Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak with respect to National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. Because of the efforts of my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Torricelli, and myself, this Senate passed a bipartisan resolution a last week to commemorate, during the week of October 24 to 30, National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. I think it is appropriate to recognize this problem that is taking place throughout this country and also recognize what we are trying to do to alleviate this great problem. As a preliminary point, let me commend my colleague, Senator Collins, for her great efforts in this regard. She has been a true leader in this issue. She has been someone who has fought the good fight with respect to this problem. She has participated legislatively. I was very pleased and honored a few weeks ago to have her join me in Providence, RI, for a hearing on this issue. I look forward to joining her in a few weeks in Maine so we can examine the experience in her home State. I also want to commend my colleague, Senator Torricelli, who also is very active as a leader in this effort. Indeed, Senator Torricelli and I have introduced legislation, the Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999, which is critically important to the future of our children in the United States. This importance has been underscored and highlighted by two recent reports--one earlier this year in January of 1999 by the General Accounting Office, and another report that has been released recently under the auspices of the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. Both of these reports underscore the need for additional efforts to eliminate childhood exposure to lead and also to provide additional support for screening and treatment of children who are exposed to environmental lead. Regrettably, there are too many children in this country who are exposed to lead, typically through old lead paint that may be in their home. It is particularly critical and crucial to children who are at a very young age, under the age of 6, because their body is much more likely to absorb this environmental hazard, and also because those are exactly the times in which brain nervous systems are developing, where cognitive skills are being developed. We know lead is the most pernicious enemy of cognitive development in children. In the United States, too many children are poisoned through this constant exposure to low-levels of lead in their atmosphere. This exposure leads to reduced IQ, problems with attention span, hyperactivity, impaired growth, reading and learning disabilities, hearing loss, and a range of other effects. Lead poisoning is entirely avoidable, if we have the knowledge and the resources and the effort to prevent young children from being exposed to lead. In January of this year, as I indicated, the General Accounting Office highlighted the problems in the Federal health care system with respect to lead screening and followup services for children. We have policies that require all Medicaid children to be screened for lead. Sadly, we have not achieved that level of 100 percent screening. We want to reach that goal. Then after screening all of the children in the United States who may be vulnerable to lead poisoning, we want to ensure these children have access to followup care. Identifying poisoned children is only the first step and is only effective when coupled with proper follow-up care. Most recently, we received information about that follow-up care from a report, the title of which is: ``Another Link in the Chain: State Policies and Practices for Case Management and Environmental Investigation for Lead-Poisoned Children.'' As I indicated, this report was sponsored by the Alliance To End Childhood Lead Poisoning and the National Center for Lead-Safe Housing. This report presents a State-by-State analysis of data which suggests, first, there have been some innovative steps taken by the States, but unfortunately there are disappointing gaps in the screening and treatment of children who are exposed to lead throughout the United States. There is also a great range among the States in their response to this problem of childhood lead poisoning. In my own State of Rhode Island, we have taken some very aggressive steps. Last week, we dedicated a lead center in Providence, RI, which provides comprehensive services for lead-poisoned children, including parent education, medical followup for children who have been exposed, and transitional housing. Many times the source of the pollution is in the home of these children, and because of their low income, there is no place for them to go unless there is this transitional housing. This is an innovative step forward. I am very pleased and proud to say it has taken place in my home State. If you look across the Nation, you find much less progress. Nearly half of the States have no standards for case management and, thus, the quality of care lead poisoned children receive is often not consistent with public health recommendations. There is no real way to ensure these children are getting the type of care they need because there are no case management policies. Only 35 States have implemented policies that address when an environmental investigation should be performed to determine the source of a child's lead poisoning. There are many States where there is no way to determine where the source of the pollution is coming from that is harming the child. In addition, the report points out that despite the availability of Medicaid reimbursement for environmental investigation and case management, more than half the States have not taken advantage of this Medicaid reimbursement. In addition, despite the emphasis we have in Medicaid on screening children, only one-third of the States could report on how many of their lead poisoned children were enrolled in Medicaid, suggesting that screening data are not being coordinated, and there really is not comprehensive, coherent screening policy in all too many States. Senator Torricelli and I have proposed legislation that would address these deficiencies. The legislation will improve the management information systems so States know how many children are screened and how many children have been exposed. We also encourage them to integrate all the different agencies and institutions and programs that serve children so we can have a comprehensive approach. This would include involving the WIC program in the screening, early Head Start, maternal and child health care block grant programs, so we have a comprehensive approach to identifying, treating, following up and educating with respect to lead exposure. We are committed to doing that. We are committed to ensuring that every child in this country, particularly those children who are beneficiaries of the Medicaid system, have this kind of screening and followup. Unfortunately, we have found too many States that are not following through on their obligations. Of the 38 States that have enrolled Medicaid children to managed care plans, only 24 reported that their State's contract with the managed care organization contained any language about lead screening or treatment services. So, many States are leaving it up to the managed care company or merely leaving it up to chance whether or not there are good protocols to follow up on lead exposure. In addition to that, more than 40 percent of States reported that no funding is available to help pay for even a portion of the hazard control necessary to make a home lead safe for a lead-poisoned child. There are not the resources to help these families cope with the reality of homes that are literally poisoning and harming their children. That is one reason why I joined my colleague, Senator Torricelli, to address this problem with respect to the Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999. We would like to see clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment to ensure that no child falls through the cracks. We would to help communities, parents and physicians take advantage of every opportunity they have to detect and treat lead poisoning. This bill is just one element in a comprehensive, coherent approach to eliminate this preventable disease that afflicts too many children in this country today. I was pleased that during the appropriations process, the Senate supported the President's request for full funding of the lead hazard control grants program--indeed, particularly pleased when the conferees agreed with the Senate and maintained this funding. It is absolutely critical. We will continue to press forward in terms of screening and treatment, in terms of reducing lead hazards in the homes of children, and in terms of education, so there is no place in this country that fails to recognize the gravity of this situation where children are poisoned by exposure to lead. Indeed, that is why we are here today. This week is National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. We hope by reserving 1 week a year to emphasize the challenges we face, to emphasize the steps which must be taken in the future, we can galvanize additional support so there is no child in this country who is poisoned by lead, whose development--physical, mental, social development--is harmed by such exposure. At the heart of this effort is the work of many people, but, once again, I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Susan Collins, who has taken it upon herself to charge forward to make this hope of a lead- safe environment for all our children a reality. I am pleased to be with her sponsoring this resolution, sponsoring this week of commemoration and also, in the days ahead, working to ensure that all the children are as free as we can make them from the harm and the danger of lead exposure. I ask unanimous consent that the Presidential message recognizing National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week and the executive summary of ``Another Link in the Chain,'' be printed in the Record, following my statement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Rebecca Morley of my staff.