Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the situation on the floor at the present time?

Mr. HARKIN. Is there a time agreement on that amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. I have 15 minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume then at this time. I may ask for a bit more. Mr. President, I looked at this amendment, and all I can say is here we go again. How many times do we have to go down this road of saying that the disciplinary problems in our schools are because of kids with disabilities, and if we only can get ahold of those kids with disabilities and do something about them, then we can straighten out the discipline problem in our schools? We have been down this road many times before. Fortunately, this body has recognized the importance of IDEA's protections in the past, and I hope we will do so again. We as a nation decided sometime ago that segregation was wrong. I am not talking about segregation of races. We decided that a long time ago. That was wrong. I am talking about the segregation of people with disabilities from our society. We as a country said it was wrong to take kids from their families and send them halfway across the State to some alternative setting, when they could have had a decent, adequate education right in their own community, in their own school district, in their own neighborhood, if they were just given some appropriate support. The reason I feel so deeply about this is that it is very personal to me. My brother was sent away halfway across the State from our small hometown when he was a kid because he was deaf. He was put in an institution to get his education--segregated from society, from his family, from his friends, from the town in which he grew up. Well, those were the old days. I thought we as a society had progressed beyond that. When we passed the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 1975--my first year here in the Congress--we said we are not going to do that anymore; to the maximum extent possible, we are going to integrate kids with disabilities into our local educational institutions, and we are going to provide the support services those kids need to get an education. I can remember when my oldest daughter was in grade school and when the first couple of kids with disabilities came into the classroom. There was a bit of a hue and cry. Some of the parents didn't like it. They thought it was going to take attention away from the other kids because they would have to pay more attention to the kids with disabilities. But because of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, the school had to take these kids and provide the services. A wonderfully amazing thing happened. These young kids in that classroom, who perhaps had never associated with anyone their age with a disability, all of a sudden became drawn to these two kids who were in the classroom with their disabilities. They became more sensitive to these kids, and the kids with disabilities found they could associate with kids without disabilities. I saw a wonderful thing happen, and I saw the families who later on said: This is not a bad deal. It sensitized them to the fact that this could happen to any one of them any day of the week. Any one of us could become disabled--mentally or physically--at any time. It shows the vulnerability of human nature, but it also shows that kids with disabilities can learn and reach their maximum potential. Do we want to turn the clock back? Do we want to go back to those days when we took those kids out of that setting and put them in a separate setting and said: No, you can't be in a classroom with other kids. I do not mean to overblow this amendment, but that is exactly what this amendment will do. This amendment, in section 2(A), says: A child with a disability who is removed from the child's regular educational placement under paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public education which may be provided in an alternative education setting if the behavior that led to the child's removal is a manifestation of the child's disability as determined under subparagraphs-- And so on. What that says is that a child with disabilities can be removed. Yes; schools must continue to give him a free appropriate public education-- but in an alternative education setting. I read that to mean a segregated setting, someplace across town, someplace where they segregate kids with disabilities. Under current law, you have to provide a free appropriate public education but before you remove a child you have to consider certain factors, including whether the behavior was a result of their disability. This would turn the clock back to days when schools could segregate. You say: What if that kid acted up and harmed someone? Don't you want him removed, put in a setting where they cannot harm someone? Yes, I want safety in the classroom, too, but think about this before you vote on this. This is an example I will tell you that occurs every single day in classrooms all over America with kids with disabilities. I will use a young deaf kid again because I am so familiar with that. A young deaf kid is in a classroom. They are using a TV monitor to show some educational programs. The classroom teacher inadvertently or advertently did not provide for captioning or the school did not provide for the captioning. The student who is deaf cannot understand what is going on. This may go on for a couple of days until finally the kid who is deaf starts acting up. He may reach over and hit the kid next to him, may grab the kid next to him, may throw something. So a school takes that kid out of the classroom. Under the Sessions amendment, there is no inquiry as to whether or not the kid was provided the adequate appropriate supportive services. Instead, this deaf child could be segregated based on the fact that the school failed to provide appropriate services. Under present law, there would be a due process hearing as to why that kid acted up. They might bring in a counselor and a deaf interpreter. Maybe the kid will say: I am mad because I can't understand what is going on. The Sessions amendment says: We don't care; get him out of here. In addition, I have a great deal of empathy with our elementary and secondary school teachers