Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I have an amendment at the desk and ask it be called up.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment to consider my amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. REED. I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to lay the amendment aside. My amendment is at the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this evening I rise to offer an amendment along with Senator Sarbanes, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, and Senator Murray, to restore funding for regional development programs to the levels that are set forth in the President's budget. Unfortunately, the budget resolution which we are considering today would reduce the funding for community and regional development programs by $88.7 billion over 10 years. This is compared to the President's budget request. For example, in fiscal year 2000, spending for community and regional development programs would be reduced from $11.9 billion to $5.3 billion, a cut of 55 percent. In fiscal year 2001, spending for these programs would be reduced from $9.1 billion to $2.7 billion, a cut of 70 percent. Then, between the years 2002 and 2009, spending reductions each year are approximately 78 percent below the President's request. In effect, this budget before us would eviscerate community and regional development programs. These programs are at the heart of our efforts to invest in America, in our cities, in our rural areas, and to do so in a way that gives maximum flexibility to local mayors, Governors, and community officials. My amendment would increase spending for community development programs by $88.7 billion over these 10 years to essentially meet the President's projections. It would be offset by reducing the amount of tax cuts, currently $778 billion, contained in this budget resolution. My amendment not only restores funding for community and regional development, it will still leave approximately $700 billion for tax cuts. I am deeply troubled by these cuts in community development programs because they will undermine the progress that our cities and rural areas have been making over the last several years. In fact, in many cities there is an urban renaissance. Where they are beginning to clean up blighted areas, they are beginning to attract new investment in the center cities. They are beginning to develop and sustain a mature culture and the arts. All of this is a result of investments through many of these programs which stand to lose out tremendously in this proposed budget resolution. One of the indications of a reviving urban area in the United States is the fact that crime, violent crime particularly, has fallen more than 21 percent since 1993, and property crimes have dropped to the lowest point since 1973. I argue this is not simply the result of better police activity. This is because the cities are now able to reinvest and reinvigorate their communities, their neighbors. In so doing, they give positive incentives and positive hope for people. All this is happening. And all of this will stop happening quite dramatically if we make such a devastating cut in community development and regional development programs. Let me suggest the particular programs that would be affected by these massive cuts. First is the Community Development Block Grant Program; then there is the section 108 program loans for cities and communities; there is the Economic Development Administration and their grants to States and communities; there is FEMA disaster assistance, which is part of this program; then there is brownfield redevelopment programs, which help aid the remediation of environmentally troubled areas so they can be redeveloped for use by cities and communities; and then there is the lead hazard reduction grants, which are a critical problem in many parts of this country, particularly urban areas; then there is the community development financial institutions fund; the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; and the Rural Community Advancement Program. All of these programs would see devastating cuts. Let me for a moment talk about some of the particular programs that are subject to this very threatening budget resolution. First is the Community Development Block Grant Program. We are all familiar with this program. It provides grants to States and to communities on a formula basis, the type of programmatic initiatives for new housing and community development. One of the virtues of this program, one of the reasons it is embraced by both sides of the aisle, conceptually, is the fact that it gives flexibility to the States and to the cities to decide how they want to use these funds. It is not a mandate from Washington. It is not a categorical program that makes them jump through all sorts of hoops. It gives them the flexibility to meet the demands that they deem most critical. These funds have been used to reconstruct and rehabilitate housing and provide homeownership assistance and opportunity. In fact, between 1994 and 1996, over 640,000 housing units have been rehabilitated or constructed with CDBG funds--over 640,000 housing units. These are housing units typically for low-income Americans, for seniors, for people with disabilities. Without this type of investment, I daresay there would not be a lot of construction, particularly in some of the older neighborhoods in our cities and in rural areas. With these funds, we have been able to stimulate the kinds of construction and renovation and renewal that are so essential to the fabric of our communities. These funds were also used to provide services related to the Welfare-to-Work Program. They are used to help assist in terms of drug suppression, to aid people with drug problems; child care monies are used and involved here; crime prevention and education--all of these programs would be subject to severe cuts. They also assist tremendously community-based organizations, those organizations in rural areas and urban neighborhoods that are doing the job of trying to give people hope and opportunity and also leveraging private dollars to make sure that what we do has effect, not just here in Washington but on the streets of every city and every rural area of this country. This program has many manifestations. In my home State of Rhode Island, in Bristol, they used CDBG money to fund the acquisition of basic medical examination equipment, to set up a clinic and a senior housing facility, providing better health care and doing it in a way which adds to the quality of life for these seniors. In the State of New Mexico, they boast a new state-of-the-art facility to train students for jobs in high tech. This facility was funded with $600,000 in CDBG money. Again, it illustrates how flexible and useful these funds are, because they have been used by local communities to assist local training programs to meet local demands for certain types of employees. It is a very, very valuable program. In South Carolina, CDBG funds were used for 27 economic development projects in rural areas, including such things as bringing water and sewer systems to communities that desperately needed them. Last year, approximately 4,000 communities throughout this country benefited from $4.6 billion in CDBG funding. Indeed, this funding alone leverages additional private investment. In fact, it has been estimated that for every $1 of CDBG money, there is $3 of private investment. As a result, last year, reasonably and, I think, conservatively, we estimate that the CDBG Program leveraged an additional $18.4 billion in private funds. It also creates jobs, because when you invest in cities, when you invest in rural areas, when you do it in conjunction with other Federal programs, other State programs, you can create jobs. In fact, it has been estimated that in 1996, CDBG was responsible for creating about 133,000 jobs. In view of all of this tremendous productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness, it seems to me remarkable and