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Lt. Col. Alkie Carl Kaufman (RET) on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday. Lt. Col. Kaufman enlisted in the United States Army, Company E, 121st Infantry, Georgia National Guard in January 1927. In September 1940, he was called to active duty with the 121st Infantry, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Lt. Col. Kaufman bravely served as a company commander in the 30th Infantry Division, 8th Infantry Division and 77th Infantry Division during World War II. Later, Lt. Col. Kaufman served as company commander, battalion executive officer, battalion commander, and Regimental S-2 (Intelligence Officer) with the 94th Infantry Division in the European Theater of Operations during World War II. Following World War II and the Korean Conflict, Lt. Col. Kaufman proudly served his country across the country and around the globe. His assignments included Fort Lewis, Washington, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Tokyo, Japan, and Giessen, Germany. Lt. Col. Kaufman retired from the Army in 1960 with more than 33 years of service to the nation. After retiring from military service, Lt. Col. Kaufman joined the staff of the First National Bank of Brunswick and retired as Vice President for Loans in 1977. Lt. Col. Kaufman and his wife Frances had two children who chose to follow in their father's footsteps and join the armed services. Carl Kaufman retired from the U.S. Air Force with twenty-two years of service, and Col. Daniel Kaufman has served the United States Army for thirty-one years and is currently professor and Head of the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy. I am proud to salute Lt. Col. Kaufman for his great service to his nation and his family and I wish him well as he celebrates his ninetieth birthday.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join the majority leader and my colleagues in paying tribute to the senior Senator from Rhode Island, John H. Chafee. I do so not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the people of Rhode Island, for they have suffered a grievous loss. First, I extend my condolences to Mrs. Chafee and the Chafee family. Above all else, John Chafee was a devoted husband, a devoted father, and a loving and caring father and grandfather. Indeed, his family is a living tribute to his remarkable life. This is a personal loss to his family, to his friends, to his colleagues, but it is also a personal loss to the people of Rhode Island. For over 40 years, he has played a central role in the life of our State, and Rhode Island is a special place for many, many reasons, but it is a special place in particular because it is a place where everyone knows everyone else, and literally every Rhode Islander knew Senator John H. Chafee. If you had to ask Rhode Islanders what they felt and thought about this man, one word would come quickly to their lips: respect. This respect transcended party politics, social position, every category that we ascribe, sometimes arbitrarily, to people. This respect was a function of a recognition, first, of his qualities as a man. He was a man of integrity, intelligence, tenacity, and fairness. He was a gentleman. When I arrived in the Senate--and previously as a Member of the other body--he treated me with graciousness and cooperation and help, and I thank him for that from the bottom of my heart. The respect which Rhode Island holds for this great man is also a function of his selfless service to the Nation. He began that service as a young marine on Guadalcanal. He spent his 20th birthday there. John Chafee, the son of privilege, could have found an easier way to serve his country during World War II, but he chose the very hardest way, so typical of the man. He chose to go ashore with the invasion force of Guadalcanal at a time when it was not clear we would prevail. It was only clear we would give everything to win, and John Chafee was prepared to do that for his country, for his community, indeed, for decency throughout the world. Later, after serving in World War II and going back to law school, he was ready to assume the privileges and the rights which such service won him. But another war beckoned, and characteristically, John Chafee heard the summons of that trumpet and went to Korea to lead a marine rifle company. Again, he could have found less dangerous assignments but, once again, if American sons were at risk, John Chafee would lead them. After his service in the Marine Corps, he did return home, finished his law school studies, and came back home to Rhode Island. He served as a member of our general assembly with distinction, and in 1962, he was elected Governor of our State, clearly the most Democratic State in the country, but through arduous campaigning and through his personal qualities, he was elected by over 300 votes. Not a landslide, but enough to give him a chance to serve the people of Rhode Island, and serve he did. Long before it was popular and chic to be an environmentalist, John Chafee was an environmentalist. With innovative visionary legislation, he began our State's acquisition of open spaces so our quality of life would not be diminished by economic development. In fact, long before many others, he recognized that a good economy and a good environment not only can go hand in hand but must go hand in hand. This was the early sixties, long before Earth Day, long before the organized environmental movement, but he knew in his heart that quality of life was important to maintain. He knew also that our environmental legacy is a gift from God which we must revere, we must cherish, and we must pass on. And he did so. He was also a builder because it was this time in our history that route 95 was being developed right through the heart of Rhode Island, and he was there. In fact, he joked that it was a great opportunity for a Governor because every time they completed 2 or 3 miles of interstate, he could hold a press conference and talk about the progress. But it was something that was close to him, not because of notoriety, but because he saw this as a way to improve the economy of Rhode Island, to link us more closely to the national economy. Indeed, even up to his last days, he was working to improve the infrastructure, particularly the transportation infrastructure of Rhode Island, a mission he began as our Governor more than 30 years ago. As my colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia, pointed out, he served with great distinction as Secretary of the Navy. After his family, his State of Rhode Island and the Marine Corps were his great loves. These two passions--his State and the naval service--helped mold his life and, indeed, he in turn helped mold these great institutions-- our State and the naval service. He served with distinction at a time when the Navy was being stretched, the tumult of Vietnam was spilling out into our streets, and still we had to fight a superpower adversary in the form of the Soviet Union. He served with characteristic vision, innovation, and distinction. He was then elected to the Senate, and for four terms he has shown us all what it is to be a Senator. In fact, it is characteristic that Senator John H. Chafee literally died on active duty serving his Nation and serving his State as a Senator. He spent his whole life in service to the Nation. The respect for Senator Chafee also emanated from the recognition that he always had an unswerving commitment to principles. He was schooled in the hardest test: Always do the harder right rather than easier wrong. There are extraordinary numbers of examples to attest to this dedication of principle. I can think of several, but let me just suggest that, again, before so many people took up the cause of gun control, Senator Chafee stood solidly to control the violence in the life of America, to reasonably restrict access to weapons, to ensure that the lives of our children are protected. I can recall being with him at a rally he organized in Providence, RI, where he had Sarah Brady come in. We were literally enveloped by a large group of counterdemonstrators with bullhorns, pressing in on us, trying to literally disrupt this rally to control guns in our society. But anyone who waded ashore at Guadalcanal and fought in Korea was not easily intimidated. And he was not. He not only stood his ground that day, but he stood his ground every day to try to argue for more sensible rules with respect to handguns. And that is just one example of where he did, in some respect, the unpopular thing because it was the right thing to do. This respect also emanates from the recognition by my fellow Rhode Islanders that, more than so many others, he always sought to find the common ground that would bring different groups together, that would result in progress, both in terms of legislation but more importantly progress in terms of the lives of the American people. He was a pragmatist. He was committed to advancing the well-being of his constituents and the people of this country, and, indeed, the people of the world. He was always looking for practical ways to do that. He was wedded to the strong principles of the Constitution. But he was able to find ways, through the details, to advance those principles, to bring others aboard, to move forward. When he became impatient, it was an impatience borne of the distractions that we sometimes find ourselves in in this institution and the posturing that we sometimes find ourselves in in this institution--because he was here to do the job of the people of Rhode Island: To improve their lives, to give them more opportunities, to give them more freedom, so they can use it not only for