all over America, many of whom have not been trained and who do not really know how to handle kids with disabilities. They have big classrooms. They have 28, 30 kids in a classroom, and they get a couple of kids with disabilities in their classroom. What are they going to do? The real problem is that teachers aren't getting trained and no one is providing supportive services to these kids as is supposed to be done under law. They create a disturbance. They are not provided the appropriate supportive services so they can learn in that setting. The teacher is at wits end. He or she would say: I've got to get these kids out of here. I can't teach the rest of these kids. The kids tell the parents: We have kids acting up all the time; they are disturbing the classroom; I can't study. The parents call the principal. The principal says get those kids out of there. I feel sorry for those teachers. The answer is not to segregate the kids. The answer is to meet our obligations--our moral obligations and our legal obligations--to make sure these kids get the supportive services they need to learn in that environment. It seems to be cost is no objection when they want to segregate kids and put them in an institution. We don't care what it costs. But in order to provide the kind of supportive services they may need in an integrated classroom, why, well, that costs too much money. It does not cost too much money. It can cost more to segregate those kids than to provide the services they need to help them. As I said, I have a lot of empathy with these teachers because I have been in those classrooms. I feel sorry for those teachers. They do not have the support. But, now they are going to get help because on this bill, under an amendment offered by Senator Hagel and this Senator, adopted unanimously by the Senate, we are finally going to provide full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which we have been talking about since 1975. That amounts, over the next 10 years to about $181 billion that the Federal Government has now said to the States: We are now going to give the money out we have been talking about for the last 26 years. Now we can get the supportive services these teachers need, and if we couple that with class size reduction and reducing the number of kids in classrooms, then we have the right formula. We have the right formula not only for kids with disabilities, but for kids without disabilities. I know people get disturbed. They hear about all the discipline problems in our classrooms, and I am not saying there are not discipline problems. But I have sat in this Senate Chamber, and I have heard Senator after Senator in the past talk about the gun incidents at Columbine, San Diego, Pennsylvania--and then they talk about discipline, and it always comes down to kids with disabilities. I challenge them or anybody else to show me one of those violent instances where a child under an IEP, an Individualized Education Program, a kid with a disability was involved. Why is it when we have shootings, we have guns, and we have things that happen in the schools, the first thing that comes on the floor of the Senate is to beat up on the kids with disabilities? The discipline amendments don't go after kids without disabilities; they always go after kids with disabilities. I ask: Why? Why? They are the most vulnerable in our society. We had a tough time reauthorizing IDEA a few years ago. Senator Jeffords and I, Senator Kennedy and others, worked hard on it. We got all sides to agree on what we would do when we finally reauthorized. And now we have the funds in this bill to pay for it. Before we go after kids with disabilities, let's identify the real problems. The Sessions amendment says to parents with kids with disabilities, tough luck, you are out of the picture. We will take those kids and kick them out and segregate them and you don't have anything to say about it. Why are we picking on the kids with disabilities? Honest to God, I just don't understand this. Do I disagree we have some discipline problems in school? No, we do have discipline problems in school. Of course we do. But it is not because of kids with disabilities. I challenge someone, please, step forward and show me the data that it is kids with disabilities causing these problems. I don't want kids in the classroom who will hurt themselves or hurt others. If a kid is truly violent and can't be controlled, even with supportive services, that kid should not be there. We have set up through a long history of 26 years processes and procedures to ensure that kids with disabilities have due process, as do their families. IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, allows schools to remove those kids. A GAO report released in January concluded that special education students who are involved in serious misconduct are being disciplined in generally a similar manner to regular education students based on information that principals reported to us in our review of the limited extant research. That means IDEA is not limiting a school's ability to discipline children with disabilities. Again, what does the Sessions amendment do? I repeat, under the guise of discipline, it allows us to resegregate these kids, to turn back the clock. The second thing it does is allow schools to cease services to these kids. Section C allows the children not only to be taken out but to cease services. A kid with a disability needs services, needs support; a kid can be not only segregated but have services cease. That is adding insult to injury. What are you going to do, throw them out on the street? Think about a kid with a serious disability, who is already frustrated by their disability. And now you will stop the services and throw them out on the street? Talk about a timebomb waiting to happen. The one thing we have always mandated under discipline procedures for kids with disabilities is you have to keep the services going to these kids. Nobody is going to throw them out on the streets. But the Sessions amendment allows services to cease. The Sessions amendment also creates a program that allows parents to take money from the public schools to go into private schools. Under the amendment, the local educational agency could wash its hands of responsibility for that