Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to honor Stephen J. Rapp, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. Steve Rapp has been a trailblazer in my home state of Iowa since he began his career in public service in his early twenties. Back in 1972, he won a seat in our House of Representatives, and at the tender age of twenty-five, he came within a hair's breadth of winning the Third District Congressional seat. He did eventually join us on Capitol Hill a few years later when he served as Staff Director and Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency. After his stint in Washington, Steve returned to Iowa and served another four years in our House of Representatives where he distinguished himself as a leader on anti-crime legislation. Steve was instrumental in passing our state's rape shield law and our strong anti-drunk driving regulation. And he wrote the law that forbids release pending appeal of criminals who are guilty of forcible felonies. In 1993, Steve was appointed as a United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa, and under his stewardship, the Northern District became a national torchbearer in criminal prosecutions. Steve filed America's first prosecution under Title II of the Brady Law. He also filed the nation's first prosecution under the federal ``Three Strikes'' law, and the first prosecution under the Lautenberg amendment that prohibited convicted domestic violence offenders from owning a gun. But Steve wasn't content merely to do a stellar job on the day to day duties of United States Attorney. He became a member of the Attorney Generals Advisory Committee, serving on the working Group on Interior Enforcement Immigration Law and on Subcommittees handling violence against women, organized crime, victim crime, juvenile justice and Native American issues. In addition, he served as chair of the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and has held forums across Northern Iowa to educate citizens and help reduce methamphetamine use. When I think of all the work Steve Rapp has done for our state and our country, I'm reminded of the words of President John F. Kennedy who once noted, ``Law is the strongest link between man and freedom.'' Steve Rapp has worked tirelessly to keep the people of Northern Iowa and America free, free from crime and violence, and free to raise their families and live their lives in safe, secure communities. Steve has been honored by groups ranging from the Afro-American Community Broadcasting to the NAACP to the Black Hawk County Legal Secretaries Association. And it is my pleasure to add myself to that list and offer my deepest gratitude for his long and distinguished record of service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, these are the programs that go right down to our local cops on the beat in our towns and communities all over America, especially the Byrne grant program, which has done much in my State and in the upper Midwest to fight the methamphetamine plague that has surged all over this country. The Bush budget cuts it out--a $1.5 billion shortfall. The Leahy amendment puts that money back to help support local law enforcement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution regarding recent reports coming out of the U.S. Postal Service. On Tuesday, the United States Postal Service in an effort to cut costs announced that it may eliminate Saturday mail delivery, thus reducing home delivery to five days a week. I believe this would be a terrible mistake. Saturday delivery is an essential service, and we should make sure it continues. Eliminating the sixth day will lead to inevitable delays for mail delivery as well as higher costs to pay overtime to our postal workers. So my resolution would put the Senate on record as strongly opposed to a cut in service. The amendment will also call on the governing body of the Postal Service to take the necessary steps to ensure the essential service goes uninterrupted. Cutting out the Saturday delivery would represent a major change for the service, a service that many Americans, especially our seniors who don't use e-mail, have depended on for decades. People across America depend on the services of the Postal system. Millions of working families depend on the mail for their pay checks, millions of seniors depend on the mail for their Social Security checks, and millions of poor Americans can't afford computers and don't have access to things like e-mail which many of us take for granted. We should not let them down.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to honor Don C. Nickerson for his outstanding work as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa. Don Nickerson has been a leader in the state of Iowa for thirty years, starting back when he served as Student Body Vice President and President of the Senior Men's Honorary at Iowa State, and as President of the Black Law Students Association at Drake Law School. After graduating from law school, he distinguished himself in community service, private practice, and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District before being appointed as U.S. Attorney for the district in 1993. During his years in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Don became known as a passionate and innovative leader. He established the Quad Cities Branch Office of the U.S. Attorney's office--the first ever interagency branch office established in the United States. He also served as Chair of the Health Care Fraud Subcommittee of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee and worked closely with Attorney General Reno to combat health care fraud. And Don was a personal mentor to Iowa's youth because he knew that reaching out to children early in life goes a long way in preventing them from straying in the future. In fact, Don was instrumental in establishing Camp DEFY--a camp and mentorship program to help kids stay away from drugs, alcohol and tobacco in Iowa. But Don has never been content to confine his service to the official duties of the U.S. Attorney. He's brought his passion for service to the classroom, serving as an Instructor with Drake University Legal Clinic and Des Moines Area Community College. He's brought it to civic organizations like Partnership for a Drug Free Iowa, the United Way of Central Iowa and the Iowa Commission on the Aging. And he's brought it to professional organizations like the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Demand Reduction Subcommittee of which he was chair and the Iowa State and National Bar Associations. When I think of the work that Don Nickerson has done for our state and our country, I'm reminded of a phrase from the Old Testament: ``The Law is a light.'' Don Nickerson has worked tirelessly to keep that light shining bright in Iowa and to make our state a safer, more just place to raise our children and live our lives. Don has served our state with honor and loyalty, and it is my pleasure to offer my deepest gratitude for his contributions.