their advancement and the advancement of their children but the advancement of this great country. He had a special concern for children and those Americans with disabilities. It was a concern that he did not trumpet about, but it was a concern that resonated throughout his entire legislative career. Today, we have done much to ensure that the poorest children of America have health care through our Medicaid Program. And that was the handiwork of John Chafee--not through press releases but through the hard work of legislation, the detailed intricacies of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Social Security laws. He expanded coverage because, while others would be disheartened by failure of comprehensive reform, he dug in and every day advanced the cause of health care, particularly for children in this country. He always had a special place in his heart and in his service for disabled Americans. I know that because the disabled citizens in Rhode Island revere and treasure this great man for what he has done--again, long before public acclaim or public notoriety. And why did he do it? Because it was the right thing to do. In March of this year, Senator Chafee announced he was leaving the Senate and going home. Last evening, he began that final journey home-- home to Rhode Island, a State made infinitely better by his effort and example, a place that mourns but will forever revere his service and take pride in his achievements and inspiration from his life. In the words of the Poet William Butler Yeats: The man is gone who guided ye, unweary, through the long bitter way. Ye by the waves that close in our sad nation, Be full of sudden fears, The man is gone who from his lonely station Has moulded the hard years. . . . Mourn--and then onward, there is no returning He guides ye from the tomb; His memory now is a tall pillar, burning Before us in the gloom! Senator Chafee will allow us to mourn, but insist that we move forward to do the unfinished work, which is the hope and promise of America. And with him as a guide we shall. And he would want it that way. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise with regret. Again, we are on the verge of abandoning substantive votes on campaign finance reform. This is an issue of vital importance to the American people. It is of vital importance to the majority of Members of this body. We are here today because of the efforts of many, but particularly the efforts of Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, who have advanced this issue relentlessly over the course of the last several years. I regretfully and unfortunately fear we will step away once again from this debate, step away once again from consideration of this important topic. This is detrimental not only to this body, but also to the American people, who desperately want to see changes to our campaign finance system. I am disappointed because we have come very close collectively in this Congress to a principled reform of our campaign finance system. The other body has passed legislation which is comprehensive. They have passed legislation which is now embodied in an amendment filed by Senator Daschle and Senator Torricelli. I believe this legislation goes a long way towards addressing many of the problems that confront our campaign finance system. It is not perfect. It is not absolutely complete. But it is a powerful corrective to the current problems we find in our campaign finance system. The amendment which Senator Daschle and Senator Torricelli have advanced, known popularly as the Shays-Meehan amendment for the sponsors in the other body, does several important things. First and foremost, it bans soft money. Unlike the McCain-Feingold legislation, it bans all soft money--not just soft money directed at political parties. Although we speak in these terms constantly, soft money, hard money, et cetera, I want to point out that soft money is unregulated contributions from corporations and individuals, typically very wealthy individuals, that are increasingly commonplace in elections throughout this country. The Daschle legislation bans all such soft money contributions with respect to Federal elections. I believe that is the best way to proceed. Even though the McCain-Feingold bill is noteworthy and important, I fear simply banning money from political parties will drive these contributions to other formats, other forms, other forums. Campaign dollars, like water, find their own level. When one channel is blocked, another channel will be pursued. Unless we have a comprehensive approach, unless we ban all soft money, rather than eliminating this problem we will merely redirect and reposition these soft dollars into other forms. The second important point with respect to the Torricelli and Daschle legislation, is that it recognizes a relatively new phenomena in campaigns, sham issue ads, which are really campaign ads which are unregulated. They are dressed up to talk about an issue, but they are really about attacking candidates. Unless we have some disclosure, some regulation, these ads will become more prevalent and more pernicious in our campaign system. The third point that the Daschle-Torricelli bill addresses is improving disclosure by the Federal Elections Commission and enforcement by the Federal Election Commission. It is not sufficient to have laws and rules on the books; they must be enforced. We all understand and believe that the more knowledge the American public has about campaign contributions and their sources and uses, the more comfortable they will feel with the political system. Finally, this legislation which Senator Daschle and Senator Torricelli introduced establishes a commission to study further reform. All of these points are necessary. They don't completely solve all the issues that confront our campaign finance system, but they go a long way towards advancing the cause of fundamental campaign finance reform. Personally, I believe one of the problems we face is the escalation of spending on elections throughout this country and that we should address this issue of unlimited spending. None of the legislation currently before the Senate goes that far, but I believe we have to review and visit that issue when we again commence our debate on campaign finance reform. This issue of campaign finance reform is not an academic, hypothetical, theoretical concern. It comes directly from the concerns of the American people. It is manifested by their increasing cynicism about the political system. It is manifested by their increasing indifference to the forms of government, to elections, to voting. This cynicism and indifference weakens our civic connections, weakens the foundation of our government--which is at heart the belief by our people in its fairness, efficiency and its service to them. All of this can be traced in part to the growing cynicism towards the campaign finance system. These public phenomena have been measured by various surveys. In August, the Counsel for Excellence in Government released a survey conducted by Peter Hart and Robert Teeter, a Democratic pollster and a Republican pollster. They found less than 40 percent of the American people believe in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln: Our government is by and for the people. Rather, they believe it is a captive of special interests, and the lure the special interests use are campaign finance dollars. In the past, people have been disillusioned with big government and unaccountable bureaucrats. Today, they are cynical and disillusioned about the flood of cash flowing through the campaign finance system. Another survey in January of this year, the Center on Policy Attitudes, found continuing record high public dissatisfaction with government. This finding supports the notion that people believe that government, and particularly elections, are not about ideas and policies, but about money. Money is talking and the American public's voice is being drowned out. We must counter this--but we don't counter this type of public perception by walking away and abandoning campaign finance reform; rather, we counter it properly, correctly, and appropriately by debating and voting on substantive campaign finance reform. I have made it clear my preference is for legislation along the lines of Senator Daschle's and Senator Torricelli's amendment, essentially accepting the work of the other body in the Shays-Meehan legislation, moving it forward, letting the President sign it, and letting the American people know that we are listening to them; we hear them, and we want to respond positively to their concerns and their growing uneasiness with our campaign finance system. We are all trapped in a system that no one seems to like. The public does not like it and candidates are increasingly uneasy and concerned about the need to raise huge amounts of money, the constant effort needed to do that, and the perception of their efforts with respect to their obligations as public servants. Donors are increasingly troubled by the system. Indeed, many prominent business men and women throughout the country have banded together to support comprehensive campaign finance reform. It seems we are engaged in a race to the bottom--a race to see not what idea will prevail but how much money one can raise; to not just express a message but to drown out all other messages. Another disturbing aspect of this process, campaigns now are being wrenched away from the candidate. One of the more disconcerting aspects of recent campaigns, a candidate can be out there making his or her case and suddenly be informed there is a TV ad from some unknown group from someplace in America arguing against them, advocating their defeat. All of this suggests we have to do something about our campaign system. As I mentioned, the other body has stepped forward. They have given us legislation. We are very close, if we embrace this legislation, to passage of