Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Collins, in support of a resolution to declare March 2nd Read Across America Day. We submitted this resolution, S. Res. 211, on February 15. Read Across America Day is an annual reading motivation and awareness program begun by the National Education Association, and supported by more than 40 national non-profit and association partners, including the American Library Association, American Association of School Librarians, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, International Reading Association, Learning First Alliance, the Library of Congress--Center for the Book National Institute for Literacy, National PTA, Reading Is Fundamental, and YMCA of the USA. The celebration includes activities in schools, libraries, and communities across the nation that bring reading excitement to children of all ages. March 2nd is a fitting day for such a celebration of reading, since it is the birthday of Theodore Geisel, otherwise known as Dr. Seuss, the beloved children's author and illustrator. His books have inspired, and continue to inspire, generations of children to discover the joy of reading. Moreover, Dr. Seuss' inventive use of rhyme make his books an enormously effective tool for teaching basic reading skills to children. According to the latest results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), from 1992 to 2000 the reading scores of fourth graders remained flat. What is most alarming is that the gap between the highest and lowest achieving students is widening--the average score for top students increased, while the average score for bottom students declined even more significantly. These results indicate that our students need a great deal of help to learn to read and achieve. Addressing the reading deficiency of our Nation's students is essential, and clearly an area where Federal resources and support can bring about positive change. This is why I was pleased to join Senator Collins in supporting the inclusion of the Reading First and Early Reading First programs in the No Child Left Behind Act signed into law earlier this year. These programs provide professional development for teachers to improve reading instruction and support reading initiatives for younger children. Coupled with resources for up-to-date and engaging school library books through the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries program, which I authored and offered with Senator Collins as an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, we are taking steps to boost children's reading skills and love for reading. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution in order to show our commitment to the importance of literacy and to celebrate the joy of reading.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, yesterday the President's Council of Economic Advisers released a report claiming that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for keeping the recession more mild than it otherwise would be. They claim that the already passed tax cut has raised prospects for a solid recovery and that by the end of this year there will be 800,000 more jobs than there otherwise would have been. The report of the Council of Economic Advisers is somewhat curious. It is obviously self-serving. It does make a fundamental mistake. It tries to suggest that the Bush tax cut, which centered on the reduction of income tax rates principally benefiting the highest paid and most affluent Americans, is the cause of the slight stimulus we have seen over the last few months when in fact, to be honest about it, it has been the proposed rebates championed initially by the Democrats, not part of the initial Bush proposal, that has provided some stimulus effect over the last several months. That goes to the nature of, first, a rebate directly to a whole host of Americans across a broad income range. Those rebates typically were spent, and that seems to be the case in this situation. The reality of the Bush tax proposals is that, first, they were not effective this year. Much of his tax cut proposal does not become effective until the following fiscal year. As a result, to make claims that his tax concept is a part of this stimulus effect is rather suspicious on its face. To suggest, as I think is the suggestion, that this ``tax plan'' will lead to further stimulus of our economy is also suspicious. What it will lead to, which is already apparent, is increased Federal deficits. This year, because of the poor economic performance of the country, we have seen the Federal deficit materialize. But as we go forward, most of that deficit can be attributed not to adverse economic circumstances but to the tax cut. As we deny resources that are necessary to have this Government function and operate effectively in many different areas, we will see the deficit grow and grow. The problem there becomes, in order to fund Federal programs, we must go into the debt markets. We must borrow more money. That puts pressure on interest rates, and that helps retard our economic progress and our growth. The notion that the Bush plan has materially aided and assisted our recovery or softened the recession is very dubious. What is also unfortunate is that in the last few weeks, as we have debated a possible stimulus package, there have been several proposals, one of which would be broadening the rebate we enacted last spring to include those Americans who did not pay income taxes but paid a great deal of taxes in terms of payroll taxes and other forms of wage taxation. I don't know how many times I have been in the Chamber and heard Republicans assail that approach as being inappropriate, ineffective, and inefficient. What is curious is that the one aspect of last spring's tax plan that helped the rebates through the income tax system is being not only trumpeted as a Bush proposal but that exact or closely similar approach extended to payroll taxes is being derided and criticized by Republicans in the Senate as being something unworthy of the Senate. I disagree. Frankly, last year if we had adopted a proposal to cut taxes that was targeted to lower income Americans, that was broad to include not just rebates for income taxes but rebates for payroll taxes, we would have seen a much less severe recession than we are seeing right now. In effect, what we have today is the Council of Economic Advisers not providing good economic analysis but providing political spin on the tax plan we passed last year. I hope when we go back and reconsider the stimulus package, we will understand what stimulates the economy and not what is appealing to the political winds of the moment. Again, we are in the grips of a recession. There are multiple causes. The President's tax proposal as originally proposed certainly did very little, if anything at all, to help soften the recession. I hope that will become more and more apparent. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Johnson- Hagel-Reed-Enzi Safe and Fair Deposit Insurance Act of 2002, SFDIA, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I am proud to be one of the authors of this legislation, as I believe it will continue to ensure a strong and safe insurance system for our banks, and most importantly for the consumers that put their trust in that system. The legislation before us also seeks to end the pro-cyclical method now in force, which tends to burden institutions in bad economic times, and not prepare for the future during good economic times. We need to change that, and I think this bill begins to finally address this important issue in a very thoughtful manner. The bill that my colleagues and I have introduced has five major components. The first element addresses the most non-controversial aspect of this issue, and that is merging of the two insurance funds. This will obviously strengthen the reserve fund for all banks and savings institutions, rather than diffusing that strength between two funds. The second component is that of coverage limits. Although this issue has attracted quite a bit of discussion and controversy over the past few years, this is nonetheless an important issue for many banks and consumers alike. In this section, the legislation authorizes the level of general coverage to rise to $130,000, by indexing for inflation from 1974, when the level of coverage was at $40,000. Going forward, the bill proposes to index coverage for inflation every five years in increments of $10,000. The bill also suggests that coverage for retirement accounts be set at $250,000 now, and that those accounts also be subject to indexing in the future. Lastly, on coverage issues, the legislation would allow for additional coverage for municipal deposits beyond the $130,000 level. The SFDI Act would also allow for greater flexibility for the FDIC to charge insurance premiums. Since 1996, the FDIC has been prohibited from charging premiums to banks that have the highest rating, as long as the reserve ratio was above the ``hard target'' of 1.25 percent. Our legislation would remove that prohibition, as well as effectively eliminating the hard target, and would instead substitute a range for the fund. Again, these actions will lend the FDIC the necessary flexibility to manage the funds in a much more institution-friendly manner, particularly by relieving pressure on them during the worst business cycles. In addition, the FDIC will be able to give a one-time assessment credit to institutions, as well as allow for ongoing credits to manage the fund. These credits will in all likelihood give most institutions, if they are well-managed and well-capitalized, the ability to avoid premiums for several years down the road. The FDIC will also be authorized to provide cash rebates to institutions should the fund ever exceed 1.50 percent. Although I would prefer to address the issue of coverage for municipal deposits in another context, I am confident that during the upcoming legislative process there will be a good debate on the issue, and the Senate will be able to work its will on the issue. I think it is important to note that the introduction of this bill will mark the beginning of a strong, vigorous and positive discussion on the vital issue of deposit insurance. This has become the cornerstone of our banking system's integrity, and it is imperative that the U.S. Congress insure that it remain strong, healthy, and workable for many years to come for both financial institutions and consumers alike.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the proposal before us today to repeal the estate tax rests on profound misunderstandings of this tax, and particularly on who pays this tax. We have been hearing our colleagues talk about the death tax and that it is stalking every American. It turns out that in 1999, 2.5 million adults died; 49,870 estates incurred a tax liability. A very small fraction of Americans face the estate tax, but I point out, they are the wealthiest Americans. They are not the Social Security recipients. They are not individuals who have worked all their lives and are now with a small pension facing their last days. These are the wealthiest Americans. It turns out that with the unified credits, with the ability to gift funds to individuals, there is an opportunity--in fact, one that is taken by most Americans--to avoid the estate tax. So this is not a death tax; this is a tax on the very wealthiest Americans. And this is a tax that was really, in many respects, copied from the example of our British brethren across the sea, who saw the corrosive power of wealth that is passed on from generation to generation to generation. I have heard some of my colleagues on the Republican side talk about how the death tax is an insidious weapon of large corporations to beat down the small workers and farmers in this country. Nothing is further from the truth. This whole estate tax not only is designed to raise revenue, it is also designed to ensure that great fortunes are not passed down, becoming great and powerful without any check whatsoever. There is another issue with respect to estate taxes. People talk about it as so unfair because it is a double tax: You get taxed when you earn the money and you get taxed again when you pass away. It turns out that a significant amount of estates consist of unrealized capital gains. Economists have estimated that 36 percent of the wealth in all taxable estates is in the form of unrealized capital gains: someone purchases a home, someone purchases stock, they hold that stock for years, and at the time of their death, the estate tax is imposed. But also at the time of death, these assets are passed on to their heirs on a stepped-up basis. So without an estate tax, much of this gain would never be taxed. There is also another myth that we have heard time and time again; that is, really what happens is that this onerous tax takes away from the family farms and the small businesses of America; that they have to liquidate their assets; that they cannot pass them on; that they have to pay everything they have earned just to satisfy this tax. First of all, recognize this tax applies to very few Americans at all. And second, recognize that, despite all the discussions about the family farms being forced into sale because of this tax, no one can produce any real evidence. The New York Times did a report, talking about an Iowa State University economist who searched out and tried to find farms that were forced into sale because of the estate tax. He could not find any. Indeed, they cited officials from the American Farm Bureau. They could not find any concrete examples of a farm that was forced to be sold to pay for estate taxes. So the myth of the family farm being eliminated-- the sons and daughters standing there being denied their inheritance because of the estate tax--is a myth. There is also the suggestion that if we repeal the estate tax there will be no effect on charitable contributions. That, too, is a misnomer. There have been studies on this question. One study was by David Joulfaian, a Treasury Department economist, who estimated that eliminating the estate tax would reduce charitable bequests by about 12 percent, or about $1.3 billion in 1998 dollars. This would have a deleterious effect on something that we all want to encourage; that is, contributions to charities. So for these reasons, and many more, I do not think repeal of the estate tax is something that should become permanent. It will also have an impact on State budgets because there is a portion of the estate tax which is credited to local States for their purposes. This would have adverse effects on the finances of States and the finances of the Federal Government. Ultimately, we would be trading off estate taxes for the rich, relief for those individual estates, and we would be paying for it with Social Security funds. I believe this is not the right way to proceed. Much of what is talked about today as the inequity of the estate tax is more myth than reality. The reality is that if we make this permanent, it will be a huge windfall, most of it the result of unrealized capital gains for the very wealthiest Americans, and we will be taking away the resources we need to provide support for seniors, for children, for the educational system, for those things that will make us strong as a nation. I hope we will reject the proposal offered by the Senator from Arizona. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I commend Senator Daschle, the majority leader, for his leadership on this very important measure to extend unemployment benefits. I am pleased this has received the unanimous support of this entire Senate. It is an outstanding issue that needs to be addressed today. There are millions of Americans who are exhausting benefits as we speak. Looking forward, the prospect is that more and more Americans will exhaust their benefits. The benefit extension is just simple justice for these Americans and will also provide real stimulus for our economy. The reality is, if you have been laid off from work and you are depending upon unemployment checks, you are not typically putting that check under your mattress. You are going out and buying food, buying clothes for your children, paying your rent, doing those things that will put resources directly and immediately into the economy. That is the whole point of any stimulus proposal, to put resources directly and immediately into the economy. That is why I have to take exception to the comments of some of our colleagues who talk about the fact that we have not done anything to stimulate the economy, to help secure the jobs of those who are still working. Frankly, we can tell a lot about people from what they support and what they reject. If Members support the permanency of the estate tax, they should know that is not at all stimulative. It occurs 10 years from now, long after we have worked through this economic cycle one way or the other. It provides no immediate stimulus. It provides no immediate incentive for behavior because the estate tax comes with death--not a conscious decision by most people. So it has no stimulative effect. That is what they are proposing to help the Americans who are working today. It will not help people today. It will help a very few, and 10 years from now. Now, they reject proposals such as Senator Daschle's proposal to provide a rebate for working Americans who did not pay income tax. It was quite disturbing to me that the insinuation was that these people are not part of our economy; they did not pay income taxes, why should they get any rebates? What those Members misperceive and misunderstand is the huge contributions that these millions of poor, working Americans make, in a range of endeavors, that immensely help our economy. They work very hard and, at the same time, payroll taxes are some of the most regressive taxes that Americans pay. As a result, these individuals should get some relief. Again, most likely those resources would go directly and immediately back into the economy. So the arguments by the other side--their claims that nothing has been done to help Americans who are working today--are not consistent with the proposals they make and the proposals to which they object. If you look in the President's budget, you'll find another indication of the insensitivity, I would say, to the issue of Americans struggling to keep their jobs and struggling to find jobs--a significant reduction in job training funds. These moneys are necessary to put people back into the workplace, to give individuals the skills they need to enhance their jobs or even keep their jobs in a tough, competitive climate. So the rhetoric about doing nothing to stimulate the economy is just that. Senator Daschle made proposals that would stimulate this economy without long-run detrimental effects to our fiscal discipline. That stimulus package, that I would argue is the only real stimulus package, was rejected by the other side. So we are left to do something that is absolutely necessary, necessary both on the grounds of providing justice for Americans and also on the grounds of providing some limited stimulus for our economy. There are nearly 5 million workers who are out of the job market but want to work. Many have left the job market because they have been discouraged, which factors into the slightly lower unemployment rate last month. The unemployment rate went down not because there are more jobs. In fact, we lost jobs. The unemployment rate went down as people left the labor force, many discouraged by the lack of employment opportunities. For those people and for others, these unemployment benefits are important. In January, more than 2.5 million people had been unemployed for 15 weeks or longer, and nearly half of those people had been unemployed for more than 6 months. We have in the past responded to that dilemma, that crisis, by extending unemployment benefits. I am pleased today this body has taken action to do that. Even if the economy begins to recover, this problem will stay with us. At the end of the recessions of the last several decades, unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, continued to linger. On average, long-term unemployment rates grew for 9 months after the official end of the recession. So even if today--and I think we are unsure of this--even if today we are seeing some change in economic conditions, we will still see continued unemployment problems and we will still have to respond to it. Indeed, this effort should be bipartisan because, not only in this Senate but throughout the country, I believe most people recognize the right thing to do and the smart thing to do is to give unemployed individuals a chance to get benefits until they get the opportunity to work again. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has pointed it out. His words: I have always been in favor of extending unemployment benefits during periods of rising unemployment. Clearly you cannot argue that somebody who runs past the 26-week level is slow for not looking for a job or not actively seeking to get re-employed. There are just no jobs out there. Those are Chairman Greenspan's words. We have to respond to that, recognize that, and I am pleased that the majority leader today took that action and received the support of this Senate. About a week ago Senator Collins and I wrote to Senator Daschle and to Senator Lott and urged them to move on this measure if we could not find a compromise on the stimulus package. Again, I am pleased today this measure is moving forward. It does make sense. It is good policy with respect to people who need help. It is good for the economy. These resources will go back immediately and directly into our economy, helping to spur, we hope, consumer demand and help us out of this recession. I commend the majority leader. I am pleased we are able at least to accomplish this today. I hope we can return to the stimulus debate again, but a debate about real stimulus proposals, not a debate about the warmed over tax proposals of last spring, the second phase of the tax cuts, the second phase of those tax cuts that contributed and will contribute more to the deficit in the years ahead. Instead of those warmed over proposals, let's look at things that will help Americans and the American economy directly, immediately, in this quarter, not 10 years from now. Let's do those things. I hope when we return to this debate we will be conscious of trying to stimulate the economy and not simply trying to rehash old tax proposals. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his graciousness. This morning and this afternoon, we have engaged in a discussion with respect to the stimulus package. Senator Daschle, the majority leader, has fought for a sensible position which represents, really, as he says so well, the common ground that exists between both parties. Recognizing that we need 60 votes to move to passage of a legislative initiative, his approach has the most merit and the most probability of passing. So I encourage my colleagues to support the proposal of Senator Daschle. In a sense, what he has done is combine the common elements of both Republican and Democrat proposals to find the provisions that will garner the necessary 60 votes to go forward so we can provide real relief in a timely fashion to millions of Americans who are facing difficult economic times. At the core of his proposal is extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. Routinely, during previous recessions, we have done so. This is a recognition that there are literally millions of people who have been thrown out of work because of economic circumstances as well as the areas of New York City and around the Pentagon, in some cases, because of the attacks of September 11 and the recession that began in March 2001. The reality is that there are millions of Americans who need assistance. The unemployment rate is growing. More important than that, perhaps, for our consideration is that the number of people who have been unemployed for a long period of time is growing. In the robust economy of the nineties, when people lost jobs, they quickly found other jobs. Today, they find themselves, if not permanently, then in many respects for a much longer period of time, without access to work. They need these benefits. Extending unemployment compensation also stimulates the economy. Typically, someone who is relying upon unemployment benefits will take those checks and immediately pay their bills, go to the store, provide food for their children, pay their rent, immediately infusing those dollars into the economy, increasing the consumer spending, the lack of which is one of the causes of the recession we face. So it is a proposal that is commendable on two major points: It helps hard-working Americans and will get our economy moving. Similarly, the Daschle approach talks about tax rebates for those people who did not enjoy the previous tax rebates enacted last spring. These are individuals who may not pay income taxes, but they pay a great deal of their hard-earned wages in payroll taxes. For those individuals, they deserve the kind of rebate that others received. There has been an insinuation in some of the discussions on the floor today that these people do not contribute to our economy, that somehow they are not part of the great economic enterprise in our country, I must disagree very strongly with that proposition. These are the men and women who get up each day, go to very difficult jobs in hotels, driving trucks, small businesses, running them and sometimes working in them. These people deserve the same kind of benefits others receive. In addition, a rebate for these individuals also achieves a second important goal. Typically, money received by wage earners will go right back into the economy because in a household living on minimum wage or near minimum wage, struggling to raise children, struggling to get by, there is always the opportunity to spend a little bit more on the children, to spend a little bit more to defray the cost of life. Again, Senator Daschle's proposal has touched upon a topic that is very important to both sides, and that is bonus depreciation for business: Give business incentives to make sure they go back into the capital markets, to go ahead and buy capital equipment, to make investments which we hope will be both productive and also get the economy moving. One of the key differences between the Daschle proposal and other proposals is that Senator Daschle recognizes that in order to be effective as a stimulus, it has to be timely, it has to be limited to this year, not 2 and 3 years from now when this recession, we hope-- indeed, we believe--will be something in the past. If we want to be effective, if we want to stimulate the economy, then we have to focus and target this bonus depreciation for business. The final element in this package is fiscal relief for the States. We have to recognize that the States are under extraordinary pressure because of this recession. Their tax revenues have fallen, but their commitments to human services and to a host of other programs will not abate. They must have the resources to provide for medical assistance for working Americans. They must have the resources for the child protection system, which the States run. They must have the resources for education, which the States primarily run. Those obligations will not be held in abeyance during this recession. We have the opportunity, if we support this initiative, to provide resources to the States, and if we do not provide those resources, many States--most States--will be required constitutionally to balance their budget by raising taxes or slashing their social services budgets, which will only worsen the impact of the recession on some of our most vulnerable citizens. One of the ironies of our debate today is that while many of my colleagues are talking about accelerating tax cuts, if we do not provide assistance to States, we may very well see the States raising taxes which will be a further check on our recovery. Senator Daschle's legislation makes eminently good sense on economic grounds, and it is the only proposal which has received the support of a sufficient number of Senators so that it can be enacted into law, or at the very least passed by this body and sent to conference with the other Chamber. The resistance to moving forward quickly on this package, is truly something to behold even in light of Senator Daschle's offer to allow for amendments from both sides of the aisle. But frankly, this is the core of the economic initiatives that we agree upon and which will provide real relief, first, to struggling Americans and, second, overall to an economy that is in recession. Madam President, I have the responsibility of serving as the vice chairperson of the Joint Economic Committee. Our staff has been doing an outstanding job trying to pull together the economic analysis that should provide us at least a roadmap, if you will, for any economic stimulus legislative. Let me summarize the consensus view of our current economic situation. First, despite some encouraging signals about the economy, it remains weak. Just ask anyone who reads the newspapers and they can tell you that. When Ford Motor Company lays off thousands of people, when a major retail chain, Kmart, goes into bankruptcy reorganization-- interestingly enough, I was talking to someone who is connected to one of our larger toy manufacturers in the United States, who told me there are only four major distribution channels for toys in the United States, the four major department store chains, and one of them, 25 percent of the retail market, is in bankruptcy reorganization. So we have a very weak economy. There are many conditions in place already for a recovery, and most forecasters believe that within 3 to 6 months, there will be an economic recovery. But most also believe this recovery will be rather anemic, rather weak; it will not be the kind of robust growth that we saw in the nineties. Indeed, all of these forecasts are based on some significant uncertainties. Two significant uncertainties are the condition of foreign economies such as the economic meltdown in Argentina. The question is: Will it be contained to Argentina? Will it spread to other parts of South America? Will other countries find themselves in economic distress? Generally speaking, this recession is not unique to the United States. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Those economies will affect whether we come out of this in a robust fashion and when we will come out of this recession. There is something else, too, that is an uncertainty: consumer spending. Will it bounce back to the levels that have sustained this economy over the last several years, or will people for many reasons, because of concern about their safety, because of a sense in this moment of national danger? Will those psychological factors and sociological factors undermine a robust response by our consumer sector? It may be that the patterns of past economic recoveries are not applicable today. Even though forecasters are projecting recovery, there is much uncertainty. Even when the recovery comes, one of the great tasks will still be undone, and that is to provide support and help for those who are out of work today, who deserve the opportunity to support their families while they wait for this economy to recover. One of the interesting facts about economic trends is that even when the economy begins to respond, when gross domestic product becomes positive again and starts growing, usually unemployment continues to increase for many months after that. In the nineties, when the recovery took hold unemployment continued to increase for about 15 months. For most Americans, the economy is measured by one simple fact: Do I have a job? And, collectively, what is the unemployment rate for this country? We can foresee even with a modest rebound this year or next year the single factor that confronts most families, their economic index--do I have a job?