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and thirty-seven other Senators in introducing the Animal Disease Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control Act of 2001. This legislation helps make sure that our country is on a solid footing to protect our country's public and economy from the astounding losses that could come from an animal disease such as Food and Mouth Disease, FMD, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, BSE, arriving on our shores. As we know all too well from observing the experience of the EU, either of these diseases could potentially wreak tens of billions of dollars in lost livestock and markets if they were ever found in the U.S. BSE, with its suspected linkages to New Variant Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease, could cause some Americans to suffer its cruel, fatal effects. Fortunately, we have an animal and public health system that has successfully prevented either of these diseases from entering our country. This is testimony to the men and women who work each day to protect our nation from foreign animal diseases. But the price of this success is unremitting vigilance. We must ensure there are no gaps in our defenses. The sheer volume of travel and commerce between the United States and the European Union is placing unprecedented strain on our animals health system. This legislation will give Congress a clearer picture of where the potential risks to animal and human health may lie, and what must be done to prevent them. It will provide Congress and the public with a blueprint for what is currently being done, and what must be done in the future. The health of our animals is inextricably linked with the health of our populace and economy. It is crucial to continuing to provide a safe, abundant supply of food. I hope this legislation will be passed quickly, to send a clear message that Congress stands ready to do what it takes to ensure that our success in protecting our shores from FMD and BSE remains unbroken.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Specter, on the introduction of the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2001.'' I want to commend Senator Specter for having the leadership and foresight to introduce legislation which will broaden the ability of federally-funded scientists to pursue stem cell research, under certain, limited conditions. From enabling the development of cell and tissue transplantation, to improving and accelerating pharmaceutical research and development, to increasing our understanding of human development and cancer biology, the potential benefits of stem cell research are truly awe-inspiring. Stem cells hold hope for countless patients through potentially lifesaving therapies for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. Also exciting is the possibility that researchers may be able to alter stem cells genetically so they would avoid attack by the patient's immune system. Currently, for example, researchers are conducting groundbreaking research on the devastating condition commonly known as ``Lou Gehrig's disease.'' They are injecting stem cells into the spinal cords of moneys in an attempt to treat the disease. And they are reporting very promising early results. But the potential benefits of this study and others could be delayed or even denied to patients without a healthy partnership between the private sector and the federal government. While market interest in stem cell technology is strong, and private companies will continue to fund this research, the government has an important role to play in supporting the basic and applied science that underpins these technologies. The problem is that early, basic science is always going to be underfunded by the private sector because this type of research does not get products onto the market quickly enough. The only way to ensure that this research is conducted is to allow the NIH to support it. The Department of Health and Human Services ruled last year that under the current ban on human embryo research, federally-funded scientists can conduct stem cell research if they use cell lines derived from private sources. Unfortunately, the current administration has placed this ruling under review. We are anxiously awaiting the outcome of this review. In the meantime, I am pleased to join my colleagues in stating my strong support for stem cell research. There is broad agreement, across party lines, that this research is important, it could save lives, and it should not be halted. In its report, ``Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research,'' the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) concludes that stem cell research should be allowed to go forward with federal support, as long as researchers were limited to only two sources of stem cells: fetal tissue and embryos resulting from infertility treatments. And they recommend that federal support to be contingent on an open system of oversight and review. NBAC also arrived at the important conclusion that it is ethically acceptable for the federal government to finance research that both derives cell lines from embryos and that uses those cell lines. Their report states, ``Relying on cell lines that might be derived exclusively by a subset of privately funded researchers who are interested in this area could severely limit scientific and clinical progress.'' The Commission goes on to say that ``scientists who conduct basic research and are interested in fundamental cellular processes are likely to make elemental discoveries about the nature of ES [embryonic stem] cells as they derive them in the laboratory.'' NBAC's report presents reasonable guidelines for federal policy. Our bill bans human embryo research, but allows federally-funded scientists to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos if those embryos are obtained from IVF clinics, if the donor has provided informed consent and the embryo was no longer needed for fertility treatments. The American Society of Cell Biology estimates that 100,000 human embryos are currently frozen in IVF clinics, in excess of their clinical need. In addition, our language requires HHS and NIH to develop procedural guidelines to make sure that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical, sound manner. As it stands today, stem cell research in the private sector is not subject to