child. Again, the Federal dollars end up in private schools without any accountability as to how those dollars get spent. The local educational agency washes its hands. We have been down this road before. If I had a dollar for every iteration of this amendment we have had on this floor in 20 years, I would be a rich man. They always say, ``We will tweak it here and tweak it there,'' but it always comes down to the same two or three things: segregate them out, cut out the services, and let them go out on the streets. It always comes down to that. I have had my say. I will continue to speak out on this as long as I am on this Senate floor. I don't mean tonight; I mean as long as I am in the Senate. These families with kids with disabilities, a lot of times families are at their wit's end. A lot of times the parents are working. A lot of times it is a single parent. They are working hard, have a kid with a disability who requires a lot of attention, a lot of care, a lot of love, and the last thing they need is to get kicked in the teeth by the Senate. The last thing they need is to have to go out and try to find a lawyer to fight it in court. I thank the Chair's indulgence, but this is an issue I care very deeply about. There are ways of addressing this issue. This is not the way to do it. Don't go after the most vulnerable kids when it cannot be proven. You cannot show me the data. That is all I ask. Show me the data where it is kids with disabilities who are causing these problems. Show me the data and make me a believer. I have lived with this too long. I have worked on this issue too long. The data is not there. If you can show it to me, I will change my mind. Amendment No. 802 to Amendment No. 358 My amendment is at the desk and I ask my amendment be reported.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I want to make it clear what my amendment does. It basically takes the Sessions amendment, leaves most of it the way it is, but it just says, No. 1, you cannot segregate; you cannot segregate these kids--unless you follow the law. Under the present law, you can segregate kids if they are violent. But before you segregate you have to follow certain processes and procedures. The second thing my amendment says is you cannot cease services; you cannot stop the services to these kids even if they have been removed from the classroom. Finally, it deletes the last section that would allow local school districts to hand over federal dollars, without any accountability on how those dollars are being spent. I think it is a reasonable and a logical approach to this problem, as I have said many times before. I do not mind people who want to have better discipline in the classrooms. I sent two kids through public schools. Yes, I want discipline in the classrooms. I want a well- structured classroom just as the Presiding Officer does for his kids and grandkids, I am sure. But this is not the way to do it. This is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to do it under the procedures and processes that will ensure the kids with disabilities have the services and the support they need so they will not be segregated ever again in our society. I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, together with a bipartisan group of colleagues, I am pleased to be introducing this legislation to address two of the most glaring problems facing children across the globe: malnutrition and the lack of educational opportunity. I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar, who have so strongly supported nutrition assistance for many years, in developing this legislation. An estimated 300 million poor children around the world either do not receive food at school or do not go to school at all. About 130 million of the world's children, 60 percent of them girls, are presently not attending school. With the abundance of food here in America and in other nations, this reality is absolutely unconscionable. Our bill, the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001, will provide U.S. agricultural commodities and other assistance to boost child nutrition in connection with educational programs in developing countries. I salute former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole for their work in promoting the Global Food for Education Initiative, and President Clinton for recognizing its merits early on and beginning a pilot project for this year. The bill permanently adds this new program to existing U.S. foreign food assistance programs, such as P.L. 480 and Food for Progress. Our bill will apply the producing power of American farmers and agriculture-related industries to help families, villages and even nations escape the treadmill of poverty by supporting both improved nutrition and education for children. It also offers nutritious food and learning as an alternative to sending children down the dead-end path of exploitive work in sweatshops, mines or factories. The International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program established in this legislation will be carried out through private nonprofit groups, cooperatives, and intergovernmental organizations. Under the bill, USDA will purchase U.S. commodities and cover the costs of making them available in developing countries to provide nutrition for children in connection with educational programs. Funding would begin at $300 million in fiscal 2002 and increase to $750 million in fiscal 2006. The problems of global malnutrition and limited education are so large that participation by other countries is crucially important. Accordingly, this bill specifically encourages other donor countries and the private sector to support the program. If concerned nations will come together and make a firm commitment, we can end child hunger, child poverty and exploitive child labor and lift families and nations from poverty. This bill continues our Nation's proud tradition of helping to build a better future for children in developing countries and I am proud we are introducing it today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask, unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, together with a bipartisan group of colleagues, I am pleased to be introducing this legislation to address two of the most glaring problems