Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been working quite some time now to get a final agreement on how to bring up the FAA reauthorization bill. This is important legislation. We have tried to extend the time, and there has been resistance to that. We have tried to direct a conference; there has been resistance to that. So it is important we have a couple days to have debate relevant amendments and deal with this issue. We are working on both sides of the aisle, and I think we have resolved most of the questions. If there is any one remaining problem, I would like to flesh it out so we can deal with it. I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, October 4, it be in order for the majority leader to proceed to the consideration of S. 82, the FAA reauthorization bill, that the majority and minority managers of the bill be authorized to modify the committee amendments and, further, that only aviation-related amendments and relevant second-degree amendments be in order to the bill.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, three responses: First, if additional time is needed to have a full debate, I think we can work that out. Second, with regard to the leader's objection, I guess to the language in the last paragraph, we can talk about that and probably can work out an agreement to drop that. Third, there have been lots of hearings on this issue over a long period of time and a lot of individual briefings by Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the Senator would be surprised at the amount of knowledge Members have on this subject. Finally, there is one sure way it will be defeated--that is, not to ever take it up. I would like us to get a time as soon as possible, within the very near future, and have that debate and have a vote.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. LOTT. Do I have time, Mr. President?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I rise to pay special tribute to the passing of a 91-year-old Mississippian whose generosity, hard work, and commitment to education touched the hearts and consciences of many all across this Nation. It is the story of a smalltown laundress, Osceola McCarty of Hattiesburg, MS, who lived a quiet life in the Pine Belt region of my State until her $150,000 donation to the University of Southern Mississippi brought her national attention. McCarty's gift established a scholarship to be directed to African American students enrolling at the University of Southern Mississippi who clearly demonstrate financial need. For a woman who rarely left her home, except for trips to the local market and, of course, church, the notoriety certainly brought a change to the lifestyle of Ms. McCarty. She was featured on a CBS television show as one of the ``10 Most Fascinating people of 1995.'' She received a Presidential Citizens Medal, an honorary doctoral degree from Harvard University, as well as numerous other outstanding citizen awards. She was invited to cities throughout the country to share her story of thriftiness and generosity. Ms. McCarty received a sixth grade education and worked her entire life in Hattiesburg, MS, washing and ironing clothes. She has made it possible for others to have the education that she never had. In her book, ``Simple Wisdom for Rich Living,'' McCarty reflects on long, hard days of laboring over steaming kettles of clothes and standing over an ironing board. She stated that she loved her work and she only spent what she needed to. After all the years of hard work and dedication, Ms. McCarty managed to donate her significant gift to the University of Southern Mississippi. ``A smart person plans for the future,'' is what she said when she received numerous bits of recognition. Then she said, ``You never know what kind of emergency will come up, and you can't rely on the government to meet all of your needs. You have to take responsibility for yourself.'' Osceola McCarty will be deeply missed. She was a humble, modest lady. I had the pleasure of bringing her into the majority leader's office. She never got over the fact that people were so surprised and impressed that she saved $150,000 and she gave it to the University of Southern Mississippi. She thought she was just doing the right thing. Her life was an exemplary one that touched us all. We are very proud of her. God rest her soul. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Chairman Chafee has introduced legislation providing for the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I appreciate the leadership that the chairman has taken in sponsoring this bipartisan bill, and anticipate that it will move quickly through the legislative process. I have been a strong supporter of the Foundation and the programs and activities it undertakes to further conservation and management of our nation's fish and wildlife resources from the beginning. Created by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has used its relationship with government, private, and corporate stakeholders to foster interagency cooperation and coordination. It has also brought private sector involvement, initiative, imagination, and technology to bear in solving conservation problems. Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act requires that all federal money appropriated to the Foundation be matched by contributions from non-federal sources, such as: corporations, State and local government agencies, foundations and individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to raise a match of at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal funds. The Foundation takes the appropriated money and places it directly into conservation projects. What does this mean? This means that for every federally appropriated dollar we give the Foundation, an average of $3.17 in on-the-ground conservation takes place. This is something we all should take credit for. Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation from other conservation groups, is that its efforts yield results in the field, and that its projects include its trademark characteristics of partnership building, public-private coordination, community involvement, and sustainable economics. The Foundation has worked with over 700 agencies, universities, businesses and conservation groups, both large and small, over the last decade. These factors have helped the Foundation become one of the most effective conservation organizations in the nation. The Foundation's projects are all peer reviewed by agency staff, state resource officials, and other professionals in the natural resource field, and there is a process to solicit comments from members of Congress concerning grants in a member's district or state. In Mississippi the Foundation has supported many local habitat restoration projects aimed specifically at helping private landowners restore wetlands and riparian areas to improve habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Further, the Foundation is an important partner in the work that local groups are going to market the conservation programs of the farm bill in Mississippi. With funds from the Foundation, local conservation groups are partnering with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to reach farmers who had not participated in conservation programs. Finally, the Foundation is playing a key role in restoring bottomland hardwood habitats critical to migrating neotropical songbirds and other water-dependent wildlife species by working with utility companies to support tree planting throughout the region. These efforts all help in regaining some the state's original wetlands habitats. Mr. President, we are all aware of our deficit reduction challenges and the needs and concerns of our many constituencies. The Foundation provides us with a unique opportunity to meet these challenges and needs. Mr. President, this bill should be acted upon quickly, and the chairman can count on my strong support for the bill's adoption.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today the Senate was poised to take action on Senator Abraham's Millennium Digital Commerce Act. This important measure is aimed at promoting the growth of the ``E-conomy''. Senator Abraham has worked tirelessly over the last several months to get this bill through the Senate. Unfortunately after gaining agreement to bring this bill to the floor today, our Democratic colleagues decided to muck up this legislation. They insisted on attaching non-germane amendments to this crucial ``e- commerce'' legislation. Measures that have absolutely nothing to do with Senator Abraham's high-technology initiative. Once again, the ``do nothing Democrats'' are at work stopping at every point significant legislative momentum. The Senate could easily pass Senator Abraham's bill. It is simple and straight-forward. It promotes jobs, stimulates the economy, and creates savings and opportunities for America's consumers. Instead, in an effort to create yet another log-jam, the Minority Leader is looking for a vehicle to attach every Democratic proposal under the sun. The other side of the aisle, which claims to promote electronic commerce, is doing everything it can to quash Senator Abraham's electronic signatures bill--as well as other important legislation. It is a continuing pattern and practice of the Democrats to deny the American people any legislative progress. The Democrats claim that they want this bill and that they are pro-technology, yet they are doing everything they can to kill this bill. Mr. President, S. 761 establishes the legal certainty of electronic signatures for interstate commercial transactions. It is an interim solution needed until states adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). UETA was recently adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Over the next several years, it will undergo state-by-state consideration--similar to the process followed in implementing the Uniform Commercial Code. The states, high technology and other commercial sectors support Senator Abraham's common sense legislation because it validates the use of electronic authentication technology. A tool that will help the electronic marketplace flourish in the 21st Century. The Administration, not once but twice, formally noted its support for the electronic signatures measure reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee. Both the Commerce Department's letter of support and the Executive Office of the President's Statement of Administration Position were previously entered into the Record. Given the overwhelming support for S. 761, I am surprised and bewildered that the Administration has been working behind the scenes to weaken this measure instead of pushing harder to get the Commerce Committee- reported bill, which the White House supported--passed. Every day, more and more businesses and consumers are conducting their important commercial transactions over the Internet. The World Wide Web, more than any other communications medium, allows users to promptly and efficiently locate vendors, evaluate goods and services, compare pricing, and complete purchases. S. 761 is good for business, good for consumers, and good for the overall economy. I am dismayed and once again disappointed that our Democratic colleagues have thrown yet another monkey wrench into the legislative process. Let's stop playing games and get the people's business done. Let's pass Senator Abraham's electronic signatures bill on its merits-- without tacking on non-germane amendments that they know will kill the bill. If my colleagues from the other side of the aisle are really for the New Economy, they will stop these shenanigans and let us pass a clean Millennium Digital Commerce Act.