federal monitoring or ethical requirements. Mr. President, stem cell research holds such hope, such potential for millions of Americans who are sick and in pain, it is morally wrong for us to prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the progress that has been made. As long as this research is conducted in an ethically validated manner, it should be allowed to go forward, and it should receive federal support. That is why Senator Specter and I have joined together on legislation that will allow our nation's top scientists to pursue critical cures and therapies for the diseases and chronic conditions which strike too many Americans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Specter, on the introduction of the ``Stem Cell Research Act of 2001.'' I want to commend Senator Specter for having the leadership and foresight to introduce legislation which will broaden the ability of federally-funded scientists to pursue stem cell research, under certain, limited conditions. From enabling the development of cell and tissue transplantation, to improving and accelerating pharmaceutical research and development, to increasing our understanding of human development and cancer biology, the potential benefits of stem cell research are truly awe-inspiring. Stem cells hold hope for countless patients through potentially lifesaving therapies for Parkinson's, Alzheimers, stroke, heart disease and diabetes. Also exciting is the possibility that researchers may be able to alter stem cells genetically so they would avoid attack by the patient's immune system. Currently, for example, researchers are conducting groundbreaking research on the devastating condition commonly known as ``Lou Gehrig's disease.'' They are injecting stem cells into the spinal cords of moneys in an attempt to treat the disease. And they are reporting very promising early results. But the potential benefits of this study and others could be delayed or even denied to patients without a healthy partnership between the private sector and the federal government. While market interest in stem cell technology is strong, and private companies will continue to fund this research, the government has an important role to play in supporting the basic and applied science that underpins these technologies. The problem is that early, basic science is always going to be underfunded by the private sector because this type of research does not get products onto the market quickly enough. The only way to ensure that this research is conducted is to allow the NIH to support it. The Department of Health and Human Services ruled last year that under the current ban on human embryo research, federally-funded scientists can conduct stem cell research if they use cell lines derived from private sources. Unfortunately, the current administration has placed this ruling under review. We are anxiously awaiting the outcome of this review. In the meantime, I am pleased to join my colleagues in stating my strong support for stem cell research. There is broad agreement, across party lines, that this research is important, it could save lives, and it should not be halted. In its report, ``Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research,'' the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) concludes that stem cell research should be allowed to go forward with federal support, as long as researchers were limited to only two sources of stem cells: fetal tissue and embryos resulting from infertility treatments. And they recommend that federal support to be contingent on an open system of oversight and review. NBAC also arrived at the important conclusion that it is ethically acceptable for the federal government to finance research that both derives cell lines from embryos and that uses those cell lines. Their report states, ``Relying on cell lines that might be derived exclusively by a subset of privately funded researchers who are interested in this area could severely limit scientific and clinical progress.'' The Commission goes on to say that ``scientists who conduct basic research and are interested in fundamental cellular processes are likely to make elemental discoveries about the nature of ES [embryonic stem] cells as they derive them in the laboratory.'' NBAC's report presents reasonable guidelines for federal policy. Our bill bans human embryo research, but allows federally-funded scientists to derive human pluripotent stem cells from human embryos if those embryos are obtained from IVF clinics, if the donor has provided informed consent and the embryo was no longer needed for fertility treatments. The American Society of Cell Biology estimates that 100,000 human embryos are currently frozen in IVF clinics, in excess of their clinical need. In addition, our language requires HHS and NIH to develop procedural guidelines to make sure that stem cell research is conducted in an ethical, sound manner. As it stands today, stem cell research in the private sector is not subject to federal monitoring or ethical requirements. Mr. President, stem cell research holds such hope, such potential for millions of Americans who are sick and in pain, it is morally wrong for us to prevent or delay our world-class scientists from building on the progress that has been made. As long as this research is conducted in an ethically validated manner, it should be allowed to go forward, and it should receive federal support. That is why Senator Specter and I have joined together on legislation that will allow our nation's top scientists to pursue critical cures and therapies for the diseases and chronic conditions which strike too many Americans. I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I inquire; I had to leave the floor momentarily when we were on the education provision. I am ready to send my amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator again for his very eloquent statement and his comments. Certainly, there is no one in either body on Capitol Hill who has worked longer and harder and, I might add, more successfully on the education of all our kids than has the Senator from Massachusetts. When I was listening to the Senator speak, I was thinking about the prospect of kids who do not have a lot of money who want to get an education, who have achieved well in school, have studied hard. They have made their grades. They have made good grades. The Senator pointed that out in his remarks, that they would have the same desire to go to college as anyone else. Was the Senator saying that because of the financial barriers, these kids who are high achievers--they are bright, they have studied hard, they have gotten good grades--have some shield that keeps them from advancing on?