fundamental campaign finance reform. I hope we will take this step, but it appears increasingly clear we are abandoning our obligation to the American people. We are stepping away from votes on the substance of campaign finance reform, be it the McCain-Feingold legislation or the Daschle-Torricelli legislation. I believe that is a mistake. I believe the American people want us to act responsibly; they want us to act promptly; they want us to do what they sent us here to do, which is their business. And their business in the campaign finance area is putting in place reasonable restraints on spending. A lot has been said about the marketplace of ideas, and that any fetters on campaign contributions would somehow affect the marketplace of ideas. There very well might be a marketplace for ideas in today's campaigns, but it is a market with very high barriers to entry, barriers that require extensive fundraising to overcome. It certainly is not perfect competition because the American people believe their voices cannot compete with the voices of large corporations or wealthy individuals who can, through direct contributions to candidates and indirect contributions of soft money, get their messages across on television or in the advertising media. What many people fear is that elections have become less about candidates and ideas and more about auctions. They find that instinctively repelling. We have a chance to act. We should act. Regretfully, today we are forsaking that obligation. We are turning away from campaign finance reform. We are abandoning an obligation we should meet. I regret that. I hope we can proceed with this debate and move to votes on these measures, but I fear that will not be the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Could I----

Mr. REED. I withhold.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, thank you. First, let me thank the Senator from Michigan for graciously allowing me to precede him. I also understand he may have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to encourage communities to foster school-based or school-linked family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of information, support, services, and activities to improve the education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of children and their families. As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of children cannot be met by the education system alone. Some facts to illustrate this point: Today, 11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working families--have no health insurance. 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that fewer than one in five receive the help they need. It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25 percent of all crimes. To address these and other serious issues facing our children and families, a few states and localities have established centers and developed programs designed to provide families with access and linkages to needed social services in a location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school. All too often, the programs and services currently available to assist children and families, like health and mental health care, nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, exist in a fragmented fashion, making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. The aim of my legislation is to bring these vital services under one familiar roof so children and families have easy access to needed services. Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families. According to a report by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need, make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage their own lives successfully.'' My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers Act, builds on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative. The Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers Act would provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a high poverty school; school district; other public agency, such as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community organizations, including a family health center that provides mental health services. Partnerships would be required to complete a needs assessment, and then use this information to provide children and families with linkages to existing community prevention and intervention services in the core areas of education, health, and family support. In addition, partnerships would provide violence prevention education to children and families and training to enable families to help their children meet challenging standards and succeed in school. The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help children and families get the assistance they need. This principle is reflected in my legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, school readiness, family participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care, child care, and family support services and work to reduce violence-related problems, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order to continue to receive funding. As we prepare to work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the support they need, we can truly help children succeed in school and life. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to encourage communities to foster school-based or school-linked family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of information, support, services, and activities to improve the education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of children and their families. As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of children cannot be met by the education system alone. Some facts to illustrate this point: Today, 11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working families--have no health insurance. 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that fewer than one in five receive the help they need. It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25 percent of all crimes. To address these and other serious issues facing our children and families, a few states and localities have established centers and developed programs designed to provide families with access and linkages to needed social services in a location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school. All too often, the programs and services currently available to assist children and families, like health and mental health care, nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, exist in a fragmented fashion, making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. The aim of my legislation is to bring these vital services under one familiar roof so children and families have easy access to needed services. Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families. According to a report by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need, make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage their own lives successfully.'' My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers Act, builds on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative. The Child Opportunity Zone Family Centers Act would provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a high poverty school; school district; other public agency, such as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community organizations, including a family health center that provides mental health services. Partnerships would be required to complete a needs assessment, and then use this information to provide children and families with linkages to existing community prevention and intervention services in the core areas of education, health, and family support. In addition, partnerships would provide violence prevention education to children and families and training to enable families to help their children meet challenging standards and succeed in school. The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help children and families get the assistance they need. This principle is reflected in my legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, school readiness, family participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care, child care, and family support services and work to reduce violence-related problems, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order to continue to receive funding. As we prepare to work on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the support they need, we can truly help children succeed in school and life. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding and also thank him and the Senator from Mississippi for their efforts on behalf of this legislation. But I must come to the floor today in opposition to this bill because it is not fair legislation for all the farmers of America--certainly not fair to the farmers of the Northeast, in Rhode Island, New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, because they have suffered a tremendous loss this year because of a drought that has historic implications. It was the worst drought in the history of this region in over 105 years of record keeping by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This has had a devastating impact on the farmers of my State and of the region. Most people do not consider the Northeast to be a place where there are lots of farms, but in my own small State of Rhode Island there are over 700 farmers who grow vegetables, turf, nursery stock, cranberries, strawberries, and potatoes. We also have numerous orchards and dairy farms. All of these farms have suffered devastating losses. And these are family farms; these are not large agricultural combines--certainly not in Rhode Island. They are family farms that are struggling to make do. This year they had a difficult struggle because of this historic drought. We originally thought that farm losses would be about 50 percent of the crop--a serious blow. But I have just been given data today from our agricultural authorities where in Rhode Island they are suggesting that the August estimates were not as severe as the reality is turning out to be. In fact, the estimate is that the percentage loss of sweet corn in the State is 80 percent, silage corn is 70 percent, potatoes is 60 percent, mixed vegetables is 75 percent, and hay is 50 percent. These are difficult losses to bear, particularly difficult to bear without assistance. We have received some rain through the last few weeks, but it has not been enough to reverse the damage that already was done April through August with the worst drought in the history of our region. That is why I am here today, because, frankly, the resources in this legislation that are being made available to the Northeast, to the Mid- Atlantic farmers, are insufficient. We have tried, over the last several months, to structure a meaningful relief package that would help the farmers throughout this country--every region. In the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, Democrats offered an amendment to provide disaster relief for America's farmers and ranchers which would have taken care of all of our farmers throughout the country. This provision was rejected by the majority. Later, Democrats offered additional disaster relief amendments to the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill as it was being considered in the subcommittee. Those amendments were rejected also. On the floor of the Senate in August, I joined my Democratic colleagues in supporting an emergency farm package that would provide over $10 billion to producers in need of relief, including $2.6 billion in disaster relief and $212 million in emergency conservation assistance, both of which would have been very critical to my farmers in Rhode Island and throughout the Northeast. Sadly, that proposal was also rejected. There was even discussion to try to work out a compromise, a bipartisan effort, on the order of $8.8 billion. This, too, failed. Finally, I think in the hopes of moving the process forward, we did agree to the final $7 billion package proposed by the majority, as a downpayment, if you will, on the necessary support we hoped we could obtain through the conference process and we hoped we would be voting on today in this final conference report. But today we are faced with a bill which we cannot amend, which we must either accept or reject; and, sadly, despite all the efforts, all the earnest efforts of my colleagues, I must vote against it because it does not provide the kind of assistance that is necessary for the farmers of my State and my region. Of the $8.7 billion in emergency farm relief in the appropriations bill, only $1.2 billion is set aside for all disasters declared by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1999. In the Northeast alone, our Governors have told us we are facing nearly $2 billion in total losses. And as today's data indicates, those are probably conservative estimates. For the Department of Agriculture to cover 65 percent of our region's losses alone would cost about $1.3 billion. Yet we have only appropriated $1.2 billion for the entire country--every region, for every natural disaster from January 1 to December 31. So as you can see, all of this money that is within this bill could easily be used in the Northeast, in the Mid-Atlantic alone, but it will be spread throughout the country and, in fact, be spread in such a way that my farmers will be particularly disadvantaged. It is unlikely this $1.2 billion of disaster relief money will be available to my farmers until sometime in the middle of next year because, as the legislation is written, the Secretary must wait until the end of the year to calculate all of the damages throughout the country and then begin the cumbersome process of proration and distribution of these funds, which could take months. That is another problem with the legislation. Not only are there insufficient funds available to the Northeast, but these funds may not come until the middle of next year. That is in contrast to what my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out with respect to those farmers who are part of the Agricultural Market Transition Act. There is $5.5 billion there. That money will be flowing out immediately. They will get assistance immediately. Not only will they get this assistance, but they will also qualify for this $1.2 billion of natural disaster money if they suffered their loss through a natural disaster. They will get essentially two bites of the apple, where my farmers in the Northeast will get what is left. There are many States throughout this country that qualify for this disaster program, this $1.2 billion--33 States, in fact. So there will be a long line of farmers who have to be satisfied by this insufficient amount of money. There are things we could have done, I believe we should have done, in addition to putting more money into the natural disaster program so we could take care of the real needs of all the farmers across the country. I had hoped we could have increased the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, which is something that has been helpful in the past. There is also a Livestock Feed Assistance Program which is also critically important to my farmers in the Northeast because much of the silage has been lost. In our dairy farms particularly, that is a critical loss. We also, as we go forward, should think about the structure of the program for noninsured crop disaster assistance, the NAP program. There is a trigger in that program that requires a 35-percent areawide loss. Sometimes we can't meet that loss, but, frankly, most of the crops in my State are noninsured. They are strawberries, vegetables, et cetera. They individually sometimes can't meet this trigger, and they are denied any assistance whatsoever. If that program were more flexible, we could address some of the concerns we are talking about today in terms of insufficient funding. In addition to this lack of resources, in addition to the unfairness of the distribution, in addition to the lack of timely response to the problems of my farmers in the Northeast and Rhode Island, there is also the issue of the dairy compact. Failing to extend this undercuts a program that was working, a program that provided not only support to the dairy industry in my State but, frankly, provided consumers with milk at reasonable prices. It also provided tremendous environmental benefit to the State of Rhode Island and other States because of the pressure of development, particularly in the Northeast. Many of these dairy farms, given the choice of producing at a loss each year or selling out to developers, will sell out. In Rhode Island, the little green space we have becomes less and less and less. For all these reasons, I must oppose this legislation. I hope in the remaining days of this session we can, in fact, find ways and other legislative vehicles, perhaps even a supplemental, to direct assistance to the farmers throughout this country, including farmers in the Northeast, particularly in my home State of Rhode Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I believe the real question before us is whether or not the world will be safer with or without the nuclear test ban treaty. I believe we are safer. From a very self-interested standpoint, if this treaty is adopted, it gives us the very real potential of locking all of our potential adversaries into permanent nuclear inferiority because they will not be able to conduct the sophisticated tests necessary to improve their technology, particularly when it comes to the miniaturization of nuclear warheads. It will, also, I think, contribute to an overall spirit which is advancing the cause of nuclear disarmament and also ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons. On the other side of the coin, if we step back from this treaty today and vote it down, I think we will set back this progress in trying to reduce nuclear arms throughout the world. All of us have come to this floor with different viewpoints, but I suspect we would all say the process we have undertaken is somewhat suspect. I spent 12 years in the Army, and I learned to grow up under the rule of ``hurry up and wait.'' Well, this process resembles ``wait and hurry up.'' The President submitted this treaty to the Senate over 2 years ago. Yet for months, no action was taken. Then last week, suddenly it was announced that we would conduct a very limited debate, that we would have hastily constructed hearings, and that we would move to a vote. I think that process alone suggests that we wait, at least--as we consider more carefully this treaty to discharge our obligations under the Constitution--for a thorough and detailed analysis of all the consequences. Indeed, this is a very complex subject matter, as the debate on the floor today and preceding days has indicated. I believe we need to take additional time. I hope we can take additional time. But if the measure were to come before this body for a vote, I would vote to support the treaty because, as I have said, I think passing this treaty would provide a safer world. Rejecting this treaty would, I think, disrupt dramatically any further attempts at a significant comprehensive reduction of nuclear weapons throughout the world. I think it is somewhat naive to suggest that if this Senate rejected the treaty, we could simply go back next week and begin to negotiate again on different terms. I think we would be sending a very strong and dangerous signal to the world that we, rather than carefully considering this treaty, have rejected it almost outright. I think, also, together with other developments, such as our genuine attempts to look for a relaxation of the ABM Treaty, rejection could be construed as not suggesting we are serious about nuclear disarmament but, quite the contrary, that we ourselves are beginning