facing children across the globe: malnutrition and the lack of educational opportunity. I very much appreciate the opportunity to work with Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar, who have so strongly supported nutrition assistance for many years, in developing this legislation. An estimated 300 million poor children around the world either do not receive food at school or do not go to school at all. About 130 million of the world's children, 60 percent of them girls, are presently not attending school. With the abundance of food here in America and in other nations, this reality is absolutely unconscionable. Our bill, the George McGovern-Robert Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Act of 2001, will provide U.S. agricultural commodities and other assistance to boost child nutrition in connection with educational programs in developing countries. I salute former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole for their work in promoting the Global Food for Education Initiative, and President Clinton for recognizing its merits early on and beginning a pilot project for this year. The bill permanently adds this new program to existing U.S. foreign food assistance programs, such as P.L. 480 and Food for Progress. Our bill will apply the producing power of American farmers and agriculture-related industries to help families, villages and even nations escape the treadmill of poverty by supporting both improved nutrition and education for children. It also offers nutritious food and learning as an alternative to sending children down the dead-end path of exploitive work in sweatshops, mines or factories. The International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program established in this legislation will be carried out through private nonprofit groups, cooperatives, and intergovernmental organizations. Under the bill, USDA will purchase U.S. commodities and cover the costs of making them available in developing countries to provide nutrition for children in connection with educational programs. Funding would begin at $300 million in fiscal 2002 and increase to $750 million in fiscal 2006. The problems of global malnutrition and limited education are so large that participation by other countries is crucially important. Accordingly, this bill specifically encourages other donor countries and the private sector to support the program. If concerned nations will come together and make a firm commitment, we can end child hunger, child poverty and exploitive child labor and lift families and nations from poverty. This bill continues our Nation's proud tradition of helping to build a better future for children in developing countries and I am proud we are introducing it today. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and ask, unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Hines and Brian Altman, two interns in my office, be granted floor privileges for duration of debate on S. 1.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask to be recognized for 60 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I make it clear again: On May 16 an amendment was offered by Senator Enzi of Wyoming that would have redistributed $240 million of the $1.2 billion that is going out for school repair. That amendment was defeated by a vote of 62-37. That would have only redistributed $240 million. This amendment before the Senate takes the whole $1.2 billion and puts it into Impact Aid. If a Member was opposed to taking $240 million out of the school renovation repair for fire and safety code on the Enzi amendment, that Member surely ought to be opposed to taking $1.2 billion and putting it into Impact Aid and taking it away from our schools for meeting safety and fire codes in our local school districts.

Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't know how this amendment all of a sudden came out of the clear blue sky. We heard it was noncontroversial. This amendment robs States of millions of dollars they get on July 1 of this year. This is money we put in the appropriations bill last year. It was agreed to by the Republicans, by the Democrats, by the House, by the White House. This is all signed off on. This is $1.2 billion that goes to States for emergencies--safety, repairs to schools, to meet fire code violations. This is the same amendment--this amendment that is before the Senate--that was defeated May 16 by a bipartisan vote of 62-37. This is basically the same amendment. We have already defeated it 62-37. If Members vote for this amendment, they are voting to cut already appropriated funds that are going to States. Members are shifting it to important but a small number of schools in a few States. Before Members vote, see how much money is going into your State beginning on July 1 of this year. If this amendment passes, your State will not get one cent of this money for emergency repairs to meet fire and safety codes in their schools. This amendment was defeated on May 16--check the record--by a bipartisan vote of 62-37. This money is already appropriated. I already have the amount of money that has been allocated going to each State. The money is going out on July 1. Your school districts are counting on getting this money to meet fire and safety codes, to repair and renovate their schools. This is not building new schools. This is simply to make your schools safe. I hope people will reject this amendment as we rejected it before by a vote of 62-37 on May 16.