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his strong support of education. No one works quite as hard as Senator Wellstone for kids in this country, and especially for disadvantaged kids. He is right. We have to make sure that we invest both in title I and also in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Again, on the top end of the Pell grant, this is what enables those who are going to college. The way I see it, this is the vote on the budget and whether or not we are going to have the priority that the American people want us to have or whether we are going to go down the pathway of providing almost unconscionable tax benefits and relief for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Weigh it. This is the vote. We are not even talking about all of the tax cuts that go to wealthiest 1 percent. We are just taking about one- third of the taxes the wealthiest 1 percent will fund for this education program. This is the vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. This will get it to over 60 percent of fully funding the title I program.

Mr. HARKIN. I talked about helping disadvantaged students with reading and math skills in the title I program.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I am delighted to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, our amendment ``Leave No Child Behind,'' the third one says that all students, including special needs students, will master challenging subject matter and Federal education programs will be held accountable and focus on practices proven to work. The title I program provides children who have fallen behind in reading and math with the extra help they need to catch up. However, only one-third of the students who need this extra help are aided. In addition, the Federal commitment to help educate students with disabilities has lagged behind our goal to provide what we in Congress said 26 years ago, that we would endeavor to provide to the States and local communities at least 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure to support the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In our amendment, we have increased investments in title I and in IDEA to help schools meet the tough new accountability standards. I might add, it will also provide much needed relief to local property taxpayers who are struggling to finance their schools. This amendment we have sent to the desk will fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to that level we stated 26 years ago that we wanted to do; that is, provide at least a minimum of 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditures. A fourth part of our amendment addresses that all students will attend classes in a school building that is safe, in good repair, and equipped with the latest technology. Fourteen million children attend classes in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. Last month, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a report card on the Nation's infrastructure, on everything from roads and bridges to wastewater treatment, dams, everything--all of the physical infrastructure of America. The one item that got the lowest grade was our public schools, a D-minus. It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our kids see are shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most run down places they see are the public schools. What signal are we sending to them about the value we place on their education and their future? This amendment triples funding for the school repair and renovation program that we began in last year's appropriations bill. Fifth, all students will be able to attend college and get the skills they need to succeed in the global economy without incurring a mountain of debt. Over the past two decades, the purchasing power of the Pell grants has fallen by 25 percent. Loans right now are the principal source of aid for colleges. In this amendment we increase the maximum Pell grant by $600 next year. I think, again, if you talk to any of your constituents, your families out there who have kids in college, there is a new phenomenon happening in America. Kids are going to college. They want to have a better life. They want to succeed. They are piling up mountains of debt by borrowing money to go to school. This is unlike anything we have ever seen in the past. This addresses that by increasing that maximum Pell grant. We also increase investments in the TRIO Program to make sure some of our most vulnerable students can succeed in college. We also expand loan forgiveness for teachers and increase our investment in Federal job training programs so every adult will have the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. Again, we know there are a lot of our young people who will not go to college, will not finish college. There are a lot of people in our workforce today who have not gone to college. They need skills upgrading, job retraining, because they are shifting in their jobs. We cannot forget about them either. So our amendment puts the necessary investments in job training programs. Last, our amendment also maintains our commitment to fiscal discipline by devoting a commensurate amount to reducing the public debt. Reaching all these goals will require real investments amounting to $250 billion over the next 10 