Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. It is more than the NIH's entire budget for research on breast cancer.

Mr. HARKIN. It is more than the NIH's entire budget, now get this, for research on prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, Parkinson's disease, and muscular dystrophy all combined.

Mr. HARKIN. That is a real cut. The Senator from West Virginia is right, that is big.

Mr. HARKIN. Senator Specter.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield----

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader again for giving me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his kindness in letting me speak for up to 15 minutes before the Senate goes out for the long weekend before we come back in on Tuesday. I take this time to draw attention to the provision in the pending bill regarding disaster aid to our farmers. We have been fighting here for almost 3 years to get disaster relief for farmers all over America. We had it basically in our budget a couple years ago. We had it in the farm bill, but it was taken out. We had assurances from the administration that it would come later. It never did. We have farmers who were promised disaster aid over 2 years ago, and they still have not received it. A number of us on both sides of the aisle have been trying for some time now to fill in that hole and get aid to the farmers who have really suffered a lot from disasters. In the Presiding Officer's home State, livestock producers and grain farmers have had disasters in the last couple of years for which they have not been adequately compensated. That is true in the Midwest--some in my State, and much of it further west, and a lot along the eastern seaboard. But we have had some serious crop disasters. Now the bill before us has some money in there for, as they say, disaster assistance. But upon reading the fine print, it turns out that it is not really disaster assistance, it is just putting money in a bushel basket and throwing it out to farmers. It just doesn't make any sense. In the Des Moines Register this morning, Philip Brasher had an article about it. Here is the headline: Bountiful Crop Could Still Draw Disaster Aid. My quote is this: ``This is just nonsense,'' said Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Basically, the article shows that a grain farmer in Iowa--we had really great crops in Iowa--the soybean and corn crops this year. In one part of Iowa, we had a drought. In many parts of the State, we had bumper crops and we had significantly higher prices. Under the provision in the bill before us, those farmers will get disaster assistance. What sense does that make? Please, someone explain to me why we are taking an across-the-board cut--we are cutting education, veterans, medical research, and all this other stuff; and we are going to take some of this money and give it to farmers who have had no losses. In fact, some farmers made a lot of money because they had good crops. God bless them. I wish every farmer could have a good crop and have high prices to go with it. But this doesn't make sense in this bill. Basically, it is using the old Freedom to Farm payments. Mr. Brasher points out in the article: A farmer who received $40,000 last year would get a special payment of as much as $16,700. That could be a farmer who had a great crop and made money. They don't have to have a disaster. All you have to do is be eligible for crop payments, and then you can get part of this payment. ``This is not a disaster relief package,'' said Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, which has been hard hit by a long drought. Harkin said, ``Let's face it, there are a lot of farmers in my State and there are a lot of farmers in other States who made pretty good money this past year. Why should they get some more money from the government?'' Senator Charles Grassley agreed that the aid should be directed to farmers with crop losses. ``The farmers who didn't get hurt weren't asking for more money from the Federal Treasury,'' he said. He is right. Why is there money in this bill for farmers who didn't have a disaster and are not asking for it? I understand Senator Daschle will be offering an amendment to correct this anomaly in the bill. The provision being offered by Senator Daschle, whether it is next week, or whenever it is going to be offered, is already known to the Senate. In September of last year, we essentially passed the same measure by a vote of 79 to 16. So it is nothing new. The provisions in the appropriations bill before us totally miss the mark. It is not directed toward those who actually lost crops due to natural disaster; the funding is offset by reducing funding for other important Federal programs, and it is inadequate. We know from our experience, we know from having investigated it, from hearings we have had both in the House and the Senate, that we need somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion to address the needs of those who suffered a drought. As Senator Conrad said earlier today--and I was watching his speech-- the Department already, because of the new farm bill and because the new farm bill directs payments in a more targeted fashion, we have already saved $5 billion to $6 billion, maybe a little bit more than that. So the savings have come in from the new farm bill. We think those savings, rather than going back to the General Treasury, ought to be used to help those farmers who had a loss, who had a drought, who did not have anything because of a natural disaster. If an argument is made that $6 billion has to be offset by cuts somewhere else, it is already offset because we have already saved the money that was previously budgeted for agricultural commodity programs. That money was budgeted, and yet we saved it. That money ought to go out to help farmers hit by this drought and hit by disaster. To repeat for emphasis