Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, whatever is left, I believe in fact that it is a model for the kind of program that recognizes talent, effort and initiative, but also considers that we want not just a student body at West Point, but also an officer corps in the Army that represents every segment of society. I also serve currently as Chairman of the Board of Visitors at West Point. We have the opportunity to review the admissions process every year. Frankly, it is a success. The admissions policy at West Point provides an opportunity to broaden, diversify, and make better the institution with some very talented individuals. Let me put it in perspective. I graduated in 1971. We had two African-Americans in my class. Today, African-Americans make up 8 percent of the student body. Frankly, the military has a larger representation of minorities than that 8 percent, but it represents an officer corps that is both diverse and, let me emphasize, talented. There is no sacrificing standards. There is no sacrificing ability. There is no sacrificing patriotism or anything else. We get wonderful people. To me, affirmative action is not about quotas. It is about looking beyond just the people who want to show up in the front ranks because they have gone to good high schools, they have parents helping them along, and all the other things that lead them to even apply to West Point. It is about looking beyond that. It has been very successful. I also suggest that it has been represented by the success of those young men and women in our military forces who are now general officers. The Commandant of Cadets of West Point today is an African- American officer, a graduate of West Point. That would have been exceptional 30 years ago.

Mr. REED. I think that is absolutely right. I think the Senator from Connecticut might have a comment also, and I yield to him for a comment.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REED. That is exactly correct. Frankly, the other argument that is made against affirmative action programs is that they stigmatize the beneficiaries. That could not be further from the truth when it comes to the wonderful officers who have graduated from West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. They walk out well qualified, well prepared, well trained. There is no stigma. It is with pride that they serve their country.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to respond and echo the comments of Senator Kennedy. A year ago, with much hope and great fanfare, we all looked at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act as a positive step forward, a recognition that we could not simply sit back and let education in the United States continue on its then-current course. We also hoped the great rhetoric would be matched with real resources. Sadly, those resources have not materialized. The President, only a few weeks after signing the bill, released his budget numbers for fiscal year 2003 which significantly reduced funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the President's budget contained the smallest increase overall for education funding in years. A small increase, but nothing commensurate with the kind of expectations that were generated by the No Child Left Behind Act. We fear--I fear--that that same reality will be visited upon us this evening in the State of the Union speech, and next week when the President releases this year's budget. There will be no significant increase overall in education spending. The President may point to an increase in title I that he has advertised, a $1 billion increase. That would raise title I funding to $12.3 billion. But let me remind all who are listening, that $12.3 billion is about $6 billion less than the authorized figure in the No Child Left Behind Act. I can remember the discussions, the debate when we were urging a level of title I funding that would be adequate to deal with the challenges we have placed on all the school districts in this country, to be accountable and to perform at a level that is equal to the challenges of this new and very demanding world we face. So the title I money is an increase, but it is insignificant compared to the target we established, agreed on, and fought for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. REED. Indeed, you are correct, I say to the Senator. We were joined by practically every Member of the Senate regardless of party and region. They believed, as we did, in the need for real resources, particularly for the title I program. What the President is proposing is more of a cosmetic increase in title I, rather than the kind of increase we need to do the job. I was listening to Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts. He laid out the current dilemma of local school districts, where they are cutting class days, they are charging for transportation, they are charging for music education. That is in response to the current distressed economy. Don't forget, school districts are now required to do much more, by the Federal Government, by the No Child Left Behind Act. They are in a situation where they have to cut costs. At the same time, they have to respond to more challenges, more mandates from the Federal Government. It is getting worse.