years. But dedicating these funds is simply a matter of priorities. Again I repeat, $250 billion is about one-third as much as the tax cut that President Bush wants to give to the most wealthy 1 percent of Americans. I will use this chart to show the President's tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent is about $697 billion. The President's education plan is $21.3 billion. The amendment before us provides $250 billion over 10 years, or slightly more than one-third--one-third of what the President wants to give in tax cuts, just to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Then, when we consider we are looking at the baby boom generation coming on retirement and the problems we are going to have in Medicare, looking at our economic future, the best investment we can make this decade is to invest in education and make it our top priority. We are not alone in this. The American people understand this full well. In poll after poll after poll, the American public supports education overwhelmingly. It is not even a close call. These are some of the recent surveys. In fact, one was done by a polling firm that tends to poll more for Republicans that joined with a polling firm that tends to poll more with Democrats. This is what they came up with. The question was about promoting teaching as a career and raising teacher pay to keep good teachers--91 percent favored that. Make college more affordable by expanding loan and grant programs and increasing student aid--91 percent approve of that. Reducing class sizes, using higher pay to attract good teachers, expanding before- and after-school programs--87 percent approved. Providing funding to repair schools in poor condition and building new schools and wiring classrooms for computers--87 percent approve. Providing full funding for Head Start, expanding day-care programs in local schools, providing tax credits to help families pay for kindergarten and preschool--85 percent approve. Requiring the Federal Government to live up to its obligation of 40- percent funding for special education--85 percent approve. The way I see it, this is not even a close call. I hate to say this since we are talking about education. This ought to be a no-brainer. The American people are on this side. They are telling us in clear, unequivocal terms: Make education your top priority. Invest in these programs. I have not seen the polls, but I challenge anyone to tell me that they can get these kind of approval ratings for a $697 billion tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Yet that is what the budget has before us. We are elected to represent the people of America. We are all Senators. Yes, I represent Iowa, but I represent the people in Minnesota and everywhere else, too. We are U.S. Senators. We represent the country as a whole. What the people of America are telling us is to invest in education. Madam President, this amendment provides the necessary funds. So over the next 10 years we can fully fund Head Start for all eligible 3 and 4 year olds, double the title I funding for disadvantaged children, and we can fully fund the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. We can quadruple professional development, teacher training, and skills upgrades. We can reach our goal of hiring 100,000 extra teachers to reduce class sizes all over America so that no class has more than 18 students in all grades 1 through 12. We can triple the funding for modernization of school repair, and we can raise the maximum Pell grant by $600 next year.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from Nevada. Having been to his State and having visited a couple of cities in Nevada and seeing how the increase in population is there, I know Senator Reid understands full well the necessity to invest in education. It is a terrible burden they have in the State of Nevada now in terms of building facilities and getting teachers in classrooms they need to meet the requirements of their rapidly growing population in that State. I appreciate the kind remarks of Senator Reid about me, but I want to return it in kind by saying teachers and students, not just in Nevada but all over the country, have no greater friend than Senator Reid. I do appreciate his strong support of this amendment. I also want to mention the cosponsors of this amendment: Senators Wellstone, Kennedy, Murray, Bingaman, Clinton, Dayton, Rockefeller, Corzine, Mikulski, Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Kerry, Landrieu, Daschle, and Schumer. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of the groups supporting this amendment. It is a lengthy list.

Mr. HARKIN. I will need 15 minutes.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. And that shield is money. There are going to be other amendments that might focus on one thing or another. My second question for the Senator: Is it his belief, from all of his long experience involving education, that we have to look at the whole? Each one of these parts isn't a whole. It is important to increase Pell grants, but that alone won't solve it. It is important to increase title I, but that alone won't solve it. It is important to increase funding for individuals with disabilities, but that alone won't solve it. Is it the contention of the Senator that this has to be put together?