--is still going to be questionable. So we have to act. Again, Senator Daschle's proposal, at its core, at the heart of it, has a very simple, time-tested provision: extending unemployment benefits. At a minimum, we should be able to agree to do that this week. I mentioned there were some encouraging signals about the economy, and it is fair and, I think, appropriate to mention those. First, we have seen an increase in the average weekly hours worked in manufacturing. Up until recently, those hours were declining, signaling a weakness in our manufacturing sector, which because of the relatively high pay of that type of work is a pillar of our economy. And we are beginning to see that initial claims for unemployment are not increasing with the same level each and every week. We have seen some increases in new orders for capital equipment, particularly information technology. Again, a great deal of the boom over the last decade was fueled by increased investment in information technology, computers and routers and service and a host of other equipment. That appears to be coming back. Once again, it is very fragile. If we listen to the commentators on the business channels, one week Intel will do well because they are shipping a lot of chips, and the next week their projections are down and their stock goes up and down. So we are certainly not out of the woods, but there is some encouragement. There also seems to be increased optimism among the purchasing managers in the country. Those business men and women who are in charge and want to go ahead and order equipment, seem to be much more optimistic. So there is encouraging news. All of this is good news, but as I said before, our economy is still weak and a well-tailored, well-timed, and well-targeted stimulus package would still be a boost to our economy. The economy is weak in many different ways. The unemployment rate rose to 5.8 percent in December. That is 8.3 million people; not statistics, people, 8.3 million people who were told they did not have a job, who had to go home in the evening and tell their spouse they did not have a job, who had to look at their children knowing they did not have a job. They deserve our assistance now, not our rhetoric. As I indicated before, within those statistics one of the most alarming trends is the increase in long-term unemployment. Nearly 1 in every 7 of those who are unemployed, 1.2 million people, had been jobless for more than 26 weeks, exhausting their benefits or on the verge of exhausting their benefits. So not only do they not have a job, they do not have an unemployment check either, unless we act. We were looking very closely last December at the holiday sales. They seemed to be better than expected, but I might point out still much weaker than a year earlier. So we are in a position economically where there are mixed signals, weakness but some encouraging signs. There are also some structural issues that will, I hope, bode well for the future. First, inflation has been relatively stable. That has been a situation that has allowed the Federal Reserve to employ a very aggressive monetary policy of lowering interest rates to try to stimulate this economy. That is a good thing for us and a good thing for our economy. Short-term interest rates are as low now as they have been since the 1960s. Although long-term rates have not fallen as much as we would like, they are lower than a year ago. Business inventories are low as well, which is a sign that we are beginning to work through the buildup in inventory which was hampering further production. There are no obvious supply bottlenecks, but the reality is monetary policy alone may not drive us out of this recession quickly enough or robustly enough. It is interesting to note the remarks of Chairman Greenspan over the last several weeks have been cautious about the timing and the scale of our economic recovery. His recent caution is in marked contrast to his and others past comments. So I think we are beginning to recognize our action would be very helpful to our economy. I urge, as I have repeatedly, that we act and we act on those sensible proposals offered by Senator Daschle. As I said, most economists predict a recovery will begin late in the spring. Even if that recovery begins, we still need to assist those Americans who are unemployed today and who will continue to be unemployed. As I mentioned, in the early 1990s, at the end of the last recession, unemployment increased for 15 months after the recession was officially over. It is also typical that those long-term unemployed are the last to find reemployment. So they are in a very precarious position--without benefits, without the prospect of a job, usually the first to be fired and the last to be rehired. We can help them. We must help them. I hope we do help them this week as we consider quickly this legislation before us. By extending unemployment insurance benefits, we can assist them and we can do it in a way which will not be detrimental to our looming deficit problem because unemployment insurance is a countercyclical program. As the economy recovers, as employment grows, people do not receive unemployment benefits. Today they need them. Hopefully, with a robust economy in 6 months or 9 months or 1 year, those expenses will no longer be borne by the Federal Government. These individuals will be back in the workforce. I urge, once again, we move very quickly on the proposals that have been suggested by Senator Daschle. All of them have been vetted by economists from a range of opinions. They have been determined to not only help individual Americans but also to have a positive stimulative effect and to help our overall economy by putting money into the economy and by allowing States to forego income or sales tax increases at the State level. All of this makes a great deal of sense and it should be done. One other point I will conclude with, and we have all been reflecting on the drama in Texas and other places of Enron. One of the most disturbing aspects of that situation is that the retirement security of the employees was ignored by the leadership of that company in many different ways. All of us, every single Member of this Senate, will rightly, I think, very sincerely, criticize what has taken place. But today, we are already encroaching on the Social Security trust fund. That is what it means when we start saying we have a deficit because we are no longer accumulating a surplus. We are now working our way through Social Security funds, funds that have been pledged for over 60 years to those Americans who have reached retirement age. So when I hear discussions about accelerating tax breaks, and when we have people coming out and saying simply, as a matter of faith not economics, we have to lower taxes, I wonder whether a year from now, 2 years from now, 3 years from now, people will look at us as those employees down in Houston look at the Enron leadership and say: You took our retirement. You spent it. You gave it away on bonuses to executives. You just dissipated it, not to help the economy but to help yourself. So as a cautionary point at this juncture, as we consider a whole range of proposals, I would like to leave at least that thought in the minds of my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for his kind comments.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence issued a very important report on ``Guns and Terror,'' and they pointed out the link between terrorist activity and our lax gun law in the United States. It is a compelling report that should urge us to action. We have seen throughout the last few weeks newspaper reports indicating terrorists are exploiting our lax gun laws, particularly when it comes to gun shows. When Attorney General Ashcroft testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6, he held up an al-Qaida manual and talked about how terrorists are instructed to use America's freedom as a weapon against us, and he talked about the way they are urged to lie to deceive our law enforcement authorities. He neglected to point something else out. These terrorists have been trained to exploit our gun laws. A few weeks ago, I mentioned a terrorist manual was seized in Kabul in which these jihad trainees were urged to obtain an assault rifle legally, enroll in American gun clubs to take courses in sniping, general shooting, and other rifle courses. We have to understand if this is their playbook, using gun shows is one of their plays and we have to stop this loophole. I introduced legislation last year based upon the Lautenberg legislation this Senate passed. I hoped we could bring this legislation to the Senate very quickly, and we could move to close this gun show loophole, that we could apply the Brady law to every purchase at a gun show, that we could ensure there is a full-time period for law enforcement to evaluate, up to 3 days, the purchase. These things are necessary. I think it would be a mistake to delay further, and I think also it would be a mistake to take and embrace a weaker version of the law when we have already passed a corrected bill that can make huge progress in closing off this loophole. We already know individuals on behalf of Hezbollah have used gun shows, that individuals on behalf of the Irish Republican Army have used gun shows, that American militia movements have used gun shows. They do that because they know they can go to the shows, find unlicensed dealers and avoid any type of Brady background check. So I hope we could move very promptly in the next session to close this loophole. There are 22 cosponsors of my legislation. It is a bill we have already passed in the Senate. It is something I believe is long overdue and I hope indeed we can do it to ensure terrorists do not exploit our laws to do damage to our country and to our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President. I would like to take a moment to recognize a dear friend on her 90th birthday. Lucy Cicilline, the daughter of Italian immigrants, was born Lucy Miragliuolo on December 26, 1911 in Providence, RI. Lucy is the mother of four, the grandmother of twenty-one and the great grandmother of twenty-five. But more than this, Lucy is a vital, active personality who has always lent a helping hand to others. When I was a boy, Lucy lived close to our family's summer home at Scarborough Beach in Narragansett, RI. Together with her husband, John, and her children, she was a wonderful friend to me and to my family. Always a kind and caring person, she showered her affection and attention on all her neighbors. As a nurse, it was Lucy who tended to my injured elbows and knees, and sometimes bruised spirit, during all the times I fell down and encountered the other mishaps of childhood. As a Registered Nurse, employed at St. Joseph's Hospital in Providence, Lucy shared her kind and giving personality with her patients until her retirement. But retirement did not stop her either. In 1980, at the age of sixty- nine and after the death of her husband of forty-seven years, Lucy decided it was time for her to learn how to drive. Lucy approached this task with the same dogged determination and positive attitude that she has with everything in her life. She took driving lessons, received her license and continued to drive for the next ten years until her declining eyesight took her off the road. Still, despite her eyesight and her getting on in years, Lucy is an important member of her community. For over fifty years, she has been contributing to the St. Joseph's Indian Tribe and has been named an honorary member of their community. Now at the Village at Waterman Lake in Smithfield, RI, Lucy is an active adult who exercises and socializes with her fellow residents. When I think of Lucy Cicilline, I recall the magic days of youth when I was surrounded and protected by adults like my parents and the Cicillines who set an extraordinary example of kindness and commitment to faith and family and country. At many moments in my life, I drew on those memories for inspiration and strength. Her example is with me today. So today, I would like to thank Lucy for her kindness and her friendship and also wish her the happiest of birthdays.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell are in the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes and at the conclusion of my remarks the majority leader be recognized for a statement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy. I had the opportunity yesterday to speak at length on this bill and to commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, our colleagues from the other body, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Miller, and Senator Jeffords for his leadership as chairman. I neglected to commend people who were much responsible for this legislation, and that is staff members, particularly my staff member Elyse Wasch who did a remarkable job. I also extend my thanks and congratulations to Danica Petroshius, Roberto Rodriguez, Michael Dannenberg, Dana Fiordaliso, and Michael Myers of the majority staff and Denzel McGuire of the Republican staff. Their efforts were remarkable. Much of the success of the bill was because of these individuals. I thank them personally for their great work, particularly Elyse Wasch of my staff. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for those very kind and gracious words. Today represents the culmination of a very long process to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It has been difficult and daunting, and at times very frustrating. We are here today because of the work of many people. But singular among those people is the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Kennedy. His determination, his creativity, his persistence, his unwillingness to accept anything less than a bill that would materially aid children of America in their education is today manifest on the floor of the Senate. We owe him a great debt of thanks and great praise. Of course, he was part of the process with our other colleagues, Senator Gregg, the ranking member, and, in the other body, Congressman Boehner and Congressman Miller, with whom I had the privilege of serving on the Education Committee when I was in the other body. A great deal of the tone, texture, and change in spirit was the result of President Bush's commitment to work for education, and doing so in a bipartisan way. Today we see the culmination of that long and at times trying process. Today we have legislation which represents, I believe, an advance in giving every child an opportunity to learn and an opportunity to be educated in this country, which is the greatest opportunity one can ever have. We are building on previous efforts. As a younger Member of the other body, I served on the conference committee for the Goals 2000 Act and the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was there that we talked about tougher accountability and stronger insistence that the States step in when schools are failing. We insisted upon higher standards. We met resistance, but we insisted. We did not go as far then as I believe we could have gone, or should have gone. But today I believe there is vindication of those efforts almost 8 years ago when we talked about insisting that schools be held accountable and that real money flow to schools so that children can learn. We have taken steps in the intervening years as a result of Goals 2000 and the 1994 reauthorization. In every State in the country, there has been some effort. In my State of Rhode Island, there has been a great deal of effort, and I commend my local leaders for what they have done to move education forward. As we approached this reauthorization, there were several important goals that I believed we must achieve. First, we should strengthen and build upon the accountability system that was developed in the 1994 reauthorization. Then we should ensure that the President's proposals for testing in grades 3 through 8 have appropriate guidelines and not unduly harm students or the educational initiatives that are already underway in many States, including in my home State of Rhode Island; that we should also offer increased flexibility; and that we should insist upon high standards but give the States and the communities the ability to reach those standards through means that they could choose locally. Then, finally--and I believe most importantly--we had to give the States the resources to make the changes that were urged upon them. We had to give them the resources to meet those standards. These are the parameters I used to judge the legislation that is before us. I believe we have in a very meaningful way met those expectations. Having erected a structure of accountability, having sensitized the schools of this country to be more sensitive to performance and to better teaching and to parental involvement, the test now is making sure that the States, the cities, and the towns in America have the resources to do the job. That is the test we will be taking in the years ahead. As Senator Kennedy stated, there were some particular issues in which I was interested. I am pleased to say we have made progress on those issues. In the area of school libraries, I have long been a firm believer that good school libraries mean good education. Study after study has concluded that if there are good school libraries in school systems, those schools will succeed. In fact, there have been studies in diverse communities, such as in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska, which indicate that a good school library means better performance, regardless of geographic area and regardless of income. It is just one of those obvious points to which people will agree. But the real challenge is to go beyond the nodding of the head in agreement to the funding and support for school libraries. Interestingly enough, Dr. Susan Neuman, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education in the Bush administration, is one of the experts in this regard. She found through her research that limited access to books leads to poor academic achievement. Unfortunately, if you look at school libraries, particularly in poor communities in this country, they are starved for resources, for space, and for trained librarians and library assistants. As a result, it is no wonder that this is another burden on the education of children, particularly children from disadvantaged areas. I was mystified when I arrived in the other body in 1991 that the Republicans eliminated direct support of libraries back in 1981 as part of the Reagan revolution. In 1994, working with Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Pell, my distinguished predecessor, we were able to reestablish a school library program. Another of the great heroes of that effort was Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. Sadly, within months of completing the reauthorization in 1994, the new Republican Congress eliminated the library program as an authorized program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This year, however, with President Bush's emphasis on increasing reading skills and literacy, and developing teachers who are adept at teaching reading, there was another opportunity to push forward on the issue of school libraries. The President's initiative seeks to increase professional development for teachers to improve reading instruction. However, it makes little sense to me to have better reading teachers and children eager to learn to read but libraries that are deplorably inadequate. I have been sent materials from time to time by librarians from across the country. A librarian from Arizona sent me a book about the U.S. Constitution which I thought was interesting, particularly when I noted that the foreword was written by the distinguished President, Calvin Coolidge. It was still on the shelves of this library several years ago. I believe when President Coolidge wrote his foreword there were several amendments to the Constitution that had not yet been adopted. That is just one example of books that are terribly out of date. Some of them are terribly offensive with respect to stereotypes of today, and which we would abhor, but are still on the shelves of many school libraries. If we are going to train teachers to be better reading instructors, if we are going to embrace the eager young children and challenge them to read, we have to give them the materials to read. I was extremely pleased, particularly when this legislation came to the floor and Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, Senator Chafee, and others joined me in passing an amendment that would authorize $500 million to support school libraries. It was a 69-to-30 vote--a clear indication that this Senate on a bipartisan basis was standing strongly behind school libraries and school librarians. We took this issue to the conference, and we were successful in the conference. We now have legislation in this report that once again supports school libraries. But the challenge remains to translate these very noble words into real dollars in the next budget cycle. With respect to parental involvement, Senator Kennedy also indicated that this legislation strongly reflects an emphasis on parental involvement. Once again, parental involvement is not something that is just nice to do, something that is good socially; it is the heart of a good educational system in this country and any place in the world. Research has indicated that if you have strong parental involvement, you will have better performance from students. Students need to know that their parents care about education. They need to know that their parents care about what they are doing and learning. In 1999, I introduced the PARENT Act, legislation which I developed in conjunction with the National PTA to implement effective ways to include parents in the lives of schools. Some would say: Why do we need to do that? We need to do that because today there are parents who-- simply because of time constraints, because both spouses are working, because they have children in three different elementary schools--do not have the same kind of opportunities, if you will, to be part of the life of their school as, perhaps, our parents did. So we have to develop new and different techniques to reach out and involve these parents. Then we have parents who themselves have been very unfulfilled by the educational process. Their educational experience was deplorable or something they do not want to recall. Those parents find it difficult, in many cases, to be effective teachers of their children because of the apprehension, if you will, about school. We have to reach those parents. In the past, we have tried to do this, particularly through the title I program. A 2001 study by several academics looked at the title I program. They found that title I schools have always talked about parental involvement. There has been a model to bring parents in as collaborators. In the past, in our reauthorizations, we have tried to stress parental involvement. In 1983, we said you have to have an annual meeting in a title I school with the parents. In 1988, we talked about involving parents in planning and providing more information to parents. In 1994, we said districts have to spend at least 1 percent of title I moneys on parental involvement. That is all well and good, very noble words. But, once again, there was very limited accountability, very limited oversight. As a result, there has been very limited participation by parents, particularly in those difficult areas where disadvantaged students and disadvantaged parents are likely to be. So it is no surprise that when the PTA surveyed the parents of America, fully 50 percent said they were inadequately informed about what is going on in the school. They felt they could not participate in their school. They felt the school was not user friendly to them, the parents. So working with the PTA, and others, we tried to craft legislation that would, once again, in a meaningful way, attempt to involve parents in every school in America by adding accountability to title I; not just a list of things you have to do, but an insistence that these things be done: Provide parental access to information about their children's education, make sure there is an active and effective and ongoing collaboration with schools, require states to disseminate to every school research-based practices that work to actually involve parents. We also, when we looked at some of the other programs--such as the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, the technology program, and the teacher quality program--insisted there be an aspect of parental involvement with the idea that parents just don't show up one night a semester for parent-teacher conferences, but they are active in planning many aspects of the life of the school. This legislation, I am pleased to say, was significantly incorporated in this conference report. I believe it represents a significant advance providing not just a list of nice things to do, but real accountability so these aspects of the parental involvement will, in fact, be done. There is another important aspect of this legislation in which I was keenly interested, and that is professional development. We all recognize and we all stand up and say, sincerely and emphatically: Every child deserves a highly skilled, highly motivated teacher. But we have to go beyond the words. We have to make that a fact of life. And it is not a fact of life at so many schools. In the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, just in 1998, I worked closely with my colleagues and incorporated aspects of legislation I had previously introduced called the TEACH Act, which established grants to foster partnerships between teaching colleges and actual schools in communities. One of the defects of teacher preparation is the fact that sometimes it is totally disconnected from the real life of the teacher, that the clinical aspect or the practice aspect is just a few weeks in a 4-year curriculum. The TEACH Act is now part of the Higher Education Act. It establishes a relationship between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary schools which, I believe, will provide more realistic preparation for teachers. But we have to pay attention not only to the new teachers who are entering our schools, but we have to pay attention to all teachers. That means good, solid professional development for the incumbent teachers, for those who are teaching today in the classrooms of America. That is why I introduced legislation, the Professional Development Reform Act, which I am pleased to say is incorporated in many parts of this legislation. There is a broad consensus that good professional development has to involve sustained intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers' knowledge of content, that allow teachers to work collaboratively, that provide opportunities for teachers to practice and reflect upon their teaching, that are aligned closely to these new standards, and that all of it is embedded in the daily life and work of the teachers. We all recall some experiences we have had. I recall that once every year there was a teachers institute. We thought it was terrific. We got the day off. I did not know what the teachers did there, but I found out later. In most cases, they went to a big hall. They listened to a lecturer talk about something that may or may not be interesting to them. They socialized and then went home. That, for many school systems, was professional development. It was clearly inadequate. Professional development has to be based upon content, what that teacher is purporting to teach: Math, science, history, and English. They have to know what they are teaching. Sadly, there are lots of teachers who do not know that. And we do not force them, through professional development, to master those details. Then they have to have the opportunity to collaborate. One of the great problems of elementary and secondary education is the fact that so many teachers walk in in the morning, they have a cup of coffee, say hello to the rest of the teachers, and that is the last time they have a conversation with an adult for the rest of the day. At 3:30, they get in the car and go on with the rest of their life. We have to build into our educational system the opportunity for teachers to talk about the craft, the art of teaching. We have to, of course, make all of this correlated with and focused on the high standards that we insist that our children meet. This is a daunting task. This legislation reflects, in many respects, an emphasis toward moving toward those very challenging aspects of professional development. I would like to have gone further, but we have gone at least, I believe, in the right direction. There are examples of very effective professional development around the country. I have visited Community School District 2 in New York City. It is in Manhattan. It is a school district that is committed to professional development. They do exactly what all of the experts say. They provide, for example, young teachers the ability to observe exemplary senior teachers. They have senior teachers working one on one with other teachers. They have peer networks where teachers can get together and talk with their peers about the educational process. All of this is exciting. It makes teaching something more than a dull exercise of showing up, reciting something to students who are not particularly interested, and then walking out. Too often--in fact, I would argue if it happens anyplace, it is too often--that is the experience. Let me mention one other aside about this notion of collaborative effort. One of the interesting things that happened in Rhode Island--we were lucky because we have a State that is committed to educational progress--is that one of our foundations, the Rhode Island Foundation, actually gave laptop computers to a significant portion of our teachers in the State. You can do that when you have a population of a million people. And the teachers used them, not just to do lesson plans but actually to interact and collaborate with other teachers on challenging questions such as what to do with a child who continually refuses to be quiet and sit down. These are not things you learn in a lecture on the cognitive processes of schoolchildren but something you need to know to be a good teacher. They found it out by simply getting advice from seasoned teachers. That is what we have to do. This legislation moves in that direction. There is another aspect, too, that I have been very interested in, and I believe it is key to our educational progress. That is to recognize that the school is one of the few places in our society where children are there for an extended period of time. There is a requirement that they go. But in effect, schools can't succeed as islands isolated from the other institutions of life. We talked about parental involvement. That is the first and most important aspect of education, the parent as teacher. But many children