sake, this appropriations bill would simply provide a supplemental direct payment for all producers of all covered commodities and peanuts. It means that all producers of these crops who were eligible to receive a direct payment for 2002 will receive the supplemental payment regardless of whether they had an actual disaster loss in 2001, 2002, or any other time. I repeat, why should Congress be taking money away from education, medical research, veterans, law enforcement--all these other domestic programs--for the purpose of making payments to farmers who did not even have a disaster and sometimes making a payment to a farmer who had a record yield and good prices this last year? It makes no sense to me. I have to believe that farmers all over America, when they find this out--and they will be reading about it in their local papers; they will read about it in their farm journals; they will hear about it on their farm radio shows--they are going to laugh. They are going to say: What are those people in Washington thinking about? Mr. President, if you are a farmer and you have had a record yield, you have had a good crop, and all of a sudden the Government comes along and wants to give you several thousand more dollars, well, hey, open the mailbox and take it out, but still they are going to think we are goofy around here for doing something like that. Talk to farmers. Most say if farmers are hit by a disaster, whether it is a flood, a hurricane, a drought, insects--whatever it might be-- or it could be in the livestock sector where they lost feed grains for the livestock, yes, they deserve to have disaster payments, but not those who are doing well. Lastly, I notice the bill adopts the Livestock Compensation Program that was put together last summer. That program had a lot of problems. The help it provides is inadequate for those who qualify. The Livestock Compensation Program provided less than half of the funding that would be provided to livestock producers under section 3 of the Daschle amendment that will be offered. I was told last fall that the payment offered to cattle producers who lacked forage would cover only about 2 weeks of feed cost for the herds, and that was not enough. I note another curious feature about this bill in the drought section. The provisions of the Livestock Compensation Program are extended to catfish farming, but not to pork producers. That is very curious. We extend the Livestock Compensation Program to catfish farmers, but not to hog farmers. I am waiting to hear the explanation for that one. I am saying livestock producers of all categories experienced significant increases in their feed costs due to higher grain and oilseed prices, not just catfish, but pork producers, cattle, sheep, and goats. I have no problem--I want to say it right here and now--I have no problem in providing disaster assistance to catfish farmers if, in fact, they have suffered a disaster, but we cannot single out catfish farmers and say not pork producers, because pork producers have to pay higher grain prices also. Both use feed grains. This so-called drought relief package that is in the bill before us is, No. 1, inadequate. It is about $3 billion. We need about $6 billion. No. 2, it is totally misdirected because it takes the $3 billion and gives it to everybody. It just throws the money out there. This is Freedom to Farm revisited. We do not care whether you had a drought or not, but you are going to get money. It is misdirected. And, No. 3, it should not be coming out of across-the-board cuts in veterans compensation, education, medical research at NIH, the Byrne grant program, and programs like those, because let the record show that we have already saved in agriculture more than enough money to pay for disaster assistance to farmers who need it nationwide. We have saved that much money. No one can deny it. So we do not need an offset. We have the offset. We have saved the money with the new farm bill. I hope when this issue comes up next week, or whenever it comes up, that Senators will, again, call their farmers. Do not talk to staff. They can talk to their staff, but get on the phone and call the farm organization back in their States. Call the Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union, call your cattlemen's association, pork producers, catfish producers, whatever, and ask them if they believe this is the right way to proceed. I will give you a dollar to a dime they will not find one in ten to say yes, and the one who says yes made a lot of money and wants more. Call your farmers. They will tell you what to do: Target it; get it to the farmers who had a disaster, and make sure they are compensated adequately and not just throw it out there for everybody. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from numerous farm organizations.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Last year this Senate voted, 79 Senators voted to increase title I by even more than what Senator Kennedy has proposed in his amendment. We will see how they vote today. There is one other aspect of this amendment, too, to which I just want to address myself. It addresses the needs of students who cannot afford to go to college. This amendment would add $1.35 billion to the Pell Grant Program, which would make it possible to increase the maximum grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. Pell grants are the key program for making sure that poor and middle class students have the same opportunity to attend college as our wealthy students. Pell grants buy a lot less than they used to. In 1976 the maximum Pell grant award paid for 84 percent of the average 4-year public college tuition. Last year it paid for half of that, just 42 percent. So we have fallen far behind in Pell grants. With the economy still in a rut, more people laid off, more unemployment, two things are going to happen. More