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the National Center for Healthy Housing as it celebrates its 10th year of protecting children from residential environmental hazards while preserving the supply of affordable housing. The National Center for Healthy Housing was founded in 1992 as the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing to address the No. 1 environmental health problem facing our Nation's children, childhood lead poisoning, and the threat that lead paint posed to the preservation of our Nation's affordable housing stock. Since its inception, the center has become our country's preeminent source of technical and practical information on reducing the threat of lead paint hazards in housing. The center was responsible for publishing the first comprehensive technical guidelines for evaluating and controlling lead paint hazards in housing, which are still being used today. The center conducted a scientific evaluation of 14 projects funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, (HUD), Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant program. The evaluation yielded important information about the effectiveness of lead hazard control treatments and the results continue to inform national lead poisoning prevention policy. The center also published a groundbreaking scientific study on the relationship between settled lead dust levels and blood lead levels in children. It was this study that highlighted the insidious nature of the hazardous dust generated from lead-based paint. Despite its many research accomplishments, the center is perhaps best known for its unique ability to translate scientific research and Government regulations into results. When HUD published its final lead- safe housing regulation 2 years ago, communities expressed concern about the lack of trained personnel to carry out the rule's requirements. In response, the center administered training to over 14,000 individuals across the country, enabling them to perform the lead-related services required by the rule. When local housing programs expressed a need to better understand the rule's requirements and how to incorporate them into the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs, the center provided training to over 2,000 housing program staff in over 40 communities. Today, as the National Center for Healthy Housing, the center continues its commitment to childhood lead poisoning prevention and is expanding its expertise to other environmental hazards in the home such as mold, allergens, and other irritants. As we celebrate the center's 10th anniversary, I would also like to pay tribute to its founding director, Nick Farr. Mr. Farr retired last October after a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. Much of his professional experience was in the areas of housing finance, housing and urban development, and housing-based lead poisoning prevention. A graduate of Yale Law School, Mr. Farr spent the 1950s and early 1960s in private practice. In 1962, Mr. Farr joined the Agency for International Development at the U.S. Department of State as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Near East and South Asia economic assistance programs. Five years later, President Lyndon Johnson appointed him Director of the Model Cities Administration at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In the 1970s, Mr. Farr was a New York University law professor before joining the U.S. Department of Commerce as General Counsel to the Economic Development Administration in 1977. In 1979, Mr. Farr was appointed General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then in the 1980s, Mr. Farr was Executive Director of the California Housing Finance Agency, Executive Vice President of the Wells Fargo Mortgage Company in California, and Vice President for Field Services at The Enterprise Foundation. During his tenure with The Enterprise Foundation, Mr. Farr served on the board of directors of a nonprofit housing developer based in Baltimore that focused on creating affordable, lead-safe housing units. As a result of his service on this board and his accumulated professional experience, in 1992, Mr. Farr conceived of, and created, the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. As the founding director of the center, Mr. Farr helped spearhead a variety of public and private initiatives to protect our Nation's children from residential lead hazard exposures. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Nick Farr's legacy and the profound impact that the National Center for Healthy Housing has had and continues to have on the creation and maintenance of safer and healthier affordable housing for low-income families across our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we might be able to wait here for procedural niceties, but the million Americans who are desperate for jobs and can't find jobs cannot wait. I urge passage. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Madam President, before recognizing my colleague, Senator Durbin, let me say the Reed-Durbin amendment would provide up to 1 million Americans who are long-term unemployed and were not assisted by the January 8 amendment we passed. This would be a positive stimulus for our economy. These benefits would be paid out until the economy came back and then automatically stop. It also recognizes the structural changes. The high-tech meltdown and the exodus of manufacturing have left many people without jobs. They need our help now. Our economy is in distress. We have to help these hard-working Americans. We cannot wait any longer because as we wait, they invade their 401(k)s, they extend their credit cards, they do anything to make ends meet. We should help them now. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. REED. I yield 10 seconds to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be added to the amendment as a cosponsor. The PRESIDING OFFICER Mr. (Ensign) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and ask for immediate consideration of amendment No. 27, which is at the desk.