to look at nuclear weapons and nuclear technology in a different light, a light less favorable. Let me suggest something else. This treaty will not prevent us from testing our nuclear technology. It will prevent us, though, from conducting tests involving nuclear detonation. We can in fact go on and test our technology. We have been testing our technology constantly over the last 7 years without a nuclear detonation. This treaty would not ban nuclear weapons. This treaty also would provide for an extensive regime of monitoring sites--over 300 in 90 countries. It would allow for onsite inspection if, in fact, a significant number of signatories to the treaty were convinced that a violation took place. These additional monitoring sites, together with the onsite inspections, are tools that do not exist today to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. There has been some discussion about our ability to monitor the development of nuclear weapons and, indeed, to monitor clandestine tests of nuclear devices. I think the suggestion has been made--and I think it is inaccurate--that a nuclear detonation could take place without anybody knowing anything at all about it. That is not the case at all. Just last week, there was an article in the Washington Post entitled ``CIA Unable To Precisely Track Testing.'' If you read the article, it is clear that the CIA was able to detect two suspicious detonations at a Russian test site in the Arctic from seismic data and other monitoring devices. What they could not determine is whether this detonation was high explosives of a nonnuclear category or a nuclear detonation. But certainly we will have indications, if there is a clandestine test, that the possibility of a nuclear detonation has taken place. That alone will give us, I believe, the basis to go forward and ask for onsite inspections and for an explanation, to use the levers of this treaty which we do not have at this moment. So the issue of verification, I think, is something that is quite obvious and prominent within this treaty, and the means of verification were discussed at length by my colleague from Nebraska who pointed out all the different techniques our intelligence service has to identify possible violations of this treaty and, with this treaty, to be able to press those violations in a world forum so we can ascertain whether the treaty has been adhered to or violated. The whole notion of controlling nuclear testing is not new. Throughout this debate, my colleagues have discussed the initiatives that began as early as the 1950s with President Eisenhower. Then, in 1963, President Kennedy was able to sign, and the Senate ratified, the Limited Test Ban Treaty which outlawed nuclear explosions in the sea, atmosphere, and in outer space. In 1974, we entered into a treaty with the Soviet Union--the Threshold Test Ban Treaty--which prohibited underground testing with yields greater than 150 kilotons. In 1992, Congress passed the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment which called for a moratorium on testing. We are still observing today. Also, I think it would be appropriate to point out that in fact for the last 7 years, we have not detonated nuclear devices. Yet each and every year, our scientists, the experts in the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, have certified that our nuclear stockpile is both safe and reliable. So the assertion that we can never assure the reliability and safety of our nuclear stockpile without testing has been disproven over the last 7 years. We have done that. Now, I believe we can in fact maintain a nuclear stockpile that is both safe and reliable. We can do it using the new technology we are developing, including but not exclusively related to, computer simulations. We can do it by investing, as we are each year, billions of dollars--over $4 billion--so we can ensure that we have a safe nuclear stockpile and that these weapons would be reliable if we were forced to use them. There is something else I think should be pointed out. This treaty has been endorsed and recommended to us by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Energy. These are individuals who take very seriously their responsibility for the national security of the United States. But some might suggest, well, they are part of this administration and we really know that, reading between the lines, their recommendation might not be as compelling as others. But such logic would not suggest or explain why individuals such Gen. John Shalikashvili, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Colin Powell; Gen. David Jones; or Adm. William Crowe would in fact be supportive of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Nobody would suggest why other prominent military officers, such as John Galvin, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; Gen. Charles Horner, who commanded the air forces in Desert Storm; Bernard Rogers, another former Commander of NATO and Supreme Commander in Europe, would also recommend and support this treaty. These individuals are concerned about security and have spent their lives in uniform dedicated to the security of this Nation and the protection of our people. They believe, as I do, that this will be a safer world with this treaty rather than if we reject this treaty. With this treaty, I think we can curtail dramatically the development of nuclear weapons by opposing powers to the United States. It is true that you can develop a nuclear weapon without a test. You can develop the unsophisticated rudimentary weapons that were used in World War II. But you cannot develop the sophisticated technology which is the key to strategic nuclear power without nuclear testing. If we accept this treaty, if we join with other nations, then we will be in a much stronger position, and the world will be in a much stronger position, to ensure that countries such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea will be very challenged to develop the kind of sophisticated nuclear weapons that will alter the strategic balance throughout the world. That in and of itself, I believe, will make it a safer world. Of course, the elimination of testing will have a positive environmental effect. Even though our tests now throughout the world are restricted underground, there is always the possibility of leakage of radioactive material. And we know how devastating that can be. There are those who have been here today who argued that we should reject this treaty because it is not 100 percent verifiable. I would suggest that we can, in fact, verify this treaty--that 100 percent is not the standard we would reasonably use. As I have indicated previously, we have already detected what we suspect are suspicious detonations in Russia. We would be even better prepared to do that with 300 more monitoring stations in 90 countries around the world. In fact, we would then have an international forum to take our complaints and to force an explanation, and, if necessary, an onsite inspection of a test. I think we have an obligation to carefully review and consider this treaty. I believe that we do. And that consideration would be enhanced by additional time. I think it would be appropriate to take additional time. But it would be a terrible, I think, disservice to the process of nuclear disarmament, of nuclear nonproliferation, and of a saner world if we were to reject this treaty out of hand. And the world is watching. President Clinton was the first head of state to sign this treaty. One-hundred and fifty nations followed. Forty-one nations have ratified the treaty, and several more, including Russia, are waiting again for our lead in ratifying. Unless we are part of this treaty, this treaty will never go into effect because it requires all of the nuclear powers--those with nuclear weapons or with nuclear capabilities--to be a party to the treaty before it can go into effect. I hope we either in our wisdom consider this more, or in our wisdom accept ratifying this treaty. Thirty-six years ago when the Limited Test Ban Treaty came to this floor, a great leader of this Senate, Senator Everett Dirksen, was one of the forces who decided to take a very bold step that was as equally daunting and challenging as the step we face today. His words were: A young President calls this treaty the first step. I want to take a first step, Mr. President. One my age should think about his destiny a little. I should not like to have written on my tombstone, ``He knew what happened at Hiroshima, but he did not take a first step.'' The treaty is not the first step. But it is, I believe, the next logical step that we must take. I believe none of us want to look back and say that we were hesitant to take this step, that we were hesitant to continue the march away from the nuclear apocalypse to a much saner and a much safer world. I yield my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment sponsored by my colleague from New Mexico. I commend him for his commitment and dedication. During the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I was a member of the other body. There I proposed an accountability amendment in committee which strengthened our oversight and accountability for title I and other elementary and secondary school programs. When we came to the conference, it was Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico who was leading the fight on the Senate side to ensure accountability was part and parcel of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am pleased to work with him today on this very important amendment. What we propose to do is to provide $200 million so the States can move from talking about accountability and intervening in low- performing schools to actually taking the steps to do just that. There are scarce Federal dollars that we provide for elementary and secondary education programs, the principal program being title I. Although we