students would like to go to college, to fine-tune their job skills and enhance their careers. Second, more and more families will fall below the eligibility line. So kids who may not have qualified for Pell grants in the past will now qualify because their parents are unemployed, or not employed full time. So the demand in the Pell grant program will go up as the economy continues to slow down. The Kennedy amendment would provide 4.5 million college students an average increase of $300 a year. Think about this, think about $300 a year for the neediest students in this country to go to college, that juxtaposed against the President's proposed tax plan to give more and more tax breaks to the richest people in this country. Again, as I said, it is really a matter of priorities. This amendment is one that ought to have strong support in the Senate from both sides of the aisle. It is the right thing to do for our kids. It is the right thing to do for our country. Frankly, in the end, what it does is it just makes us live up to the commitment we made 1 year ago, to actually leave no child behind. I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership. I hope we have an overwhelming vote in support of education, making sure we do not leave any kids behind. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. That's right.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment which I send to the desk on behalf of myself and Senators Feinstein, Biden, Leahy, Murray, Rockefeller, Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Kohl, and Lautenberg. This amendment will restore the funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program at the fiscal year 2002 level. The bill before us virtually eliminates this grant program which provides a critical resource directly toward our State and local law enforcement communities. The bottom line is if you eliminate the Byrne grant program, you eliminate most of the local counterdrug task forces in rural America. Our amendment would restore those cuts to fully fund Byrne at $500 million at the fiscal year 2002 level. I am sure every Senator on this floor on both sides of the aisle has on more than one occasion talked to their local police departments, their State sheriffs, or narcotics enforcement agencies in their States about the vital necessity of having this Byrne grant program for local law enforcement to battle drugs throughout this country. To give you an example of how critically needed this funding is, in my State of Iowa, 25 of the multicounty task forces are funded through the Byrne grant program. Without the Byrne grant, those task forces are gone. Iowa receives about $5.4 million a year from Byrne. Believe me, we use every cent of it well and wisely. It is a formula grant program that goes out to States, and basically it is based on population. As I said, Iowa gets about $5.5 million, Texas gets about $32 million, Alaska gets $2.1 million, Massachusetts gets $11.5 million, and California gets $50.9 million, and on and on. I ask unanimous consent that the State-by-State breakdown of the amount of money for the Byrne grant program listed by State as of January 14 of last year be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Byrne program is one of the most successful Federal anticrime programs ever. It pays for drug enforcement task forces, more cops on the street, improved technology, and countless other valuable antidrug and anticrime efforts in local communities. Restoring the Byrne funds is a top priority of law enforcement groups who know the impact the program has had on crime and drugs. The National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police have contacted me urging full funding of this program. For example, Iowa and the Midwest have made great strides in reducing methamphetamine production and supply over the last few years. These cuts will only set them back in their uphill battle. Without Byrne, most of the small agencies in that region would lack the manpower, funding, and technology necessary to combat this methamphetamine problem. I have heard this story over and over again from my contacts in Iowa. These drug task forces are funded primarily by the Byrne grant, and they are desperately needed to fight our State's uphill battle against methamphetamine. I know that is the case in States across the country. I also want to make one more point. At this crucial time in our history, we cannot afford to reduce the effectiveness of our Nation's State and local law enforcement agencies. It makes no sense to cut this successful program that directly benefits our local communities. Today, I received various letters from various organizations I just mentioned in support of putting the funding back in for the Byrne program. I have a letter dated today from the National Association of Police Organizations. Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations representing 220,000 rank-and-file police officers from across the United States, I would like to bring to your attention our wholehearted support for your amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations bill currently before the Senate. Under the proposed Omnibus bill, funding of the Byrne Grant Program would be virtually eliminated. In a time when our country is focused on the varied aspects of homeland security, the loss of a key source of Federal funding to State and local law enforcement initiatives would be unacceptable. Your amendment will rightly restore to Fiscal Year 2002 levels this necessary funding. NAPO is proud to stand in support of your efforts and we thank you for your hard work on this important issue. Sincerely, William Johnson, Executive Director. I have another letter from the International Association of Chiefs of Police: I am writing to express our strong support for your efforts to ensure that the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program