Mr. REED. I yield.

Mr. REED. Around 10 or 15 minutes. No longer.

Mr. REED. Reserving my right to object, Senator Collins of Maine, also a cosponsor, wants to speak on this amendment.

Mr. REED. So her rights will be protected.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today to increase funding for the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, to $2 billion for this fiscal year. I am offering this amendment with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Susan Collins. Senator Collins wanted to be here to offer the amendment with me, but she is traveling from Maine in very difficult weather circumstances today, and when she arrives this afternoon she will take the floor to speak on behalf of this amendment. I also thank my colleagues, Senator Dayton, Senator Snowe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Cantwell, Senator Stabenow, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, Senator Kerry, Senator Levin, Senator Corzine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Durbin, who are all cosponsors of this amendment. At this juncture I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee, Schumer, Harkin, Fitzgerald, Murray, Bingaman, and Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. REED. As you can see, this amendment enjoys widespread and bipartisan support. I think it is clear, particularly given the weather today, that support is not unmerited. Let me begin by offering a weather report, if you will. It is today, in Washington, around 30 degrees. But if you are outside, it feels much colder. The low will be somewhere around 14 degrees. As you go along the country: Albany, NY, today, 17 degrees the high; Baltimore, 29 degrees; Chicago, 18 degrees; Cleveland, 15 degrees; Des Moines, IA, 12 degrees; Detroit, MI, 18 degrees; Milwaukee, 14 degrees; Omaha, 12 degrees; and my State, Rhode Island, they list the high as 23, but this morning when I left at 5 a.m. it was 5 degrees, but with the wind chill factor it was below zero. This amendment is important because there are Americans who are suffering because of the cold. But it is not just about cold weather in certain parts of the country at this time of the year; the LIHEAP program is also important since it covers those hot stretches in the summertime when energy bills in the Southwest and the Southeast are astronomical and impact adversely low-income Americans. We need this program throughout the year. We particularly need it today to protect people from the cold, but, as I said, those individuals who live in Alabama or Arkansas or Texas or southern California need LIHEAP in the summertime and it should be there for them, as it should be for those people who struggle today with the cold weather in the Northeast and Midwest. In fact, yesterday the coldest place in America was Embarras, MN, minus 26 degrees. It is one thing to be in Embarras, but it is also something else to be freezing in Embarras. So I think we have to do something to ensure that we can protect low-income Americans from the cold that is affecting them today. Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the LIHEAP program. They knew that people struggling with all sorts of expenses--raising a family, providing food to put on the table--they needed help in these cold months in the Northeast and those hot spells in the Southeast, to provide for assistance so they could afford the energy they needed. During his campaign, President Bush promised to fully fund LIHEAP to help these low-income families meet their needs for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. If he stood by his promise, the President would demand the $2 billion for which we are asking; rather, he has proposed cutting that money. This year, despite rising energy prices, colder weather, and increased unemployment, the President's budget has proposed to cut LIHEAP by $300 million. This cut would deny assistance to literally hundreds of thousands of Americans. The appropriations bill that we are considering today does restore part of this funding. I commend and thank Senators Stevens and Byrd and Specter and Harkin and their staffs for their hard work to maintain this funding, but we want to restore an additional $300 million to bring it up to the $2 billion level that will just be, in terms of purchasing power, equal to last year. We want to do that and I hope we can do that today through this amendment process. As I said, we could add this $300 million, but we are not requesting new funding. This amendment simply requires the administration to give the States the $300 million the Congress provided in the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act. Congress provided $300 million in LIHEAP funding 2 years ago to help these families meet their needs when energy costs increase, when there are significant disconnections of utilities because if you can't pay the gas bill or electric bill, eventually you will be disconnected and you will be without any type of energy. All of these efforts in terms of funding LIHEAP have been urged on the present administration by the Governors. They understand because they are right there in the trenches, if you will, dealing with the issue of people literally freezing today and sweltering in the summertime. Cutting heating assistance for seniors and low-income Americans is not the way to go, particularly when it is juxtaposed against proposed significant tax cuts. If we can't at least provide people with a warm shelter in the winter and a cool shelter in the summer when thinking about large-scale tax cuts, to me, seems somewhat inappropriate. LIHEAP, even with our amendment, will be seriously underfunded. Providing this $2 billion in regular funding to the program will just equal the purchasing power of last year. What it does not recognize is that energy prices are soaring. Today, on the front page of the Providence Journal, there is an article about the cold wave that is sweeping our region of the country, but also the fact that in order to keep up with the demand for oil, which is our principal fuel, because the demand is so huge, our Governor had to suspend regulations to allow delivery drivers to work through periods of time when they are normally required to rest. What is also happening is the prices are jumping up because of uncertainty in Venezuela and uncertainty in the gulf. This combination of increased prices, cold temperatures, and also an economy that sees more and more people unemployed, is the perfect storm, if you will, when it comes to requiring assistance for heating throughout the Northeast in particular. There is something else that happens when people are challenged for energy, when they do without. They take their own improvisational means to keep warm. They turn the electric stove on and open up the oven. They go out and buy portable heaters. It is more than coincidence that the number of house fires shows a sharp increase in the months of cold weather in the Northeast because people are improvising. So this is another danger that must be recognized. This amendment simply allows people to stay warm in the winter and to escape scorching heat in the summertime. It is something that is basic. It is something I believe we should support extensively. I am pleased and proud that so many of my colleagues have joined Senator Collins and me on a bipartisan basis. I hope this is one amendment we can quickly adopt and include in this omnibus appropriations bill. I hope, also, we can at least signal to those people who are looking for some modest assistance in these cold days that we have heard their calls, we are responding to our political leaders at the State level, the Governors, and we are giving them the resources to at least keep people from freezing in a very difficult time.

Mr. REED. I asked in my initial statement that we call up amendment No. 27. I ask now it be called up.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. No.

Mr. REED. I have no objection. I think I can assure the Senator that I will be finished before 4 o'clock.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent, I call up amendment No. 40.