allocate $8 billion a year for title I, there still appears to be insufficient resources to ensure that accountability reforms and oversight are effectively taking place in our schools. This amendment provides for those resources. It ensures we get the best value for the money we invest in title I. It allows schools to not only provide piecemeal services to students but to look and seek out ways to reform the way they educate the students in their classrooms. We will continue as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act approaches to stress this issue of accountability. But today we have an opportune moment to invest in accountability and school reform. What we find is that the States, either through lack of financial resources, lack of focus, or due to other commitments and priorities, are not intervening in low-performing and failing schools as they should. They are not directing the kind of school improvement teams, for example, that have been authorized under title I. This amendment gives them not only the incentive but the resources to do that. In effect, what we are trying to do is make title I not just a way to distribute money to low-income schools but to stimulate the reform and improvement of these schools. It should be noted that the amendment targets the lowest performing schools to try to lift up those schools which are consistently failing their students. We all know if the schools are not working, these young people are not going to get the education they need and require to be productive citizens and workers and to contribute to our community and to our country. That is at the heart of all of our efforts on both sides of the aisle in the Senate. It is vitally important to turn around the lowest performing and failing schools. The 1994 reauthorization focused attention in the States on accountability, improvement, and reform. The States have taken steps to adopt accountability systems. But today we are here to give States and school districts the tools to ensure the job of turning around failing schools can be done effectively and completely. I urge passage of this amendment. Once again, I commend the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership and look forward to working with him as we undertake the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the months ahead. I yield whatever time I have.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution which would designate October 24-30, as ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week.'' Despite steady progress over the past two decades to regulate inappropriate uses of lead, the tragedy of childhood lead poisoning remains very real for nearly one million preschoolers in the U.S. Most children are poisoned in their own homes by deteriorating lead- based paint and lead-contaminated dust. While lead poisoning crosses all barriers of race, income, and geography, most of the burden of this disease falls disproportionately on low-income families or families of color who generally live in older, poorer quality housing. In the United States, children from low-income families are eight times more likely to be poisoned than those from high income families. African American children are five times more likely to be poisoned than white children. Nationwide, almost 22 percent of African American children living in older housing are lead poisoned, a staggering statistic, particularly given the overall decline in blood lead levels in the last decade. Unfortunately, many communities have not experienced a major decline in blood lead levels. In fact, in some communities, more than half of the preschool children are lead poisoned. Baltimore, Providence, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Chicago all have lead poisoning rates that are three to nine times the national average. Even low levels of exposure to lead impair a child's ability to learn and thrive, causing reductions in IQ and attention span, reading and other learning disabilities, hyperactivity, aggressive behavior, hearing loss, and coordination problems. These effects are persistent and interfere with their success in school and later in life. Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels are seven times more likely to drop out of high school and six times more likely to have reading disabilities. State health officials believe that the need for certain education services is 40 percent higher among children with significant lead exposure. Mr. President, lead poisoning is entirely preventable, making its prevalence among children all the more frustrating. In addition, lead poisoning has many dimensions, and therefore we have to tackle it from all directions. Specifically, our efforts should include screening and treating poisoned children, identifying and removing the source of their exposure, educating parents, landlords and entire communities about the dangers of lead, and ensuring that resources to address the problem are available and accessible to all who need them. I have been working on a number of initiatives in the Senate to address this problem including urging Senate leaders to provide for more funding for lead abatement. Last year, I sponsored an amendment that resulted in an increase of $20 million in funding to eliminate lead hazards in the homes of young children. This year, the Senate has supported a similar figure. Also, I have become deeply concerned, along with my colleague Senator Torricelli, about recent reports that children at risk for lead poisoning are not adequately screened or treated for the disease, even if they are enrolled in Medicaid. Although children enrolled in Medicaid are three times more likely than other children to have high amounts of lead in their blood, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recently reported that less than 20 percent of these young children have been screened for lead poisoning. Even more disconcerting is that half of the states do not have screening policies that are consistent with federal requirements. For this reason, we have introduced the Children's Lead SAFE Act (S. 1120) to ensure that all children at risk of lead poisoning receive their required screenings and appropriate follow-up care by holding states accountable. Mr. President, I have been working on making important, yet common- sense, policy changes to ensure that children are screened and treated for lead poisoning and to provide critical funding for leadsafe housing. Beyond these efforts, I believe we need to take further steps to raise pubic awareness about the dangers of lead poisoning. Last month, Senator Collins and I hosted a Public Health Subcommittee hearing in Rhode Island to highlight the importance of the issue and to hear about the successful approaches undertaken by organizations in my home state to address the problem. We plan to hold a similar hearing in Maine next month. Because lead poisoning is a national problem, we believe it deserves national attention. That is why Senator Collins and I, along with 26 original co-sponsors are introducing this bipartisan resolution that would commemorate the week of October 24-30, 1999 as ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week.'' Designation of a national week for lead poisoning prevention would raise public awareness about the issue and highlight the need to protect children from lead poisoning to ensure their healthy development. The Senate resolution would serve to further our efforts to recognize lead poisoning as a national problem and declare lead poisoning prevention as a national priority. The proposed resolution would also acknowledge the suffering of the many children with lead poisoning and their parents whose active involvement individually and through grassroots organizations has been instrumental in efforts to reduce lead poisoning. The resolution is supported by the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, the Children's Defense Fund, the Environmental Defense Fund, and more than one hundred state and local organizations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from the Children's Defense Fund and the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, along with the list of the 100 supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Harkin as part of the managers amendment have included an additional $50 million for the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program. I had offered an amendment to provide this level of funding along with Senators Collins, Gordon Smith, Snowe, Jeffords, Kennedy, Murray, Levin, Conrad, Hutchinson, DeWine, Chafee, Bingaman, Kerry, Feingold, and Lautenberg. Since 1972, the Federal-State partnership now embodied by LEAP, with modest federal support, has helped states leverage grant aid to needy undergraduate and graduate students. When this program was funded at greater than $25 million, nearly 700,000 students across the nation, including almost 12,000 students from my home state of Rhode Island, benefitted from LEAP grants. At $25 million, the amount included in the Committee's original bill, we estimate that many of these students lose their grants. Without this important federal incentive, many states would not have established or maintained their need-based financial aid programs, and many students would not have attended or completed college. Indeed, as my colleagues, students, parents, and those involved in higher education know, the purchasing power of our main need-based aid program--the Pell Grant, created by and named for my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell--has fallen drastically in comparison to inflation and skyrocketing education costs. Students have searched for other sources of need-based higher education grants and have come to rely on LEAP. Two years ago, this program was on the brink of elimination. But it was this body which recognized the importance of LEAP and overwhelmingly voted--84 to 4--for an amendment I offered