top. Is that progress? You bet your life it is progress. But it is not just missile silos. Here is the dismantling of a Russian Delta class ballistic missile submarine. This used to be a submarine that would find its way stealthily through the waters with missiles and nuclear warheads aimed at American cities and targets. It is no longer a submarine. Here is a piece of copper wire that is ground up that used to be on that Russian submarine. Did we sink that submarine in hostile action? No. Through the Nunn-Lugar threat reduction program, the Pentagon actually dismantled that Russian submarine. More than that, we are sawing the wings off Russian bombers. Here is a picture of the Nunn-Lugar program cutting the wings off TU-95 heavy bombers. Why is the Pentagon cutting the wings off those bombers? Because we have had arms control agreements with Russia that have called for the reduction of bombers, missiles, nuclear warheads. Six thousand Russian nuclear warheads have been eliminated--6,000. That is the explosive equivalent of 175,000 nuclear bombs like those dropped on Hiroshima. Let me repeat that. Arms control agreements with Russia have eliminated the threat from nuclear weapons with destructive power equivalent to 175,000 bombs the size of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima. We have people in the Congress who say: We don't like arms control. We want to build new things. We want to build new missiles. We want to build new missile defense systems. We want to build and we want to spend money building. What they do is light the fuse of a new arms race. Without some new effort in arms control to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, we will see a new arms race--expensive, dangerous, and one that will hold the world hostage for some time to come. Our job ought to be to find ways to reduce the nuclear threat, not expand it; to find ways to create arms control agreements that work. Again, I have deep respect for all of my colleagues, even those with whom I have serious disagreements. I certainly have serious disagreements in this circumstance. But I don't understand an announcement that says, whatever the President might negotiate in arms control, even though it is not yet negotiated, even though we don't know the specifics, whatever it might be with respect to arms control, we pledge to you that it is dead. That is not leadership. That is destructive to good public policy. If we can negotiate with the Russians and others sensible, thoughtful arms control agreements that advance this country's interests, enhance world safety and security, then we ought to be willing to embrace it, not shun it. I regret very much the announcement that there will be no hearings on any negotiations on arms control. We are quick to hold hearings on the Elian Gonzalez case. We have people doing cartwheels around the Chamber saying: Let's hold hearings; let's investigate. We can hold hearings on the Elian Gonzalez case, but somehow there will be no movement, no hearings, no discussion on the issue of arms control if, God forbid, we should be able to achieve some sort of breakthrough in an arms control agreement with the Russians or others. In conclusion, it is our responsibility, it falls on our shoulders in the United States to be a world leader on these issues. It is our responsibility to lead. We are the remaining nuclear and economic superpower in the world. It is our responsibility to lead, not towards another arms race but towards more arms control and towards stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Let's not have more countries joining the nuclear club. Let's not have more proliferation of the technology of missiles and submarines and nuclear weapons spread around the world. To those who say we are threatened by North Korea being able to send a missile with a warhead to threaten the Aleutian Islands, I say this: Almost anyone who thinks through this understands there are a myriad of threats our country faces. The least likely is a threat by an intercontinental ballistic missile from a rogue nation. It is far more likely that a truck bomb, far more likely that a suitcase bomb, far more likely that a deadly biological or chemical agent would be used to threaten or hold hostage this country. It is far more likely that a cruise missile would be used. It is, in my judgment, the least likely option that a rogue nation would have access to and acquire an intercontinental ballistic missile and use that as a threat against this country. Having said that, I think we will now have a struggle between those who desperately want to build a national missile defense system at any cost in taxpayers' money, at any cost in arms control, at any cost, as contrasted with those of us who believe it is still our responsibility to make this a safer world by understanding that arms control has worked and has reduced the number of nuclear weapons. But we are not nearly finished. We must move to START III, we must preserve the ABM Treaty, and we must have new, aggressive, bold and energetic leadership in the U.S. to say it is our job to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to make this a safer world. That burden falls upon this country and, regrettably, this Congress has not been willing to assume that responsibility. It is, in fact, all too often marching in exactly the opposite direction. We need to put it back on track and say it is our job, and we willingly and gladly accept that responsibility to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to negotiate good arms control agreements that don't threaten our security, but enhance it by reducing the threat of nuclear weapons. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 26, 2000] Russia Takes Arms Control Lead In just one week's time, Russia has broken a legislative logjam that had stymied for years any action on reducing its formidable nuclear arsenal and forestalling the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. With passage of START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Russian Duma has handed president-elect Vladimir Putin major victories and created, for the United States, something of a dilemma. Russia can claim to be a leader in arms control and point its finger reproachfully at the U.S. Russia can say America is now the laggard. Russia can say America is seeking to destabilize the bedrock agreement of mutual deterrence during the Cold War--the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. The U.S. is seeking changes in that treaty to permit it to develop a missile defense intended to protect the nation against attacks from rogue nations such as North Korea and Iraq. The technology is unproven and the cost estimates already skyrocketing, but there is support in both parties for a missile defense of some kind. This is an unwelcome change in global public relations. Until last October, the U.S. could rightly argue it was doing all it could to lead the movement to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world, and that Russia was the obstinate player. The U.S. Senate in 1996 ratified the START II treaty--calling for the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia to be cut roughly in half. The test ban treaty had not been ratified by the U.S.--but it hadn't been ratified by Russia either. Last October, though, the U.S. Senate rejected the test ban treaty. Now Russia has agreed to it. That puts Russia in the company of Britain and France--also among the five early nuclear powers--which have signed and ratified the CTBT. And it lumps the U.S. with the only other early nuclear power that has not--China. Though it might argue as such, this is not exactly a case of Russia acting out of nobility. Russia has significant economic as well as strategic reasons for moving on these long-stalled arms treaties. It cannot afford to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal, and any reduction in warheads helps free up scarce resources for other military needs. As well, the CTBT vote places no immediate demands on Russia. Though the treaty has been signed by more than 150 nations and ratified by 52, its ban on test explosions would take effect only after each of the 44 nations deemed to have some nuclear capability ratifies it. Regardless of motives, Russia has taken the lead and put the U.S. on the defensive--and that's not a comfortable position for this nation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

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