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate Senator Byrd bringing that up. Our country was founded on an ideal that no matter who you are or the circumstances of your birth, no matter how much money your parents have or don't have, if you are willing to work hard, study, and get a good education, you can be a success. This is the American dream. Unfortunately, the dream is slipping away. It is slipping because our classrooms are overcrowded, our schools are crumbling, and our students don't have the educational tools from preschool to college they need to learn. For years we have been nibbling around the edges for a solution; we tweak a program here, tweak another program there, but we have not made a real dent in education reform. The fact is, now only 2 cents of every $1 is invested in education. That is not enough. Ask the constituents in Montana or Iowa, in any town meeting: Of every Federal dollar we spend, how much goes for education? Ask your constituents. I have gotten answers from 25 cents to 10 cents to 12 cents to 8 cents. I have never gotten the right answer, which is 2 cents. Two cents out of every Federal dollar that we spend goes to education. That just is not enough. It shows that education is not a top priority. In this new century, we need a new plan for American education, a bold, daring plan to demand true accountability from our schools but also to provide the resources they need to meet the standards and to be held accountable. It is one thing to say you will hold the schools accountable but then you will not give them the resources. As my colleague and my chief cosponsor, Senator Wellstone, has said many times, you are setting them up for failure when you do that. If you want schools to be accountable--and we all do--we have to get them the resources they need. We need to use our budget surpluses to prepare for the future by paying down the debt and investing in education. That is why, along with the many other Senators, I am proposing a plan to truly leave no child behind. Cosponsors of this amendment are Senators Wellstone, Kennedy, Murray, Bingaman, Clinton, Dayton, Rockefeller, Corzine, Mikulski, Reed of Rhode Island, Reid of Nevada, Sarbanes, Kerry, Landrieu, and Daschle. We have heard a lot of talk about the importance of education. We have heard it from our President, President Bush. He said: ``My administration has no greater priority than education.'' That was during the swearing-in ceremony for Dr. Paige as the new Secretary of Education. I was there. I heard him say that. He also said: ``It's important for us to have the national goal of every child being educated in the best public school system possible on the face of Earth.'' That was President Bush on CNN Columbus, OH, February 20. The President said there is no greater priority than education. Let's check the facts and look at the President's budget priorities about which Senator Byrd just spoke. Now we see reality versus rhetoric. The President said he wants to leave no child behind; he wants education to be the No. 1 priority; he wants our kids educated in the best public school system possible on the face of the Earth. And here is the budget. The Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent, over 10 years, is $697 billion. Keep in mind this is for the wealthiest 1 percent. Bush's education plan is $21.3 billion over 10 years. What are the priorities? A tax cut for the wealthiest, $697 billion; education, $21.3 billion. The President's entire budget devotes $1.6 trillion of the surplus to tax cuts. Only $21.3 billion is for education. The tax cut that the President is proposing is 76 times greater than the investments he would provide for education. These are the wrong priorities. It is time to put the priorities right. Our amendment will truly leave no child behind. The education plan we are sending to the desk in this amendment provides $250 billion in education over the next 10 years; the President's plan is $21.3 billion. Our investment is 12 times that proposed by the President but about one-third of what he wants to give in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Let me repeat that: Our investment in this plan is about 12 times what the President wants to put in education over the next 10 years: $250 billion in our plan, $21.3 billion in the Bush plan. The $250 billion we have in our plan is still about one-third as much as the President wants to give to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. So our priorities are to put the money in education and not in tax breaks for the wealthiest. This amendment will put the resources in place so we truly can hold schools and teachers accountable. We meet the following five goals by the end of this decade. The first goal is all children will start school ready to learn. If that sounds familiar, that is because that was the first goal set up by the Governors Commission which was headed by a Republican Governor, I might say, 11 years ago. So that ought to be the first national goal in education, to have all children ready and able to learn. We know that a child who participates in Head Start is more likely to graduate from high school and less likely to end up in jail or on welfare. However, less than 70 percent of children eligible for Head Start are receiving it. Our amendment would fully fund the Head Start Program so every eligible 3- and 4-year-old child will get the services they need so they can start school ready to learn. No. 2, all students will be educated by a highly qualified teacher in a classroom that is not overcrowded. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. They found students in smaller classes performed better. We know that. But now we have the data to show it. These students were less likely to drop out of high schools, more likely to graduate in the top 25 percent of their classes. Our amendment increases our investment in the Class Size Reduction Program to meet our goal of hiring 100,000 extra teachers in 2005, and to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 to no more than 18 children. Our amendment would also provide a fourfold increase in professional development to provide our teachers with the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills they need. We hear a lot of talk about improving reading skills. If you want to improve reading skills, get smaller class sizes so the teachers can work with the students. I yield what time he may want to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HARKIN. I will absolutely show that is their top priority.

Mr. HARKIN. I will show that shortly on my charts.

Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will shortly send an amendment to the desk that deals with education, which I think should be the No. 1 priority of this Congress. Quite frankly, the President has said it should be our No. 1 priority. The American people think it should be our No. 1 priority. Yet in the budget before the Senate, education is somewhere down towards the bottom. This amendment I will shortly send to the desk will move it up to the top tier.