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, Senator Feingold, and Senator Kohl to introduce the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the terrible unfairness that exists today in Medicare payment policy. According to the latest Medicare figures, Medicare payments per beneficiary by State of residence ranged from slightly less than $3,000 to well in excess of $7,000. For example, in Iowa, the average Medicare payment was $2,985, nearly 45 percent less than the national average of $5,364. In Idaho, the average payment is $3,592, only 66 percent of the national average. This payment inequity is unfair to seniors in Iowa and Idaho, and it is unfair to rural beneficiaries everywhere. The citizens of my home State pay the same Medicare payroll taxes required of every American taxpayer. Yet they get dramatically less in return. Ironically, rural citizens are not penalized by the Medicare program because they practice inefficient, high cost medicine. The opposite is true. The low payment rates received in rural areas are in large part a result of their historic conservative practice of health care. In the early 1980's rural States' lower-than-average cost were used to justify lower payment rate, and Medicare's payment policies since that time have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost States. Two years ago I wrote to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and I asked them a simple question. I asked their actuaries to estimate for me the impact on Medicare's Trust Funds, which at that time were scheduled to go bankrupt in 2015, if average Medicare payments to all states were the same as Iowa's. I've always thought Iowa's reimbursement level was low. But HCFA's answer surprised even me. The actuaries found that if all States were reimbursed at the same rate as Iowa, Medicare would be solvent for at least 75 years, 60 years beyond their projections. I'm not suggesting that all States should be brought down to Iowa's level. But there is no question that the long-term solvency of the Medicare program is of serious national concern. And as Congress considers ways to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program, the issue of unfair payment rates needs to be on the table. The bill we are introducing today, the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2001 sends a clear signal. These historic wrongs must be righted. Before any Medicare reform bill passes Congress, I intend to make sure that rural beneficiaries are guaranteed access to the same quality health care services of their urban counterparts. Our legislation does the following: requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments under the original Medicare fee-for-services system by adjusting payments for items and services so that no State is greater than 105 percent above the national average, and no State is below 95 percent of the national average. An estimated 31 States would benefit under these adjustments, based on the Health Care Financing Administration's projections of the 1999 payment data. Requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments to rural practitioners who bill under Medicare Part B by narrowing the range of the Geographic Payment Classification Indices, GPCIs. Currently, there are dramatic geographic differences in payments for physician services with little scientific data to support the disparity. Providers in rural areas are under-compensated. This act would restrict the range for each GPCI so that no GPCI is greater than 1.05 or less than .95 of the standard index of 1.00. Practitioners who work in rural areas will benefit from this change in geographic adjusters. It ensures that beneficiaries are held harmless in both payments and services, ensures budget neutrality, and automatically results in adjustment of Medicare managed care payments to reflect increased equity between rural and urban areas. This legislation simply ensures basic fairness in our Medicare payment policy. I urge my Senate colleagues, no matter what State you're from, to consider our bill and join us in supporting this commonsense Medicare reform.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my colleagues, Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, Senator Feingold, and Senator Kohl to introduce the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2001. This legislation addresses the terrible unfairness that exists today in Medicare payment policy. According to the latest Medicare figures, Medicare payments per beneficiary by State of residence ranged from slightly less than $3,000 to well in excess of $7,000. For example, in Iowa, the average Medicare payment was $2,985, nearly 45 percent less than the national average of $5,364. In Idaho, the average payment is $3,592, only 66 percent of the national average. This payment inequity is unfair to seniors in Iowa and Idaho, and it is unfair to rural beneficiaries everywhere. The citizens of my home State pay the same Medicare payroll taxes required of every American taxpayer. Yet they get dramatically less in return. Ironically, rural citizens are not penalized by the Medicare program because they practice inefficient, high cost medicine. The opposite is true. The low payment rates received in rural areas are in large part a result of their historic conservative practice of health care. In the early 1980's rural States' lower-than-average cost were used to justify lower payment rate, and Medicare's payment policies since that time have only widened the gap between low- and high-cost States. Two years ago I wrote to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and I asked them a simple question. I asked their actuaries to estimate for me the impact on Medicare's Trust Funds, which at that time were scheduled to go bankrupt in 2015, if average Medicare payments to all states were the same as Iowa's. I've always thought Iowa's reimbursement level was low. But HCFA's answer surprised even me. The actuaries found that if all States were reimbursed at the same rate as Iowa, Medicare would be solvent for at least 75 years, 60 years beyond their projections. I'm not suggesting that all States should be brought down to Iowa's level. But there is no question that the long-term solvency of the Medicare program is of serious national concern. And as Congress considers ways to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program, the issue of unfair payment rates needs to be on the table. The bill we are introducing today, the Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2001 sends a clear signal. These historic wrongs must be righted. Before any Medicare reform bill passes Congress, I intend to make sure that rural beneficiaries are guaranteed access to the same quality health care services of their urban counterparts. Our legislation does the following: requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments under the original Medicare fee-for-services system by adjusting payments for items and services so that no State is greater than 105 percent above the national average, and