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today Chairman Chafee has introduced legislation providing for the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I appreciate the leadership that the chairman has taken in sponsoring this bipartisan bill, and anticipate that it will move quickly through the legislative process. I have been a strong supporter of the Foundation and the programs and activities it undertakes to further conservation and management of our nation's fish and wildlife resources from the beginning. Created by Congress in 1984, the Foundation has used its relationship with government, private, and corporate stakeholders to foster interagency cooperation and coordination. It has also brought private sector involvement, initiative, imagination, and technology to bear in solving conservation problems. Mr. President, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act requires that all federal money appropriated to the Foundation be matched by contributions from non-federal sources, such as: corporations, State and local government agencies, foundations and individuals. The Foundation's operating policy is to raise a match of at least 2 to 1, to maximize leverage for our federal funds. The Foundation takes the appropriated money and places it directly into conservation projects. What does this mean? This means that for every federally appropriated dollar we give the Foundation, an average of $3.17 in on-the-ground conservation takes place. This is something we all should take credit for. Mr. President, one of the things that distinguishes the Foundation from other conservation groups, is that its efforts yield results in the field, and that its projects include its trademark characteristics of partnership building, public-private coordination, community involvement, and sustainable economics. The Foundation has worked with over 700 agencies, universities, businesses and conservation groups, both large and small, over the last decade. These factors have helped the Foundation become one of the most effective conservation organizations in the nation. The Foundation's projects are all peer reviewed by agency staff, state resource officials, and other professionals in the natural resource field, and there is a process to solicit comments from members of Congress concerning grants in a member's district or state. In Mississippi the Foundation has supported many local habitat restoration projects aimed specifically at helping private landowners restore wetlands and riparian areas to improve habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Further, the Foundation is an important partner in the work that local groups are going to market the conservation programs of the farm bill in Mississippi. With funds from the Foundation, local conservation groups are partnering with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to reach farmers who had not participated in conservation programs. Finally, the Foundation is playing a key role in restoring bottomland hardwood habitats critical to migrating neotropical songbirds and other water-dependent wildlife species by working with utility companies to support tree planting throughout the region. These efforts all help in regaining some the state's original wetlands habitats. Mr. President, we are all aware of our deficit reduction challenges and the needs and concerns of our many constituencies. The Foundation provides us with a unique opportunity to meet these challenges and needs. Mr. President, this bill should be acted upon quickly, and the chairman can count on my strong support for the bill's adoption.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleague, Senator Byrd. I thank you for your patience.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business the Senate proceed to consideration of the joint resolution at the desk making continuing appropriations for the Federal Government; further, that there be 2 hours of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, with no amendments or motions in order; and, following the conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to third reading and adoption of the joint resolution, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. LOTT. Yes, it has been cleared with the minority leader.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I was under the impression we had already done the Agriculture appropriations bill for this fiscal year, and it did include some disaster and drought money. That conference is meeting right now, or will be meeting during the day and has been meeting, to make sure we are giving proper consideration to the negative impact of low prices on agriculture in America and also to assess as best we can the impact of the drought. The Senate has already considered that. It was subject to amendment. We do also wish to make sure bankruptcy laws are applicable and necessary action is taken. I know Senator Grassley is working, along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to make sure the bankruptcy laws and their benefits are available to our farmers. We certainly are working very aggressively to try to make sure we address these problems appropriately. I don't think we need to revisit a whole number of amendments in this area on the bankruptcy bill itself. I think when we get to bankruptcy we should be on bankruptcy and not use that as an ``in basket'' for every problem that may be on some Member's mind. However, I think I have answered the question. We are working on agriculture needs. Hopefully, within the week we will have an agreement, and we will be voting on that bill either later on this week or early next week.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT. I cannot answer that question at this time.