have problems with health care. Many children have mental health issues. Many children have problems because of the social problems of the family. If the schools ignore those problems, those children will invariably fail. They have to be cognizant of all the issues that influence a child. I think it is important to recognize in the school and even have an organization in the school that can access multiple services for children. We could have a great nursing program. We could have great mathematical instructions. We could beef up our science laboratories. But if a young child does not have a place to live, or comes in on a cold day without a coat and goes home without a coat, chances are we are not going to be able to challenge that child to do their best work. We have to recognize that. In fact, as important--and it is very important--as this legislation is, we have many other things to do to ensure that every child learns, that no child is left behind. We can start with housing, health care, a long list. We are making progress today, but we would be deluding ourselves to think we have solved the problems of children in America by simply reforming education. It is important in the context of education to have these institutions and organizations. In Rhode Island, they are called COZs, child opportunity zones. Within the school there is a trained person who can link up a child and the family to social services, childcare, housing programs, all those things that are going to make a difference in the life of that child, so when they come to school they will be, as we have said for decades, ready to learn. I hope, indeed, that some of the efforts we have made in this bill will advance that very important principle. As we began this debate about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as we moved through the Senate, several very important issues became obvious. First, to the extent we quite properly insisted upon accountability, we had to recognize that we must design an accountability system that is fair and flexible. We could have designed a system in which every child in America passed. That would be a waste of time, a waste of money. We could have designed a testing system where everyone failed. That would be counterintuitive and foolish. So over the last several months we have been working to try to reach a point where there was enough flexibility in the States that they could, in fact, achieve progress. I believe in the process of debate and discussion, again with the tremendous leadership of Senator Kennedy, we have made progress. We have a system now that recognizes standards, standards that have integrity, standards that are checked ultimately by a national test, but also that allow the States the flexibility so their good schools will continue to be recognized as good, and schools that are not meeting that standard have an incentive and a direction to move forward. We have made that progress. In so many cases, what we are doing is complementing the efforts that have been accomplished in local communities. In my State of Rhode Island, we have had tremendous efforts to reform our schools. In 1997, my legislature passed article 31 which mandates an extensive series of evaluations, of school improvement teams, and ultimately, if schools fail, giving the State not only the authority but the responsibility to step in and set the schools right. That type of system should not be compromised by a scheme here in Washington that basically turned the clock back, put my State back to the starting point and made them run an entirely different race. I believe, through the efforts of the conferees, we have a situation in which my State and other States can build on what they have done to create even a better system. That is one aspect that we confronted as we moved along. The second aspect, the one that is the most troubling, is the fact that all of these important innovations and initiatives that have been embraced by this legislation will not be successful if we do not have the funds to give the States and the communities to carry out our intent, our wishes and their wishes, which is truly to give every child an opportunity and an excellent education. We know we are in a very difficult, precarious situation. The tax cut of last spring has set us back immensely in having the extra resources or even the resources at all to robustly fund education, to make it the kind of national priority this bill calls for. After September 11, it is even more difficult. But before September 11, as vice chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I was pleased to be able to issue a report of the Democratic staff on September 7 that raised very seriously the question of whether or not we were going to be in deficits for the foreseeable future because principally of the tax cut. The reality is, we are. The OMB Director declared a few weeks ago that we are looking at several years of deficits. So that will make it very difficult for this Congress to live up to the very challenging standards we set for ourselves in this legislation. But live up to it we must. The situation here in Washington is difficult. If you go back to the States, it is even more difficult. It has been estimated that the States have already scheduled about $11.3 billion in educational cuts to meet their budget crisis. As we are talking about extra money in the billions, that is very encouraging, but it really could be offset before we even sign this bill by the cuts we see in the States. They are taking drastic steps. That $11.3 billion means laying off teachers, eliminating teacher training, eliminating parental involvement, all the things we say are necessary, all the things about which we are speaking with great pride and purpose. The States are forced today to begin to cut those. In Rhode Island, the Board of Governors for elementary and secondary education suggested that the state increase the education budget by 4.4 percent. The Governor has told every State agency to cut their budget by 6 percent. To his credit, he has said there will be a little extra for education. We won't force them to have the 6-percent cut. But nowhere is he prepared to meet the 4.4-percent increase. That is going to be multiplied throughout this country. So we are looking now at a situation where we will have to struggle mightily for resources. The States are already cutting their budgets. And so again we can be pleased that this structure of educational reform has been completed, but if it is built on a foundation that shifts with the winds of deficit, then we are going to be in an awkward position in the months and years ahead. That is why I was so strongly committed to supporting the efforts of Senator Harkin, Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, and so many others to fully fund IDEA, to make that funding mandatory. First, it is the right thing to do. Back in the mid-1970s, we committed ourselves--the Federal Government--to IDEA, to share significantly with the States the cost of meeting the education needs of students with disabilities. We never lived up to that. Year in and year out, we have all said how strongly we believe in IDEA, how much we have to fund it. We relay tales of our school committees and superintendents, and how they insist that if you do anything at all, please fully fund IDEA. Yet when we had the opportunity to do that in the conference, we blinked, we refused to do that. IDEA seems to be one of those issues where we say wait until next year--but next year never comes. Once again, we have to wait until next year. But the real test of education reform, I believe, will be whether or not we do fully fund IDEA next year in our budget and whether we do fund these other innovations incorporated in this legislation. Fully funding IDEA is the right thing to do. There are 6 million children today being served by IDEA. They are in regular classrooms, by and large. They are part of the life of the school. They are not shunned and excluded as they were in the fifties, sixties. It turns out that the high school graduation rates for children who receive IDEA instruction are much higher than their predecessors'--those young Americans who were pushed aside and urged to leave school or were put in special classrooms. It is working, and we have to make it work more. The other aspect about IDEA is, if we had made the spending mandatory, we would have freed up significant dollars for other education programs. Now, IDEA will compete with title I and other programs, such as Pell grants, and it will compete with a whole range of programs--all of them important, all of them, I suspect, every Member of the Senate will stand up and support and say we have to do more. Well, we had the chance to do more, and we failed to do that. I commend Senator Harkin and Senator Jeffords and my colleagues, Senators Collins, Roberts, Warner, and Hagel. This was a bipartisan effort on the Senate side. The House, unfortunately, did not agree with us. But we must attend to this as a first order of business in the next session of this Congress. This conference report, I believe, represents great progress by many of us. Accountability has increased and improved. One aspect, which is particularly noteworthy--and I believe it has been mentioned by many colleagues--is the increased targeting of title I. That program was designed in 1960 to help low-income students, but through the process of legislation it has been flattened out so that title I reaches many students and it is not targeted to the very poor. This legislation changes that and, given the caveat of robust funding, it could be the most significant aspect of this entire legislation. I believe, again, this is something very near and dear to Senator Kennedy's efforts--not just this year, but over the lifetime of his service to the country and the Senate. I commend him for that in particular. I am pleased, as I have made clear before, about the library provisions included in the President's literacy program. This legislation is much more sensitive, in many different aspects, to parental involvement. Professional development--although it doesn't go as far as I would like--sets the right tone, the right direction, and is emphasized as a critical aspect of not just development of teachers, but reform of education. We have the concept of child opportunity zones that has been embedded into the legislation. I hope we can build on that and see how that works. I know it works in my State. I hope we can take that notion of coordinating and integrating services for children in the school and make it something that is common in every jurisdiction. Bilingual education has been strengthened significantly. There is also good news in the fact that provisions in the other body that would have limited bilingual education to 3 years were stricken. Now it is much more oriented to serving these children, getting them to master English as a critical language, not just here in the United States but around the globe, and not arbitrarily saying you have 1, 2, 3 years to learn it. That might be easy for a 5- or 6-year-old coming to this country, but what about a 14-year-old who grew up in a country without the educational advantages we take for granted? I would find it difficult to become a fluent speaker in another language in 2 or 3 years. I assume that would be the case for others coming here. This legislation does not have an arbitrary limit. The safe and drug-free schools program, once again, incorporates aspects of parental involvement. Technology grants are here, with participation by parents as well as teachers and educational supervisors. The accountability provisions have been hard fought over many weeks. It represents a balance between a legitimate and credible national standard, together with local flexibility, ultimately checked by the national test, which will see how well the States are doing, given the opportunity to develop their own tests internally. All of this is very commendable and, in some respects, exciting. But I come back to what I have said throughout this presentation: All of this will be interesting but ineffectual without real funding--not just at the Federal level, but at the local level; not just for 1 year, but for many years. One of the great experiences of my life was being able to serve as a soldier in the Army. One of the great transformations of a lifetime was the transformation of our military. One of the key aspects was their recognition that you had to train the trainers--better professional development. It was done with the knowledge that you had to have real resources to do it. You had to commit real resources. We did that. Today we are seeing amply demonstrated the wisdom of increased professional development, high standards of accountability. But resources go along with it. I will conclude by simply saying that one aspect of this legislation that has received a great deal of notoriety has been the fact that every child in America, beginning in 2005, will have to be tested from grades 3 through 8. I am confident that the children of America will pass those tests--if this Senate passes the test it faces next year: Fund education aggressively--IDEA and title I. If we pass our test, I have no doubt the children of America will pass their test. If we fail, how can we blame them? I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our fight against terrorism and a report in the New York Times last Thursday about the Justice Department's denial of requests from the FBI to review background check records for gun purchases as part of its antiterrorist investigation. When I met with Justice Department officials on November 1, I was informed that in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Department of Justice compared the audit log of approved gun sales under Brady law's National Instant Criminal Background Check System to the Federal Government's terrorist watchlists. The New York Times reported that on September 16, 5 days after the terrorist attacks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms requested the FBI center that operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to check a list of 186 names against the NICS audit log. The names were identified as aliens whose identities had been developed during the ongoing terrorist investigation. The FBI got two hits, meaning that two of the persons on the watchlist had been approved to buy guns. The ATF's request and the resulting hits underscore the point that the NICS audit log has a clear investigative value for law enforcement and our counterterrorist efforts. Yet the day after the FBI made its initial check, the Attorney General's lawyers prohibited further reviews of the audit log by the FBI for the purposes of the terrorist investigation. The Congress passed and the President signed the Patriot Act earlier this year to give the Attorney General expanded powers to fight terrorism. The Attorney General has used these powers and others created by the administration, without congressional input, to permit, for example, eavesdropping on detainees' conversations with their attorneys, to implement new wiretapping authority, and to look into the backgrounds of truck drivers and crop duster pilots, and immigrants. When President Bush addressed Congress on September 20, he said: We will direct every resource at our command--every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. Now we find the Attorney General is bending over backwards to protect the special interests of the gun lobby at the expense of the safety of the American people and the investigation into terrorism. Rather than seeking every opportunity to give law enforcement all the information at hand, the Attorney General has chosen, erroneously in my view, to interpret the Brady law and