no State is below 95 percent of the national average. An estimated 31 States would benefit under these adjustments, based on the Health Care Financing Administration's projections of the 1999 payment data. Requires HCFA to improve the fairness of payments to rural practitioners who bill under Medicare Part B by narrowing the range of the Geographic Payment Classification Indices, GPCIs. Currently, there are dramatic geographic differences in payments for physician services with little scientific data to support the disparity. Providers in rural areas are under-compensated. This act would restrict the range for each GPCI so that no GPCI is greater than 1.05 or less than .95 of the standard index of 1.00. Practitioners who work in rural areas will benefit from this change in geographic adjusters. It ensures that beneficiaries are held harmless in both payments and services, ensures budget neutrality, and automatically results in adjustment of Medicare managed care payments to reflect increased equity between rural and urban areas. This legislation simply ensures basic fairness in our Medicare payment policy. I urge my Senate colleagues, no matter what State you're from, to consider our bill and join us in supporting this commonsense Medicare reform.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the authorizing committee, and as now chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on education, we put two programs in here in 1994. One was the targeted program. That is fine. But then we also put in there what we call the education finance incentive grant, which is otherwise known as effort in equity. In other words, a lot of States that need targeted grants, their State governments are not doing enough to target their money towards the poorer school districts. So we added--not just targeted--but we added-- effort and equity. We wanted to see what was the State doing to equalize the funding between the richest districts and poorest districts. So we added that in as a formula also. This amendment only speaks to the targeted program and does nothing about effort and equity. A 1998 GAO report found that Federal education programs provide an additional $4.73 for each poor student for every dollar provided for all children. In contrast, States provided 62 cents for each poor child for every dollar provided for all children. Senator Landrieu's amendment seeks to improve this record for the Federal dollars. We can always do better, but Federal dollars alone cannot correct the serious deficiency experienced by many low-income school districts. We must also encourage states to help these districts. The Targeted Grant and the Education Finance Incentive Grant, in tandem, would be a more effective way of helping get additional resources to local school districts. By funding the two grants, we accomplish two goals. First we do a better job of targeting Federal funds. Second, we also provide States with a modest incentive to also help poor schools. The Federal Government cannot do this job alone. As we proceed to the appropriations bill in the next few months I would like to work with the Senator from Louisiana to accomplish our mutual goal of getting more resources to the poorest school districts.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in opposition to the Landrieu amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for just 30 seconds more.

Mr. HARKIN. For these men and women, who earn an average of $28,000 to $40,000 a year and have families to support, those expenses add up, especially for new officers. This amendment would help provide a deduction for these people when they pay for those expenses out of their own pocket. Again, I thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for being willing to work out this amendment.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 784 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank my colleagues, the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for helping work out this amendment. They have done a great job. I really appreciate it. But I also believe all of our policemen and our firefighters and our volunteer firefighters are going to appreciate it even more because what happens right now is a lot of our law enforcement officers, firefighters, and volunteer firefighters spend a lot of money out of their own pockets for work-related expenses. This amendment would help cover their out-of-pocket expenses for their guns, bulletproof vests, uniforms, some transportation costs, and equipment for volunteer firefighters. Just to give you an example of what I am talking about, police officers in Altoona, IA, pay for their own guns, which can cost up to $800. In Des Moines, they have to pay for their guns, ammunition, shoes and boots, and part of the cost of their $600 bulletproof vests. For some police, when they go to training, the training is paid for but the transportation to get there is not paid for, so they have to pay for that out of their own pocket.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Health Committee heard testimony last week by 2010 there will be a shortage of 725,000 nurses. This will grow to 1.2 million nurses by 2020 as the baby boom generation retires and needs more care. Many other crucial professions are also in short supply. The number of unfilled pharmacist positions in community practice nationally rose from 2,700 vacancies in February of 1998 to over 7,000 by February of 2000. Relative to education, over the next 10 years we must hire 2.2 million new teachers to replace those who are retiring or leaving the classroom. My amendment will go a long way to improving the supply of teachers, nurses, and other health professionals. It would provide a 50-percent tax credit of up to $2,000 a year for the cost of repaying educational loans for nurses, teachers, and other health professionals who serve in federally designated health professional shortage areas. It would be paid for by eliminating the huge tax break for the wealthiest of Americans provided in this bill. It would strike the reduction in the top rate. Again, that is precisely what this amendment does. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the NEA.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Johnson, I call up amendment No. 730.