is fully funded in FY 2003. As you know, the IACP is the world's oldest and largest association of police executives representing more than 19,000 members in over 90 countries. Since its inception, the Byrne Grant Program has proven itself an invaluable resource for cooperative Federal, State, and local anti-crime policing strategies, such as multi- jurisdictional drug task forces and DARE training. In addition, the close working relationship-- I want to make this point very clear-- between law enforcement agencies that is fostered by the Byrne program is invaluable in law enforcement's efforts to secure our communities and to combat terrorism. That letter is signed by Joseph Samuels, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Now I have a letter here from the National Governors Association to both Senator Frist, the majority leader, and Senator Daschle, the minority leader. Basically, they say they would like to express their support for the following amendments. They mention the Harkin amendment. The Governors urge support for restoring current funding levels to the Edward Byrne block grant program for State and local law enforcement activities. It is signed by Gov. Paul Patton and Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, vice chairman, Governor Kempthorne having been a member of this Senate just a few years ago. I ask unanimous consent to have those letters printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wasn't hearing so well back here. As I understand it, because I have an amendment involved in this agreement, there are 60 minutes equally divided but we will not be voting on it tonight; we will vote tomorrow.

Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Byrne grant program has been a great success in rural America. In Iowa, in 2000, we found over 641 methamphetamine laboratories. In 2002, we found over 800. Without the 25 task forces that I talked about, these laboratories wouldn't be found by law enforcement. But they could have been found by children playing in rural areas around abandoned sheds, barns, and farms. Again, that is the Byrne Grant Program that does this. It goes to the States. It is for law enforcement and also for prevention activities. This program was started under President Reagan, named for Edward Byrne, who was a police officer, I am told, in New York City, who was gunned down and killed while he was actively pursuing drug traffickers in the city of New York. At a time when our States are having serious budget problems, at a time when we are making great inroads and strides in the fight against especially methamphetamine, at a time when we need our local law enforcement agencies--the sheriffs, the police departments, our DEAs, our narcotics law enforcement officers--we need them all working together, both for combating the scourge of drugs but also, as was mentioned in the letter, I believe, from the Police Chiefs Association, for making our communities safe from the threats of terrorism. And to combat terrorism we need coordination and communication among small towns and communities in rural areas. It is vital for tracking and for surveillance. I find it kind of odd that our national drug czar, Mr. John Walters, with Federal money, with taxpayer money, is running ads all over America--and those ads are tying drug traffickers and the drug trade to the funneling of money to terrorists; making the point, in these ads, that we have to go after the drug traffickers to keep them from funneling money to terrorists--I find it odd they are running those ads and, at the same time, the omnibus bill before us would cut out all funding for the Byrne program, which is the basic funding for local law enforcement for combating drug trafficking. I have made this a battle of mine now for going on almost 10 years, to make sure we fund the Byrne Grant Program, and, I might add, both through Democratic administrations and Republican administrations. As I have traveled around the country, I have found local law enforcement so grateful for the fact that they are able to get this money. And it goes down without strings attached. It is not a mandate. What they have used that money for, as I said, is to combat drug trafficking, with coordination, surveillance, and now for counterterrorism activities. It has been a long battle. We have been successful in keeping the funding up on both sides of the aisle. I might say, this has not been a partisan battle at all. We have had great support from both sides of the aisle in continuing the Byrne Grant Program. I am hopeful we will find that same kind of support now. As I said, it is $500 million to put back in, just to get it up to the fiscal year 2002 level. At least if we have that, we can continue the program. So I hope we will have a successful vote on both sides of the aisle. I might just add that if we are not successful on this amendment, it will not go away. I will be back again and again and again because I am not going to let this issue drop. It is too important in a matter of minutes, or in a late evening or 1-day rush to judgment on an appropriations bill, to just throw out. It is one of the most important law enforcement programs we have had over the last nearly 20 years in this country. So, again, I guess the vote will be in the morning at 9:30. I will sum up my arguments again at that time. But I am hopeful we can have a good, strong vote to reassure our local law enforcement officials around the United States that the Senate stands behind them, that we are not going to pull the rug out from underneath them, and we are going to make sure the Byrne Grant Program is fully funded. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. If anybody wants to engage in a colloquy or debate, I am prepared to do so. If not, I will yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, is that not the level to which we committed?