Mr. LOTT. I wonder if the Senator might want to take this up in the Agriculture Committee and with Members of the Senate who are involved and work with the appropriators on both sides of the aisle. They are working now to try to deal with these issues.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I can't at this time because we must focus on the appropriations bills through the remainder of this week. I will need to discuss this with Senator Daschle and Senator Kennedy and see if we can come up with a way we can handle that issue without it opening up the door to all kinds of other issues that, in many instances, for instance, we may have already considered in the Senate. Having said that, whatever we do, I want to make sure we do it in such a way that entry-level workers, people who do come into restaurants and other small businesses, don't wind up losing their jobs. That is important to them. Also, that we do not wind up doing it in such a way that small businessmen and small businesswomen cannot continue to stay in business. So I think we have to find a way to offset the costs, particularly for small businessmen and small businesswomen who are working on a very small margin of profit. I know I have heard from some. I remember one lady in particular, outside of Atlanta--I think maybe in Marietta--who had a sweet shop. She basically said: If you do this again without some sort of offsets, I cannot make up the difference anymore myself. So we have to make sure it is a balanced approach when we do consider this and however we consider it. However, the answer to your question is any time you and Senator Daschle want to sit down and seriously discuss a way to get this done, I will be ready to do it, once we get through the appropriations process, which will be done, hopefully, at the end of this week.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. LOTT. I would like to get to the bankruptcy reform legislation. I think that is important. We need to have this reform. The system is not working well now, and there is broad support, I think on both sides of the aisle, for bankruptcy reform. I think we could move to the bill if we could have a full debate on bankruptcy and relevant amendments to that. We could probably even work out an agreement that would include consideration of the small businessman's and small businesswoman's needs, and minimum wage needs. But I do not think it is fair the bankruptcy reform legislation, which should be considered in and of and by itself, should become an out-basket for every amendment to be offered on every subject that has already, in many instances, been considered this year, and that it become a Christmas tree for all kinds of unrelated amendments. That is why I moved to a cloture vote because I wanted to get up bankruptcy reform. I would like to go to that. I will be glad to work out some sort of agreement as to how that bill will be considered. But I do not think we have the time right now, with the appropriations bills we have to complete before the end of the fiscal year. Hopefully, the last one, the 13th one, will be up--it will be up on Wednesday. We will be on that bill until we complete it. Hopefully, we will complete it by midnight on Thursday night, which would be the 13th bill. It would be only about the third time in the last 15 or 20 years we will have passed all appropriations bills through the Senate by the end of the fiscal year. So that has been our focus. We have been focusing on the appropriations bills. We will have a conference report in the morning we will need to vote on, the Energy and Water appropriations bill. We will continue to move those bills and the conference reports through. When we get through with that process, then we will look back to what the legislative schedule is going to be. I hope we can come to agreement on how that would be considered.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I did speak at length on Friday afternoon on this issue of education. I will not repeat everything I said then. I do have a unanimous consent request I want to make momentarily. First, I will make some opening remarks. I am the son of a schoolteacher. I went to public schools all my life. So did my wife. So did my children. I care a great deal about quality education, public education, private and parochial education. I will take no backdoor approach to education. We have to have quality education in America. It also has to be safe and drug free. There is a fundamental difference about how we do that. The Democrats think the answer is here in Washington, that nameless and faceless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, know better what should be done in education in Bangor, ME, or Pascagoula, MS. I reject that. I have faith in the students, the teachers, the parents, the administrators, the local officials, and the State officials to do what is right for education. I may or may not have been right on some educational issues over the years. I voted for a separate Department of Education. I voted for it. I do not want too much revisionist history to be made this afternoon. When I was in the House of Representatives, I did that, and I took a pounding for it. My constituents did not agree with me. They did not think we needed a separate Department of Education. I argued at the time that it was being overrun and overwhelmed by the Department it was in, HEW--Health, Education, and Welfare. It was blocked by the other two issues and did not get the attention it should have. I did that. I must say, I do not see where a separate Department of Education has done a whole lot of good for education in America. The education scores have continued to go down, although recently some of the test scores may have gone up. When my children finished high school, I felt they did not have as good an education as I did when