with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to save it from elimination. Then, just last year, the Senate reaffirmed its support for LEAP by approving the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998, which updated and added several key reforms to this program to leverage additional state dollars for grant aid. Prior to the reforms, federal funding for LEAP was matched by the states only on a dollar for dollar basis. Now, every dollar appropriated over the $30 million level leverages two new state dollars. States in turn gain new flexibility to use these funds to provide a broader array of higher education assistance to needy students, such as increasing grant amounts or carrying out community service work-study activities; early intervention, mentorship, and career education programs; secondary to postsecondary education transition programs; scholarship programs for students wishing to enter the teaching profession; and financial aid programs for students wishing to enter careers in information technology or other fields of study determined by the state to be critical to the state's workforce needs. The $25 million included in the Committee's bill falls far short of the funding level necessary to increase student aid and trigger the reforms included in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. In fact, LEAP, if funded at $75 million, as called for in our amendment, would leverage at least $120 million in new state funding-- thereby securing almost $200 million in grant aid for our nation's neediest students. Let me emphasize, LEAP is the only federal aid program that contains this leveraging component. It is the only program for needy college students that is a state-federal partnership. The bill does provide increased funding for many of the other student aid programs, but without providing additional funding for LEAP, the Senate will miss an opportunity to expand access to college and make higher education more affordable for some of our neediest students. LEAP is a vital part of our student aid package, which includes Pell Grants, Work Study, and SEOG, that make it possible for deserving students to achieve their higher education goals. All of the student aid programs must be well-funded if they are truly going to help students. Moreover, since there are no federal administrative costs connected with LEAP, all grant funds go directly to students, making it one of the most efficient federal financial aid programs. All higher education and student groups support $75 million in funding for LEAP, including the American Council on Education (ACE), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), the United States Student Association (USSA), and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG). By providing $75 million for LEAP, the Senate has an opportunity to help states leverage even more dollars to help students go to college. As college costs continue to grow, and as the grant-loan imbalance continues to widen--just 25 years ago, 80% of student aid came in the form of grants and 20% in the form of loans; now the opposite is true-- funding for LEAP is more important than ever. I thank Chairman Specter and ranking member Harkin for their willingness to accept this amendment. I look forward to working with them during the Conference to retain this level of funding, which is critical to providing greater access to higher education for our Nation's neediest students.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. If we, in fact, pass this amendment, we will be able to fund up to 100 additional partnership, state, and recruitment grant proposals, thereby enabling this important innovation in teacher preparation to be accessible throughout our nation. I am strongly supportive of this amendment. I think it is something that will allow us to make great progress. Once again, emphasizing a point made so well by Senator Kennedy, if you look at public education, and if you search for the most powerful lever that we have to improve it, to reform it, and to continue it as an excellent system, teacher training is that lever. This amendment will give us the power to move forward, dramatically and decisively to improve the quality of teaching in the United States. I strongly support it and commend the Senator from Massachusetts for his efforts. I yield back to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy for those kind words, and also for offering this very important amendment. I am a very proud cosponsor of this amendment with Senator Kennedy. Last Congress, on an overwhelming bipartisan vote the Senate passed the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program as part of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. This was the first time we looked seriously at reforming the way our teachers are trained by enhancing the linkage between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary schools. What we tried to emphasize is the connection between the teacher colleges and the real-life experiences of teachers in the classroom. The best way to enhance the quality of teaching in America is at the level of the entry teacher. This is something the Kennedy-Reed amendment will provide more resources for. What we want to do is form a strong, vibrant, and vital link between the teacher colleges and the elementary and secondary schools. We want to ensure that teachers who leave teacher colleges are not just experts in theoretical and pedagogical subjects. We want them to be, first and foremost, experts on the subject matter that they teach, be it mathematics or science or any other subject. In addition, we want to ensure that they have extensive clinical experience. The model to follow is our medical education system. No one would dream of certifying and licensing a physician after simply going to school and hearing lectures and then maybe having 2 or 3 weeks in a hospital. It is a long-term, extensive clinical education. That model is applicable also, I believe, to education. In fact, what we have found from our hearings is a disconnect between what teaching students are learning in college and the reality of the teaching experience in the classroom. We want to eliminate that disconnect. The Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998 sought to do just that by authorizing partnerships between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary schools. There are examples of partnerships that already existed and inspired us; examples such as Salve Regina University in my home State of Rhode Island, which has a partnership with the Sullivan School in Newport. It is exciting and challenging, not only to the young students in that school, but also to the prospective teachers who learn a great deal. In fact, at the heart of these partnerships is the attempt not only to change the culture of elementary and secondary schools but also to change the culture of teacher colleges. Too often the teacher college in a great university is a poor cousin without a great endowment, neglected by other parts of the university. What we want to do is get the university involved in this great effort so that professors in the math, English, and history departments are also part of this great reawakening of teacher preparation at the university level. This cultural change at the college level, together with extensive clinical involvement with local elementary and secondary schools, I believe, is a fundamental way to enhance the quality of teachers. The Kennedy-Reed amendment will provide more resources to do this very important and critical job that lies before us. We have gone through the first round of grants with respect to the partnership grants. The Department of Education funded $33 million in the first round to 25 institutions of higher education and their elementary and secondary school partners. This is a first and important step, but we need to do more. That is precisely what this amendment proposes to do. It will appropriate additional resources so we can broaden dramatically these partnerships, as well as increase our investment in the state and recruitment grants also included in the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants program.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy. Let me emphasize one additional point that bears repeating. The classroom today is very different from those in the 1950s or 1960s-- different because of technology; different because families are in much more distressed conditions in many parts of the country; different because of the various cultural factors that go into the makeup of many classes, particularly in urban America. In fact, we are still teaching in too many colleges as if it were the class of 1950, as if it were the time of ``My Three Sons'' and ``Leave It To Beaver.'' That is not what American education is today. What we have to do today--and this amendment will help immensely--is refocus our teacher training to confront the issues of today, such as multiculturalism, children with disabilities in the classroom, and technology. This is absolutely critical. Unless we enhance our commitment to this type of education--partnerships between schools of education and elementary and secondary schools, drawing on the resources of the whole university, focusing these resources on new technology and the challenges that are particular to this time in our history--we are not going to succeed in educating all of our children to the world-class standards that we all know have to be met. I urge passage of this very important amendment.

Mr. REED. That is correct.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 1866 (Purpose: To permit the expenditure of funds to complete certain reports concerning accidents that result in the death of minor employees engaged in farming operations)

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1866 be called up.

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