Mr. HARKIN. I respond to the Senator, it is a promise delayed. We promise these kids and their families we are not going to leave them behind, that they are going to have good teachers, good education--but not these kids, not this year, maybe not even next year but sometime in the distant future. But in the distant future these kids will be out of school and they will be ill-educated. They will not be fully productive members of our society. A day lost in education today is a day you cannot make up. A year lost to these students is a year that cannot be made up. That is why we have to put this money back, to make sure we meet our commitments. The bill before us would add just 289,000 students. We have 4.1 million out of 10.3 million needy students. The Republican bill would only add 289,000 students to that total. That does not even keep pace with the growing number of needy students in this country. They are falling backwards. This amendment would make it possible to serve another 2 million students--not 289,000 students, 2 million students--by funding title I at $16 billion. That is the level we committed to, if I am not mistaken, in the bill last year.

Mr. HARKIN. That's right.

Mr. HARKIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. With 5 minutes of debate before each vote?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his great leadership on this specific item, but also his great leadership on all issues concerning education, both in this Congress and in Congresses of the last 25 or 30 years. This amendment is one that is needed to meet the barest of needs of this country in terms of educating our children and making sure we live up to the commitments we made a year ago when the President signed into law the Leave No Child Behind Act. It is time to stop talking about a commitment to education and start proving it. All across my State of Iowa, all over the Nation, teachers, principals, and parents are deeply worried about this new education law. They are on edge not because they are afraid of accountability-- teachers and parents want their schools to be held accountable--but they are on edge because they are afraid the Government is going to come in and label their schools a failure without giving them the resources they need to succeed. People all over this country are now beginning to see this law for what it is: an unfunded Federal mandate. President Bush keeps saying that schools do not need more money. His attitude is more tests are needed, more unfunded mandates; the schools do not need more money. Well, it is a funny thing about money. It sure comes in handy when tax cuts are being given to the rich. When it comes to tax breaks for millionaires, why, money seems like a pretty nice thing to have, according to this White House. But when it comes to education, President Bush's education plan sounds more like that old beer ad, the Miller Lite ad: Great tests, less funding. In essence, what it is all about is priorities, President Bush's priority, as we have seen now, is leave no millionaire behind. Instead of focusing on dividends for millionaires, we should be focusing on making sure our kids can multiply and divide. If we really want to do something that will pay dividends for our country, we need to invest in our children. No one in this Chamber thinks money is the only answer to improving schools. We all can come up with examples and instances of chasing bad money with good in education. But it takes money to hire a highly qualified teacher. In fact, I submit that what we are seeing happening in education in America today is what I call ``finally the education system is meeting the marketplace.'' More and more of our teachers are finding they can make a better living doing something else than what they went to school for and were trained for. That is why we have so many teachers leaving education after two or three years, because the market in the private sector will pay them more for their skills and their learning than they can get in education. In my time, when I was in elementary school and high school, perhaps even college, there were not that many opportunities for a lot of the people who were teachers. Most of the teachers in those days were women. Women did not have access openings. You could be a teacher or a nurse and that was about it. Thankfully this country, through various Civil Rights Acts, now has a society where an American woman can become anything she wants. So we have women who are lawyers, doctors, Senators and Congresspeople, truck drivers and welders, and everything else. Therefore, we do not get the teacher on the cheap anymore like we did when I was younger. If you want a good, qualified teacher, you have to pay the money. There is no way around it. If we want to reduce class sizes so kids can learn better and have a better learning environment, that takes some money. If we want to send a poor middle-class kid to college, that also takes some money. If we want to fix up our broken-down school buildings--the average age is almost 50 years old--and get the new technologies in the classroom, that is not free. That costs some money. President Bush does not want to face that fact. As soon as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, he walked away from the job of improving our schools. Take a look at this chart. There seem to be mistakes made on the Senate floor a week ago by my friend from New Hampshire. I thought I might correct the Record. About a week ago, I was on the floor talking about how the President actually cut funding for Leave No Child Behind. Secretary Paige said that was not true, and the Senator from New Hampshire, in the Record of January 10, also said Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin had it wrong and that it was not cut. Just get the executive branch budget book, what he requested in funding for this year. In fiscal year 2002 we put $22.195 billion into the programs authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The President's request in the budget for this year was $22.105, a $90 million cut. One might say that is not much. All right, it is not, but my point is that right after signing the Leave No Child Behind Act the President submits his budget to this Congress and actually cuts the programs authorized by No Child Left Behind Act. The Senator from New Hampshire last week was talking about $90 million from earmarked programs, which he says is not working to begin with, which has virtually no purpose other than to fund special interest activities which is worth $90 million. The fact is there were 25 programs authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. For instance, rural education in fiscal year 2003 was $162 million. This is part of No Child Left Behind. We do not want to leave rural kids behind. It is part of the bill. For this year, President Bush zeroed it out. He requested zero dollars for rural education. School counselors, $32 million in the previous year--this is the previous year before we had No Child Left Behind. These were specifically authorized by No Child Left Behind. These are not earmarked programs, not in the least. These are authorized under the heading of No Child Left Behind Act. Dropout prevention; $11 million to zero for gifted and talented. Zeroed it out. The national writing project, of which I know the Senator from Mississippi has been supportive, $14 million before, is zeroed out. This is just a partial list of the 25 that were cut--either zeroed out or cut--under the President's budget. Again, we in Congress in both the Senate and the House did not follow President Bush's lead. We put money back into these programs. The fact is the money we put in is now cut out by the appropriations bill we have before us in the Senate. The amendment offered by Senator Kennedy puts that money back in. President Bush requested this $22.105 billion for all of the programs under No Child Left Behind, less than what we had the year before. Our Appropriations Committee last year bumped that up to $24.512 billion. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted for that. It passed unanimously. The bill before the Senate today cuts that back down to $22.65 billion. The amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, of which I am a cosponsor and many others are, brings that back up to over $27 billion, to meet the minimal requirements of what we need around the country to support No Child Left Behind. The real question is, Are we going to do it? The President, we know, says, no, we do not have to. Now we are fighting to make sure we live up to our promise we made just 1 year ago when the President signed No Child Left Behind. As this chart demonstrates, President Bush's request for this year for education was the lowest, 2.8 percent, of the last 7 years. One might say you could live with that but for the fact a year ago the President signed into law No Child Left Behind, touted it widely, said it is a new era in education, and we are not going to leave kids behind, and then sends Congress a bill that gives us the lowest increase in education in 7 years. I suppose maybe the President and others might say we will leave it up to the States and local schools. They just got hit with the biggest Federal mandate in education in over 30 years at the same time they are facing the worst fiscal crisis they have had since World War II. Again, why am I spending so much time talking about funding? I suppose I will be accused of saying money is the answer to education. That is not it at all. I support accountability. I support making sure parents of all kids, including poor kids, get a report card and know how their kids are doing so they can hold their schools accountable. I support the law. I voted for it. But I voted for it because there were representations made to us by this administration that they were going to back it. In fact, they walked away from it. I read this weekend that schools in Portland, or may have to cut 24 days from the school year because they have run out of money. More than 100 school districts in 7 States have switched to a 4-day week during this school year because they are out of money. If students are not in class, they are not going to reach the standards we set for them in No Child Left Behind. Right now, the Federal Government is leaving behind 6.2 million students who are not being fully served by the title I program, the main Federal program for educating disadvantaged students. That is what the Kennedy amendment will do, get these title I students back to where we make sure we meet the needs of these title I students. Only 4.1 million out of the 10.3 million needy students are getting the services for which they are eligible.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. First, I thank Senator Byrd for offering this important amendment which provides much-needed funding for our homeland security. Secondly, I thank Senator Byrd for including funding in his amendment to help States implement the President's plan for inoculating our first responders against the smallpox virus. A month ago, on December 13, President Bush announced his policy for vaccinating U.S. citizens against smallpox. He had a tough decision to make, and I support that decision. That same day, the Government began inoculating 500,000 armed services personnel and other Government officials working overseas, people who are most likely to encounter the smallpox virus. The second phase involves inoculating on a voluntary basis first responders and health care workers across the United States against smallpox. It is estimated that up to about 10 million Americans may fall into this category. Senator Specter and I have worked with the administration and Senators Byrd and Stevens since the events of September 11 to provide sufficient funds to produce the smallpox vaccine necessary to inoculate every