I finished high school in Pascagoula, MS. By the way, they went to two of the best high schools in America: Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia and Annandale High School in Northern Virginia. Yet when they got to the University of Mississippi, even though they had been to the public schools of Fairfax County, they did not have as good a background and preparation for college as some of the students in Biloxi, MS. What is going on here? I have been through this education thing for a long time. I feel strongly about it. We must have a better education system in America. What we have is not working. What the Democrats are advocating is the same old thing in the same old box. It will not work. We have to come up with different ideas, new ideas. I repeat one example I went through last Friday. Why is it that elementary and secondary education in America is way down the list of elementary and secondary education programs of the world? I have seen some statistics where we are 17th, and yet higher education is rated the best in the world. How can that be, that elementary and secondary education is not what it should be and higher education is excellent? I have a couple suggestions for you. One, when you finish high school in America, you have a choice of where you go. You can go to work, if you have been in a vocational education program in high school; you can go to a community college or junior college, a technology training program or job training program; you can go to a college, a university, a State university; you can go to a parochial university; or you can go, Heaven forbid, to Harvard if that is what you choose. Every student in America, everyone who finishes high school, can get a college education--with scholarships and loans. I was a beneficiary of what was then known as the NDEA loan. When my own family fell apart, I was trying to get a law degree. I held down two jobs and got an NDEA loan, thank the Lord. It helped me get an education. I am for loans. You also have grants and supplemental grants. With the combination of jobs and the Work-Study Program--jobs, grants, loans, scholarships--you can go to school. Every student may not be able to go to Harvard. Some may have to go to local community college where, by the way, you can get a great education. The community college system in America is fantastic. You have a choice, but not if you are in high school. If you live in a middle school district in a neighborhood, you have to go to the middle school in that neighborhood. If it is no good it does not make any difference. It does not make any difference if it is drug infested. It does not make any difference if it is violence prone. You have to go there, even though there might be a good quality public school right down the street. Right here in the District of Columbia, you have some good high schools. Yet, if the parents want their children to go or the students themselves want to go to a good high school, they are told: No, you can't do that. That does not seem fair. Some of the teachers union people say: Well, the bad schools might not make it. Right. If the school is not doing its job, then get out of the way. Choice is one of reasons we have much better higher education in America. The other one is financial aid, because if you want to go to college, you get a loan. But you do not get a loan if you want to help your sixth-grade student get a computer or if you want to help them with some of their other needs. You cannot have a Coverdell A+ savings account for elementary and secondary education. Oh, no. No, we can't have that. They might choose to save their money and put their students in some other school. So I think we need to think about those differences in how we can improve education overall. Also, I want to make this point. There is talk about, oh, how Republicans are going to starve education. That is total baloney. In fact, in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that will be on the floor this week, the Republicans have a half a billion dollars more for education than the President's budget--surprise, surprise. How could that be? As a matter of fact, in recent years--I will give the statistics here in a moment--Republicans have provided for a 27-percent increase for education. We are not stingy on education. We want education to have the money it needs. We don't want it to be able to waste money on programs, but we want to do it differently. We don't want it to be eaten up here in Washington, DC, where the bureaucracy takes a bite out of it, and a little dribbles down to Atlanta, and a little dribbles down to Jackson, and eventually it gets down to where the student is. No. We say we have faith in the local and State governments and the teachers, the administrators at the local level. We would like it to go down to where the rubber meets the road. Let them make the choices. If they want to put that money into computers, great. If they want to put it into elementary education, or if they want to put it into remedial reading or remedial math, or if they want to fix a roof, great. Of course, the answer again for the Democrats is, we should get into the school building business; the Federal Government should start being in charge of repairing local school building roofs, by the way, at a time when every State in the Nation--every one--has a surplus. Every State has a surplus, and some people say: Well, it might be a few dollars--$34 billion. So how about local and State governments being in charge of building schools? If we start down that road, if we start being in charge of the roofs and building the buildings at the Federal level, we will have to build every one in America. I think once again it will bring more control to Washington, and we should be directing it the other way. I would like to ask consent to add a modification to our resolution we have pending. I do now ask unanimous consent that the pending resolution be modified with changes I send to the desk. Before the Chair rules, let me say to the Senate, these are modifications regarding the vetoed tax bill and all the education benefits that bill would have extended to the American people if it had been signed into law by the President.