related Justice Department regulations as prohibiting the use of the audit log for investigative purposes beyond the performance of the system. Even if the Attorney General believed he did not have the authority to review the audit log for investigative purposes, why then did he not ask Congress for that authority back in September when he was putting together his proposals for the Patriot Act? Why wouldn't he want Federal law enforcement officers to know if a suspect or potential informant had recently purchased a firearm when they go to question or detain that person? Finally, why would he continue to seek to reduce the retention time for the audit log from 90 days to 1 business day, forcing ATF to ask more than 70,000 federally licensed gun dealers to review their sales records every time law enforcement authorities conduct a review for names associated with gun crimes but particularly associated with terrorist activities? We can only conclude that politics and the powerful influence of the gun lobby have trumped gun policy once again. I hope the Attorney General will reconsider his position. None of us really knows what the next terrorist attack will look like. We cannot assume that because the attacks on September 11 did not involve firearms, the next one will not also involve firearms. We should give law enforcement every tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from gaining access to firearms, and to know about it when they do. If the Attorney General insists upon the narrowest interpretation of allowable uses of the NICS audit log, we need legislation to make it absolutely clear that law enforcement authorities can review these records if they have reason to believe that a person under investigation, particularly under investigation for terrorist activity, may have purchased a firearm. I am pleased to join Senator Schumer as a cosponsor of S. 1788, to clarify that NICS audit log records may be accessed by the Federal authorities for the purposes of responding to an inquiry from any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, and also to ensure that these records be maintained for at least 90 days to ensure a reliable auditing system is in place. I also look forward to consideration at the earliest possible time next year of my legislation to close the gun show loophole, so that we can prevent convicted felons, fugitives from justice, and, yes, even terrorists, from buying guns from private dealers at gun shows without a background check. There has been a lot of misinformation about the technical requirements of conducting Brady Law background checks at guns shows. It has been suggested that gun shows in rural areas are not equipped with the technology to make background checks feasible. The only technology needed to run a Brady background check is a telephone. At most gun shows, federally licensed firearms dealers use cell phones to conduct background checks. At others, telephone ``land lines'' are made available. Under my bill, these federally licensed dealers would run checks on behalf of unlicensed sellers at the gun show, ensuring that a background check is run every time a gun is sold at more than 4,000 gun shows held each year in America. I should also add that 95 percent of these checks are completed within two hours, and no new technology would be required beyond access to a telephone, a device that has been with us for a long time. My constituents in Rhode Island and all Americans pay a universal service fee as part of their monthly phone bills to ensure that telephone service is available to every part of this country, no matter how rural or how remote. Let's close the gun show loophole so that convicted felons, domestic abusers, terrorists, and other prohibited persons do not use gun shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check. When we confront terrorists, and when we hear the President say every tool available to law enforcement will be used, let us ensure every tool is used. Let us ensure there is no area that is off limits because of the powerful influence of the gun lobby. Let us give our law enforcement officials every opportunity to protect America from terrorist attacks. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise in support of the Defense authorization bill and commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their great efforts. They have crafted a bill that will provide materiel assistance and support to the men and women of our Armed Forces. This bill includes, among other things, a targeted pay raise for our military, authority for military personnel to transfer unused Montgomery GI bill benefits to their dependents. This was a particular concern of Senator Cleland, and he should receive particular commendation for his unfailing efforts over several years to get this provision enacted into law. Today it is part of the law. In addition, this legislation will include a base closure round for the year 2005, which is something very important, although very controversial. It is important to move from a cold war infrastructure to a post-cold-war infrastructure, as we have done with our personnel and force structure, and this legislation will do that. However, today this conference report has been overshadowed by the President's announcement that he proposes to withdraw from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I spent long hours examining and looking very closely at the administration's plans for missile defense. I worked closely with all my colleagues, particularly the ranking member, Senator Allard of Colorado. We may have disagreed on issues, but we worked together to try to ensure all the information was available to our colleagues. I believe the legislation we proposed in committee represented a sound balancing of the need to develop particularly theater missile defense but also to develop national missile defense. It did so cognizant of the fact that to deploy such a national missile defense would be violative of the ABM Treaty and would be a threat to very delicate arms control agreements that have evolved over decades. Our legislation was brought to this floor in the wake of September 11, and in the need, in a very real sense, to provide a rallying point of consensus rather than an opportunity for further debate, our legislation, which reduced the appropriations for national defense by $1.3 billion, was modified significantly to give the President the option to apply this $1.3 billion to ballistic missile defense or to counterterrorism. I believe as we look very carefully and very closely at the threats we face today, the terrorism effect is more immediate and more central to our concerns of this moment. I hope the President will take that opportunity to apply those resources at $1.3 billion to counterterrorism. Today, the President's announcement has been greeted by different opinions in different venues. My impression is that his announcement is both unwarranted and unwise. It is unwarranted because we are far away from the time that we have the technology to effectively deploy a national missile defense. It is also many years before I sense that we need to conduct tests that would be violative of the ABM Treaty. It is unwise because I think we are jeopardizing our relationship with Russia. Although their immediate response might be muted in some respects, what we will see is less than enthusiastic cooperation on a whole spectrum of cooperative efforts on which we need their help and assistance, from antiterrorism to the securing of their nuclear materials, to the securing of their biological materials. In this sense, it represents a departure from an endeavor over many decades, to erect a regime of arms control together with the keen awareness of our relationship with Russia. I believe we have plenty of time to develop, and should develop, an adequate system and then face the decision of deployment and the decision of the treaty perhaps years from now. In October, Secretary Rumsfeld suggested there were four potential tests that would violate the treaty. As a result, he was canceling those tests. I think in fact that might have been a situation where those tests easily could have been postponed and therefore the decision could have been easily deferred with respect to the treaty. One of the activities in question, for example, was the use of an Aegis ship radar to observe a missile defense test, clearly in violation of the ABM Treaty. The problem is the development of a sea- based missile defense system is at least a decade away. As a result, to rush forward and try at this point to insert a test of that nature suggests to me there was more interest in bumping up, as they say, against the treaty rather than bringing to the field a system that will work. The system that is the most advanced is the land based national missile defense system. Indeed, this system, too, has plenty of room for further research and development before it is necessary to go ahead and call into question the ABM Treaty. The President today called the ABM Treaty a relic, a vestige of the cold war. The dynamics of world powers have definitely changed. But the reality is clear that nuclear weapons still are present in the world, they still must be contained, their use prevented--we hope. In this respect, we still have a need for a structured arms control regime, a structure that I think will not be aided by the abandonment today by this administration of the ABM Treaty. Now, there is encouraging news. There is news that the Russians and the United States may, either through treaty or by unilateral decision, reduce their warheads. That would be progress. But I do believe we are sending a signal not just to the Russians but to the rest of the world that the United States is stepping back from multilateral treaties and bilateral treaties which will further the cause of arms control. That will set not only the wrong tone but indeed perhaps the wrong direction. The other aspect of this unilateral approach is the fact that it may not provoke an immediate and demonstrable adverse reaction from Russia, but as I said before, it will inhibit the kind of full-fledged cooperation that we need to address the more immediate threat of terrorism. We recognize today that Russian assistance in many ways has helped immensely in our struggle in Afghanistan. The use of their intelligence sources and the fact that they have, in an economic sense, continued to produce petroleum so that energy prices remain low are examples of their cooperative efforts. I ask whether or not, given our unilateral withdrawal, given our unwillingness to continue a dialogue with respect to treaty modifications, would essentially undercut other areas of cooperation that, I argue, also are extremely necessary. The proliferation of nuclear materials, the presence of vast stocks of biologic materials--all of these within Russia and all of these with questionable security mechanisms--raise a profound issue of our security. This afternoon in our committee we had a hearing with respect to the control of our nuclear weapons, and we have elaborate procedures, expensive procedures. I suggest the Russians probably do not match us with those procedures but they should. That is an example of cooperation we have to undertake immediately, cooperation that might be undercut. China has expressed concern--another area we have to consider--in terms of their ability to deploy more missiles, to provide more sophisticated warheads with more penetrating aids, with more decoys, those things that will make the world less stable, the nuclear balance less stable. I believe we have, today, taken the wrong path. Rather than continuing to work for a structure of arms control agreements, we have turned away from that structure. I hope the President not only recognizes perhaps the arguments we are making this evening, but truly works to reach out to try to develop more cooperative efforts with Russia that are to our mutual advantage; also, that we would recognize we still have an obligation to develop a structure of arms control agreements that will make the world safer. The decision today to withdraw is, again, in my view, unwarranted by the circumstances and unwise. I believe in the long run it will not aid materially our security. I hope the provisions we have included in this legislation that provide for overview of the Ballistic Missile Defense Program, that provide the option to use funds not only for ballistic missile defense but for counter-terrorism, will be used by the administration to pursue those aspects of counterterrorism and also a prudent development program for ballistic missile defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues, Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Enzi of Wyoming, to introduce legislation that will address the growing shortage of pharmacists. The Pharmacists Education Act takes a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. In December 2000, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, Bureau of Health Professions published a report entitled, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists''. This study considered the factors influencing the demand for pharmacists in the health care sector and also looked at the ability of our academic institutions to supply the quantity of pharmacy students required to meet this growing demand. The report concluded that there was indeed evidence of a shortage in the field, due primarily to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and the array of services they provide, coupled with a constrained ability to expand the number of pharmacy education programs to accommodate the need for more practicing pharmacists. The study also indicated that the shortage was unlikely to abate in the future without significant changes to the current system. Pharmacists represent the third largest health professional group in the United States with about 190,000 active pharmacists last year. This figure is expected to grow to 224, 500 by 2010. Yet, despite this anticipated increase in the number of practicing pharmacists, the demand for the services is expected to continue to outpace supply. A recent employment survey conducted by the National Association of Chain Drug stores found that the number of vacancies among their member companies had increased by 1,000 positions in the last six months alone. Remarkable advancements in medical science have made treatments for diseases once thought impossible to treat a reality. And what is possible is quickly what is practiced in the medical profession. Many of these dynamic breakthroughs have been in the area of pharmaceuticals. These remarkable changes in health care have resulted in dramatic upswings in the number of retail prescriptions dispensed annually, from 1.9 billion in 1992 to 2.8 billion in 1999. Moreover, as medications become more complex and diverse, and our population becomes older and sicker, the role of the pharmacist in the health care setting has become evermore important. For these reasons, my colleagues and I felt it was very important that steps be taken to avert a more serious shortage of these critical health professionals. The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to enhance not only the supply of pharmacists, by providing much needed support to Colleges of Pharmacy, it also aims to improve the distribution of pharmacists by building upon the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, the bill expands eligibility of certain existing Federal grant programs to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space and recruit and retain talented faculty to educate pharmacy students. The bill also provides a number of new sources of financial aid to students interested in pursuing a career in pharmacy. First, the bill allows students entering pharmacy school and students who have graduated with a PharmD degree to apply for National Health Service Corps, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment funds. Second, it allows students who demonstrate financial need to apply for scholarships to qualifying schools of pharmacy. This bill is endorsed by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Community Pharmacists Association, American College of Clinical Pharmacy and American Society of Health- System Pharmacists. Increasing demand for pharmacists makes it imperative that a proactive response to current trends be undertaken before the situation becomes critical. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeking expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pharmacy Education Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today, joined by my colleagues, Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Enzi of Wyoming, to introduce legislation that will address the growing shortage of pharmacists. The Pharmacists Education Act takes a multi-faceted approach to the problem of workforce shortages in the pharmacy sector. In December 2000, the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, Bureau of Health Professions published a report entitled, ``The Pharmacist Workforce: A Study of the Supply and Demand for Pharmacists''. This study considered the factors influencing the demand for pharmacists in the health care sector and also looked at the ability of our academic institutions to supply the quantity of pharmacy students required to meet this growing demand. The report concluded that there was indeed evidence of a shortage in the field, due primarily to the rapid increase in demand for pharmacists and the array of services they provide, coupled with a constrained ability to expand the number of pharmacy education programs to accommodate the need for more practicing pharmacists. The study also indicated that the shortage was unlikely to abate in the future without significant changes to the current system. Pharmacists represent the third largest health professional group in the United States with about 190,000 active pharmacists last year. This figure is expected to grow to 224, 500 by 2010. Yet, despite this anticipated increase in the number of practicing pharmacists, the demand for the services is expected to continue to outpace supply. A recent employment survey conducted by the National Association of Chain Drug stores found that the number of vacancies among their member companies had increased by 1,000 positions in the last six months alone. Remarkable advancements in medical science have made treatments for diseases once thought impossible to treat a reality. And what is possible is quickly what is practiced in the medical profession. Many of these dynamic breakthroughs have been in the area of pharmaceuticals. These remarkable changes in health care have resulted in dramatic upswings in the number of retail prescriptions dispensed annually, from 1.9 billion in 1992 to 2.8 billion in 1999. Moreover, as medications become more complex and diverse, and our population becomes older and sicker, the role of the pharmacist in the health care setting has become evermore important. For these reasons, my colleagues and I felt it was very important that steps be taken to avert a more serious shortage of these critical health professionals. The Pharmacy Education Act seeks to enhance not only the supply of pharmacists, by providing much needed support to Colleges of Pharmacy, it also aims to improve the distribution of pharmacists by building upon the National Health Service Corps. Specifically, the bill expands eligibility of certain existing Federal grant programs to Colleges of Pharmacy to upgrade and expand facilities and laboratory space and recruit and retain talented faculty to educate pharmacy students. The bill also provides a number of new sources of financial aid to students interested in pursuing a career in pharmacy. First, the bill allows students entering pharmacy school and students who have graduated with a PharmD degree to apply for National Health Service Corps, NHSC, Scholarship and Loan Repayment funds. Second, it allows students who demonstrate financial need to apply for scholarships to qualifying schools of pharmacy. This bill is endorsed by a number of organizations, including the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, National Community Pharmacists Association, American College of Clinical Pharmacy and American Society of Health- System Pharmacists. Increasing demand for pharmacists makes it imperative that a proactive response to current trends be undertaken before the situation becomes critical. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeking expeditious consideration and passage of this timely and important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Pharmacy Education Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill. I believe this bill reflects the difficult times we face, both in the bill's priorities and in the spirit of bipartisanship in which it was crafted. I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for their patience and hard work. I believe this bill provides funding for the urgent needs of military personnel who are risking their lives every day in this war against terrorism. It provides for a 5 percent increase in basic pay for all service members and a targeted pay raise for midgrade officers and E-4 to E-9 enlisted personnel. It increases readiness accounts by $9.6 billion to aid our soldiers and sailors carrying out Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Noble Eagle. In addition, while taking care of immediate needs, this bill also considers the future, and provides funding for the services' transformation. One major transformation effort funded by this bill is the Navy's SSGN program. The President's budget request included a proposal to begin converting two of the four Trident submarines that would otherwise be retired under the Defense Department's plan to reduce the Trident ballistic missile submarine force from the current level of eighteen boats to a new level of fourteen boats. This bill adds $193 million to accelerate the program and preserve the option for converting all four boats. These converted submarines will provide the Navy with next generation technology. In one scenario, the SSGN can be configured to carry as many as 154 tomahawk missiles, more missiles in one vessel than are now carried in an entire carrier battlegroup and almost as many tomahawks used in Operation Allied Force. During operations against Iraq and in Kosovo, several submarines and surface ships were dedicated solely for missile strikes. With the SSGN, one vessel would be dedicated for strike operations and the remaining platforms would be freed up for other missions. In addition, this strike capacity would remain hidden so it would retain the element of surprise and be relatively invulnerable to attack. These converted submarines could also be configured to carry up to 66 special operations forces along with two advanced seal delivery systems or two drydock shelters. The ability to insert such a large number of special operations forces from a position of stealth would give the navy an unmatched capability to conduct covert operations or prepare for a larger landing force. Operations in Afghanistan are revealing on a daily basis the need for the invaluable tools that the SSGN can provide. I am pleased that this bill is providing this funding. Now, I would like to address an area of the bill where I have concerns. The recent events in Afghanistan and the reported attempts by Osama bin Laden to obtain chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear weapons materials and technology, including plutonium and highly enriched uranium, have increased the importance of the Nunn-Lugar programs at the Department of Defense and the related programs at the Department of Energy. These programs account for, secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction and supporting materials in Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union. I believe there is general consensus that these programs should not only be accelerated but that they should also be expanded. As a result, I was surprised and disappointed when I saw that the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense was cut in the Defense appropriations bill by $46 million. This cut is particularly troublesome because the fiscal year 2002 budget request for this program had already been reduced by $49 million by the administration. With this additional cut to Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program the program is $85 million below the fiscal year 2001 funding level. This is a 19 percent reduction in this important program, a program which after September 11, is even more important. I want to note that the additional supplemental funding that has been proposed would increase the funding for the companion programs at the Department of Energy, which I fully support, but there is no additional money for the Nunn- Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs at the Department of Defense in the proposed supplemental funding. I hope the funds for the Nunn-Lugar programs can be restored at least to the budget request level of $403 million before deliberations on this bill are concluded . I would also like to take a few minutes to discuss the funding for ballistic missile defense. Before September 11, ballistic missile defense was the administration's top priority. Today, despite weeks of evidence of other pressing needs and vulnerabilities that must be addressed, ballistic missile defense seems to still be the administration's top national security priority. In its July budget submission, the administration requested a staggering $8.3 billion for ballistic missile defense, a 57 percent increase from last year's funding level. The consensus of the Democratic members of the Senate Appropriations Committee was that of the $8.3 billion proposed for missile defense, $1.3 billion was ill- considered, and could best be spent elsewhere, for example on counter- terrorism programs. This is consistent with the report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which also recommended a $1.3 billion reduction for missile defense. I find it interesting that today many of my colleagues opposed the homeland security provisions in this bill, stating there it was unwise to allocate additional funds despite the obvious needs. Yet, there is still support for a 57 percent increase in the ballistic missile defense accounts when the program addresses a remote threat and is in some respects overfunded. Even if we had a working missile defense system, such a system could not have defended us from the attacks on the World Trade Center, nor the anthrax attacks, nor any of the other potential threats we face from worldwide terrorist networks. The fact is that terrorist networks do not have ballistic missiles, let alone missiles capable of reaching the United States. A ballistic missile leaves an easily detectable ``return address'' against which the United States could immediately and devastatingly retaliate. Such a weapon is not appropriate for terrorists who operate in shadows and in caves, eluding and evading detection. Furthermore, what nation would allow a terrorist organization to launch a ballistic missile from its soil, knowing that it would mean certain destruction for that Nation? Taking into account recent events, this appropriation bill places ballistic missile defense into a larger context and takes $1.3 billion of the $8.3 billion budgeted for missile defense and allocates it for missile defense and/or counterterrorism programs, whichever the President decides is in the best interest of national security. This provision is consistent with the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization bill previously passed by the Senate. Given the seriousness of the terrorist attacks on our country, and the continuing alerts of possible additional terrorist attacks, I urge President Bush to spend that $1.3 billion on counterterrorism programs. In the months following September 11, the nation has come to recognize just how vulnerable we are to the scourge of terrorism, and now many resources are needed to bolster our security. By contrast, if President Bush chooses to spend the $1.3 billion on missile defense, he will not be addressing the most likely and imminent threats we face, and he will not be furthering the cause of missile defense, either. That is because the $1.3 billion reduction approved by the Appropriations Committee is for activities that are ill-considered and poorly justified. Four simple principles ought to apply to missile defense programs, or any other development program for that matter. First, avoid deploying equipment that has not been thoroughly tested. We should know the equipment works prior to giving it to our soldiers. Second, do not fund activities that cannot be executed. This simply wastes scarce resources. Third, avoid excessive funding for non-specific activities without a firm justification or plan of how to spend the funding. And finally, avoid undue program growth rates--programs that have been moving along well should not be drastically accelerated without justification. The administration proposed spending over $200 million to procure 10 untested missiles and an untested radar for the THAAD theater missile defense system. The administration also proposed spending another $100 million to buy untested missiles for the Navy Theater-Wide system. These missiles would, if funded, permit the administration to claim ``contingency deployments'' for these systems by 2004, long before the systems are fully developed, tested and demonstrated to work effectively. Deploying systems that are not fully developed and tested is not the best way to get an effective missile defense capability for our nation, nor is it a wise way to spend our defense dollars. To do this would be to invite what retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch called a ``rush to failure,'' which we have previously experienced in missile defense programs, most notably in the THAAD program a few short years ago. We should not head down that road again. It leads to delays, cost overruns and program failure. The administration's desire for ``contingency deployments'' is particularly puzzling since the administration itself has spoken out on the risks of such deployments. Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, stated in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``emergency deployments are disruptive and can set back normal development programs by years.'' Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz provided similar testimony to the committee. The funding reductions for missile defense recommended by Senate Appropriations Committee would eliminate funding for ``contingency deployments'' of untested systems, freeing the funding for the fight against terrorism. I hope President Bush chooses to provide these funds for counter-terrorism rather than for ``contingency deployments'' of unproven missile defense systems. Hundreds of millions more dollars were in the administration's request to accelerate missile defense programs that are not yet fully designed, and for testing of programs that haven't even been fully conceived. For example, the budget request included $50 million for development and testing of a sea-based boost program. However, the design of a sea-based boost system does not yet exist, and it is unreasonable to request funding to test a nonexistent system. The Appropriations Committee substantially reduced funding for this activity, to a level more appropriate to a program still in its conceptual stage. I strongly support this reduction. The administration unduly accelerated a number of programs that are not ready for acceleration, thereby putting hundreds of millions of dollars at risk of being wasted on programs that will have to be reworked later. A prime example of this is the SBIRS-Low program, a very complex program of satellites intended to track missile targets by detecting the heat they emit while in space. Not only is this a very challenging mission, but the program has undergone substantial cost growth recently--the current cost estimate for the program now stands at over $20 billion. A few years ago the cost of three SBIRS-Low prototype satellites grew so high that the prototypes were canceled outright. Substantial cost growth is indicative of programmatic problems which should be resolved before spending more on the program. Options to the current plan should be considered and weighed. Yet the administration has proposed over $380 million for SBIRS-Low in 2002, a 60 percent increase over last year's funding level. Such a huge funding increase is not appropriate. The Appropriations Committee recommended a reduction of $120 million for SBIRS-Low, and I think this reduction is very wise. The Senate Appropriations Committee has given the President of the United States a very important choice to make. Following the lead of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Appropriations Committee has recommended $1.3 billion of funding reductions for missile defense. These reductions are not based on ideology or partisanship. They are based on an objective technical assessment of each missile defense program, and are consistent with the four principles I outlined earlier. Even with these reductions, the administration would still receive $7.0 billion for missile defense, 40 percent more funding than last year. By comparison, the Department of Defense only proposed $650 million for research in chemical and biological defense, a mere 16 percent more than last year. The President can choose to spend the $1.3 billion the Senate Appropriations Committee has offered him on the real threats the nation is facing today--on combating terrorism. Or he can choose instead to spend that money on unwise, ill-justified ballistic missile defense programs that will not increase our Nation's security. I urge him to choose counter-terrorism. This bill was drafted in trying times. It had to be immensely difficult to discern which of the innumerable pressing needs should receive scarce resources. I believe this appropriations bill strikes the proper balance and will provide our fighting men and women with what they need for victory. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to support the efforts of our chairman, Chairman Byrd, on an extraordinary package that recognizes the reality we have to do more, not less, and we have to do it now to respond to the issue of homeland defense. A few weeks ago I met with my Governor and all the emergency preparedness officials in the State of Rhode Island. They have an excellent plan. They have an idea of what they can do, what they must do. They don't have the resources to do it. Time waits for no person. And if we waste this time when the crisis comes and a response is necessary, the plans won't mean anything. This funding is critical now. It is critical to protect our preparedness infrastructure to allow first responders with appropriate equipment, with radios that communicate with all the different agencies, to be in place--not on order. We have to move now, and we have to move aggressively, and that is what the chairman has done. He has carefully weighed conflicting demands for scarce resources, and he has come up with a plan that covers the gamut of major responsibilities at the State level. We have to protect our infrastructure. We have to protect our nuclear facilities. We have to ensure that all of our State agencies and Federal agencies and not-for-profit groups, such as the Red Cross, are coordinated. Rhode Island is one of three or four States that have a plan that has been approved and accepted by the Federal Government. They know what to do. But they would be the first to tell you, as they told me, they don't have the resources to do the job. When the crisis comes, when an attack comes, we cannot satisfy our constituents simply by saying we had a good plan. We have to be able to act. This money is necessary now. I commend and thank the chairman for his great efforts, his leadership on those resources. If I may, I request 1 more minute.

Mr. REED. I am particularly concerned, in terms of assisting local communities, that they have these resources now because it will signal, first, that the Federal Government is committed to supporting them now; second, it will leverage State dollars. We are approaching a situation where the States are under extreme fiscal distress. Without the foundation of this Federal funding, I am very pessimistic that States will come forward. If it is not important for us, the Federal Government charged with protection of our country, then how is it important to a State legislature to appropriate funds this coming year, in the next few months? That is another reason I believe we have to act now. We have to act promptly. In addition, we have to be able to support the efforts of the State governments to begin to take these plans and operationalize them--to go and actually test these plans. Frankly, we will not know the gaps until they go out and test it. This money could enable that.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the current conference on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the ESEA. In particular, I bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact that last Friday the conference rejected the Senate's unanimous support for full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. I am deeply disappointed the conference would reject this very important legislation that has received unanimous support in the Senate. IDEA has been an extraordinarily important legislative vehicle for students with disabilities throughout this country. Only 15 percent of students with disabilities were receiving any serious education prior to the enactment of IDEA in the mid-seventies. Today a free, excellent public education is the rule of law for all children in America, including those with disabilities. Today, IDEA serves approximately 6 million children, the majority of whom are taught in regular classrooms in their neighborhoods. They are with their classmates, and they are learning. They are making impressive progress. High school graduation rates for special needs students have also increased dramatically. In an interesting study between those students who are beneficiaries of IDEA and older adults who did not have this opportunity although they did have disabilities, those younger students with IDEA are in the workforce at a much higher rate. This is not simply a good thing to do in an altruistic sense, it is an important thing to do for our economy, for our workforce. We have made progress with IDEA. We have increased the number of students who are covered. We have made it a standard that all students, particularly those with disabilities, would have access to classrooms, but we have not lived up to the real promise we made back in the mid- seventies, and that is that we would, in fact, pay 40 percent of the cost of this education for children with disabilities. Sadly, the Federal share is about 15 percent, leaving it up to the States to make up the difference. As we all know, this has been a constant source of contention between the States and the Federal Government. It is something we have the opportunity to correct in this conference, an opportunity we have not as yet seen, but it is an opportunity I hope in the days ahead we will be able to realize as we return to the conference and, once again, press for full funding of IDEA. We have been in this body and the other body over the last several years constantly talking about the importance of IDEA, strongly suggesting our unwavering support for IDEA. But those were easy votes because they were simply about the concept. The hard vote took place last Friday in the conference where we were actually going to put dollars to our words, to match our rhetoric with real resources. Unfortunately, on that real vote, the conference failed. We have an opportunity to build on what we did in the Senate several months ago. Senator Hagel and Senator Harkin offered an amendment that would fully fund IDEA and make it mandatory spending. The amendment would increase in yearly increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent Federal share is realized by the year 2007. In the process of making IDEA funding mandatory, it would free up anywhere between $28 billion and $52 billion in funds for discretionary educational programs that the Federal Government supports. This would be a win-win situation, clearly signaling to the States that they can depend upon a robust stream of IDEA funding and at the same time give us the opportunity to support other worthy Federal educational programs such as title I, such as professional development--all those programs that are so important. The President has rightly made education an important priority in his administration, and he has taken a very aggressive view toward tough accountability standards for testing, but the reality is, without resources, we cannot fully realize the potential of American students. We can test and test and test, but we do not have the resources for professional development, for smaller class size, for better libraries, for a host of programs. The testing will show us what we know already: There are students who, because of social circumstances, because of income circumstances, because of lack of resources in the schools, are falling behind. We know we can simply divide districts based upon their income, the affluent versus the poorest, and we will see a startling difference in performance of those children. We want to do better. We want to have tough accountability, but without resources we are not going to get the results. That, again, is why I am so disappointed we did not follow up with the wisdom of the Harkin-Hagel amendment and in the conference adopt the Senate position: full funding of IDEA, mandatory funding of IDEA. That could be the most fundamental education reform we could ever accomplish this year. Again, we missed the opportunity last Friday, but I hope before this conference concludes we will have another chance to revisit this issue and to seize this opportunity and fully fund IDEA. Just ask every Governor, every legislative leader, superintendents, principals; they will all say the same thing: The biggest thing we can do to help them provide good education for all students is to fully fund IDEA. That is what I hear when I go back to Rhode Island. I do not hear about more testing. I hear something about libraries and professional development, but what I hear consistently and constantly is: Please, fully fund the IDEA program; please. We are rejecting the pleas of those people who are in the front ranks of education, those people who have the most significant responsibility for education. Again, I think it is a mistake and a missed opportunity. This issue becomes very real in the lives of the children and the families who deal with issues of disability, and the parents who have to deal with this issue. It is not an academic one. It is not a budgetary issue. It is not an issue that is hypothetical we could debate. It is personal because every parent wants the best for their child. Some parents have to fight constantly to get what is owed their child through the special education program. In Rhode Island, I constantly meet parents and they contact me. One family, the Gulianos from East Greenwich, RI, wrote to me and told me about their struggle, which is typical of families across this country. From their letter: Time and time again, we have heard from very well meaning people that there is just not enough personnel or hours available to provide these kinds of services. We are told that they just don't have the funding. Funding that should have come from the legislation that entitles Jamie to receive appropriate educational services in the first place--IDEA. This school system, one of the best school systems in my State, is not a school system that would do badly on examinations. This is not a school system that lacks professional development or adequate class size or good facilities, but when it comes to IDEA even this district, this affluent community, lacks the resources to fully serve all the children it needs to serve, and this district is a home to families who are themselves typically college educated and very well off, and they can advocate for their child. But go into a center city where families under more economic stress and sometimes families are with one adult and several children. For these families it is virtually impossible to advocate successfully for the programs as they do in some of the more affluent suburbs. There the crisis is even more severe, the stress of funding more severe. We can alleviate some of those problems and that stress if we go ahead and make IDEA mandatory and free up not only funds for IDEA but also for other educational programs. I hear the same thing from school principals who say if they get more IDEA funding, they can have additional teachers, enhanced technology, all those things that we say are important to the educational process. Throughout my State, superintendents and principals have consistently and constantly come forward to say, give us more resources for IDEA. I believe strongly and emphatically this is something we have to do. It is not an option. We cannot put it off until next year or the following year. If we truly want to make an impact on education in the United States today, fund IDEA, provide strict accountability, provide resources for other programs such as professional development and libraries, and we will have educational progress. If we do not do that, then I think all the testing and all the accountability and all the evaluation will simply tell us what we know already: Some students are failing; other students are doing exceptionally well. The other problem we face is the reality that our brave words about IDEA, and our brave words and authorization about what we want to do with respect to funding education, will shortly collide with reality. Last week, OMB Director Daniels announced we have locked ourselves into several years of deficits, and in those deficits I do not think we are going to see the commitment in dollars to education we are hearing today in rhetoric. That is another very important reason why today we should make IDEA funding mandatory, and I hope we do. In my State of Rhode Island, our board of regents for elementary and secondary education has asked for a 4.4-percent increase. Frankly, the Governor is resisting because he has ordered every other department in the State to cut spending 6 percent. That is the reality of the States. If we want educational reform, if we want to assist and support every educational organization in the States, then we have to put real resources into the mix of educational reform. I argue again that our task in the next several days as we conclude this conference should be to, once again, bring to the conference the issue of IDEA, bring forth the Harkin-Hagel amendment, mandatory funding, a full Federal share by 2007. If we do that, we will have educational reform that works, that is robust, that is well funded, and that will make a huge difference in the lives of every student in America, particularly in the lives of those students with disabilities. I suggest the absence of a quorum.