American against smallpox if that becomes necessary. That money has been appropriated, and I understand the production of vaccine is well underway and that sufficient vaccine will be available by the end of the year. That was a good first step. It is one thing to produce the vaccine, but the administration of the vaccine also costs money. That financial burden will fall on our State and local public health departments. Local public health departments will absorb the costs of the needles and personnel to administer the vaccine. But then again, personnel and equipment and needles only represent a part of the cost to local health departments. That is because the smallpox vaccination is a far more resource-intensive activity than any other type of vaccination activity. For example, costs include specialized training for the vaccinators. You cannot just have someone off the street doing the vaccinating; they have to be specially trained. And since we have not administered the smallpox vaccine for a number of years, people would have to be trained. There would also have to be prevaccination screening for individuals to make sure you don't have something else that might interfere with the vaccination. It will also include postvaccination monitoring because it is estimated that 1,000 out of every 1 million vaccinated will experience a serious adverse effect. Then you add to those costs the cost of extra security for the vaccine. I have received estimates from those involved in public health that the cost of administering the vaccine to State and local health departments under the President's plan may be $85 a person, or $850 million to inoculate 10 million first responders and health care personnel. The amendment before us--the Byrd amendment--includes that $850 million appropriated to HHS for distribution to the States for this first 10 million first responders' vaccination. When I first saw this figure of $85 a person, I thought that was pretty expensive. I remember when I was a kid and got my smallpox vaccination in school. They lined you up, and the public health nurse gave you your vaccination. I cannot believe it costs, in equivalent dollars, $85 to get that vaccination. So I think we here on the Appropriations Committee and on the Oversight Committee and those at Health and Human Services under Secretary Thompson really need to look at this and to make sure these estimates are valid estimates. Again, I know that, as I said, there are other things we have to do, such as prescreening and training of inoculators; there has to be postvaccination monitoring and safety. There are other considerations that perhaps we didn't have maybe 50 years ago when I got my smallpox vaccination. I do think we are going to have to be careful stewards of the public's money to make sure we are getting our money's worth and to make sure every dime is accounted. Some may say we have already provided significant new funding to State and local health departments since the events of September 11, and that is true. Senator Specter and I and the Appropriations Committees have worked hard to provide those funds, and those funds were sorely needed because we had let our public health departments stagnate over the years. The money we provided over the last couple of years was just to begin to repair the benign neglect of our public health system, to upgrade public health monitoring, to increase the lab capacity in our State labs to identify possible bioterrorism agents, to improve communications between CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health departments, and other health providers. That was just a few of the needed improvements that, again, had been consigned to benign neglect over the years. I guess what I am saying is, we should not put a stop to those improvements by forcing our local public health departments to use those funds to administer the smallpox vaccine. We are making strides in this country to bring our public health resources back up to where they should be. We should not be robbing those resources to administer the smallpox vaccine. Local health departments are concerned that the financial burden of administering the smallpox vaccine will force them to make cuts in other areas. For example, Dr. Floyd Novak, president of the New York State Association of County Health Officials and the commissioner of health of the county that includes Syracuse, said, according to an article in the New York Times: We have to transfer staff from other functions to do this. It just cannot be absorbed as business as usual. We need more resources. Dr. Novak said his department would conduct 221 fewer screening tests for breast and cervical cancer and 835 fewer pediatric dental examinations, among other lost services, in the 2 months when vaccinations are to be performed. That is why the amendment we have before us is so crucial. The Byrd amendment we are considering includes funds not only for smallpox vaccinations but also for other important homeland security needs, and it means that Dr. Novak in New York and other county health officials throughout the United States will not have to stop the important functions of breast and cervical cancer screening, pediatric dental examinations, and other functions we sorely need, in order to conduct the smallpox vaccinations. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed amendment. Of the $5 billion amendment that Senator Byrd has proposed, $850 million will go to make sure we have the needed resources to inoculate the 10 million estimated first responders--police, fire, emergency personnel, guardsmen, and others who will be our first responders in this country. These resources would, indeed, ensure we can do that without robbing or stopping the other needed services of our public health departments. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand we are now on the Byrd amendment to the appropriations measure before us; is that correct?