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Senator for putting it in a reservation in that way. He would like to have a chance to read it over. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Democrats are stating their sense of the Senate on education issues. We have our resolution, and we would like to do the same thing. So I hope they will review the language we have in this modification and agree that it could be added to our resolution. But in the meantime, let me state what is in this resolution. So here is the untold story. This modification, that may be objected to, would simply spell out what was in the tax cut bill the Republicans passed--the Congress passed and sent to the President, and he vetoed it. What has not been told is that there were a lot of education benefits in that bill. In fact, it was interesting to me that 1 day after the President vetoed that bill, providing considerable new incentives for education, the Democrats complained about this Congress' performance on education. But they raised not a single voice to protest the unwise veto when you take into consideration the tremendously enhanced education for millions of Americans that was included in that bill. The President's veto denies 14 million American families from participating in the education savings accounts--that is what I was referring to a while ago--to allow parents to save for their children's education needs at the elementary and secondary level, which they cannot do now. These accounts would have generated $12 billion for parents to provide tutors, pay for books, buy computers, send children to afterschool instruction, and pay for tuition at private schools if their public school failed to make the grade. Twenty million Americans children would have benefited, but the President said no to that. The President's veto denies 1 million students savings to make college more affordable. Our bill would have provided 1 million students in-State prepaid tuition plans. And my State of Mississippi is one of those; I think the State of Maine may be one of those, and a number of other States. They are being denied this prepaid tuition plan which would provide significant tax relief to make college more affordable. Why shouldn't parents be able to save in advance for their own children's college tuition? The financial crunch for college would be eased for 1 million students, but the President said no. The President's veto denies 1 million workers receiving education assistance through their employers. This is something that I believe the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, has advocated for years. In today's competitive economy, education is the key to maintaining skilled workers. One million American workers would have had access to better education or more education, but the President said no. The President has made college more expensive for millions of Americans. The Taxpayer Relief and Refund Act would have allowed recent college graduates to deduct the interest on their student loans. I would have liked to have had that when I graduated. For my own NDEA loan, the interest rate was not that high then, but it would have helped in paying that loan back. This provision is particularly critical for young people trying to hold down their first job and paying off their college debt at the same time. College would have been more affordable for millions of American students, but once again the President said no. The American people would have benefited also by the help given in this bill to schoolteachers. Our bill allowed every elementary and secondary school teacher in America to receive tax relief for their professional development expenses. My mother taught the first grade through the sixth grade but generally first grade. This is something that would have been helpful to her when she was teaching those 19 years. This bill would have made professional development less expensive, but the President said no; that, once again, the teachers should not have this benefit. So I wanted to point out several educational features that are in this bill. All I am trying to add to our resolution is this information so people will be aware of it. With regard to our commitment to education, in the bill that will be coming to the floor--and in bills that have come to the floor in recent years--we have raised the Pell grant funding for our Nation's poorest students to historically high levels. We have increased funding for our Nation's disadvantaged schoolchildren, thanks to the leadership of Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and others. And we have raised the funding by $2 billion over the last 3 years for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Our commitment to our Nation's disabled children certainly outstrips the President, who recommended funding levels this year that do not even keep pace with inflation. Funding for education has increased by 27 percent since 1994. We will continue moving forward. We will continue to provide adequate funding for education. We will continue to work for innovative ways to improve education, and we will have a bill on the floor this very week that puts money where our mouths are. We are not interested just in saying what the President didn't do or what the Democrats didn't do. We are interested in getting the job done. That may mean doing some things differently from the way they have been done in the past. Madam President, I yield the floor.