counterintuitive, indeed, that we would be cutting this program by about 78 percent, effectively rendering it useless. There is another program that should be considered, too. That is the section 108 program. The section 108 program has been very critical to many urban areas in this country because what it does is, it allows cities to leverage their annual CDBG funds to borrow additional monies to increase the amount of investment dollars they have on hand for housing rehabilitation, for economic development, for public works projects. Indeed, it allows specifically a city or a community to take their CDBG allotment and leverage that for five times more dollars through this loan program. Securing their borrowing are the annual proceeds of their CDBG allocation. I raise the question: What is going to happen to these communities if we slash this funding dramatically? I suggest that their financing situation would be critical. They would either have to find some other way to secure these loans, or they would have to immediately pay off these loans or they would be in default. This would be a staggering blow to many communities. Ultimately, what it would do, together with the cuts in the overall CDBG Program, it would drive up property taxes in many cities and rural areas. The irony here is that we are using billions of dollars to cut Federal taxes, with the idea of providing tax relief, which, I think, in a way could drive up taxes in certain communities. In fact, we all know the property tax is much more regressive than income tax, than the Federal tax. We could have the unintended consequences, for many people throughout this country, of making their tax situation worse, depriving the cities of the opportunity to maintain a tax base, to stabilize it, and to attract new business, to attract new investment because of a stable tax base. This is absolutely bad policy, and it should be rejected. Let us talk about another program that is subject to these draconian cuts. That is the Economic Development Administration. This agency provides valuable assistance, again, to States and communities so they can do projects which will accelerate their economic growth and create more jobs. In my home State of Rhode Island, we work closely with the EDA to provide funds to help us make the final cleanup and transition of a former Navy base, Quonset Point, Davisville, on Narragansett Bay, so they can be developed for industrial expansion. Without EDA grants to do things like extending sewer lines, taking down an obsolete water tower, the State would not be in a position, as it is today, to offer that property for economic development. Again, this is a program which goes right to the direct needs of cities to create jobs and to invest in their communities and States and to do these types of investments. It would be reduced dramatically. Brownfield redevelopment: We have brownfield redevelopment that is absolutely necessary for the urban areas of this country. It is necessary because we have areas that need environmental remediation, not only to make them more aesthetically pleasing but also to provide the opportunity for reinvestment, redevelopment for jobs; again, to strengthen the urban tax base and to do so in a way that creates jobs, increases the tax base, and also counteracts what is a growing problem everywhere, increasing urban sprawl. If we can revitalize and make attractive again parcels in center cities for commercial expansion, we will lessen the pressure on suburban areas. This, too, can be done and has to be done in conjunction with many things. One of them is the Brownfield Grant Program. That, too, is on the chopping block. Lead hazard reduction grants: In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a major hazard with lead paint and children, a major public health problem, a public health problem that is one I think we are embarrassed to admit, but it is there. It is there particularly in older communities, not just in urban areas but older rural communities. Most of the paint that was created years ago had a lead base. It was put up everywhere. Kids now are exposed to that paint and exposed to other sources of lead. It has been estimated that nearly 5 percent of American children, age 1 to 5, approximately 1 million children, suffer from lead paint poisoning. That is an outrage in this country. Our programs to combat it, to reduce it, would be subject to severe limitations, because HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control would not have the resources--the meager resources, I might add--today that they are using to try to help communities reduce the lead hazard throughout this country. Now, these are just a sample of the programs that would be eviscerated by this proposed budget resolution, that would be reduced over the next 10 years, dramatically, would be rendered perhaps ineffectual and totally without purpose in many instances. That is why I think we have to restore these funds and do so by taking funds away from the proposed tax cuts that are embedded within this budget resolution. There will be some procedural arguments, I am sure, raised about my amendment, perhaps budget points of order, but really I think what we have to consider here is the substance. We cannot afford to stop investing in our cities and our rural areas. This budget does precisely that. It says to America's cities and America's rural areas: We are no longer going to invest in you; you are on your own; good luck; but what we are going to do is reduce taxes, Federal taxes. I don't think we should abandon our cities and our rural areas. Certainly my amendment could accommodate both--a tax cut, together with the continued investment in the rural areas of America and also in our urban centers. I feel compelled to restore these cuts. I feel that the substance of this amendment should triumph over procedural rules that might be imposed against it. As we go forward, I hope that others will feel the same way, too, because, frankly, we are charting a course with this budget resolution that would, I think, lead to, if not the ruin of our cities and rural areas, certainly it would lead to the lack of progress that we have seen over the last several years. I hope when this amendment is considered that it will be supported as a way in which we can send clearly a signal to all of our cities and to our rural areas: We will not abandon you; we will continue to support you; we will continue to share with you resources that you may use in your wisdom to improve the quality of life of your cities, of your rural areas and, in so doing, improve the quality of life of this great country. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAPO addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about an amendment regarding OSHA inspections of small farms, which I was prepared to offer to S. 544, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. To expedite the consideration of this emergency legislation, I withdrew my amendment, but I want my colleagues to know that I will continue to press this issue. As other Senators may know, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, by statute, can enforce health and safety rules and investigate accidents on farms or businesses of any size. However, a rider prohibiting OSHA from expending funds to carry out its statutory duty with respect to small farms has been attached to Department of Labor appropriations bills for the past several years. Small farms are those that employ ten or fewer workers and do not maintain a camp for temporary employees. I want to emphasize that this prohibition extends even to the investigation of fatal, work-related accidents. I am not speaking of malicious acts leading to deaths on the job--law enforcement authorities are capable of addressing those circumstances. I am speaking of deaths caused by preventable health and safety hazards-- hazards that no agency other than OSHA has the capacity to address. Since the death of a sixteen-year-old Rhode Islander in an accident on a small farm in 1997, I have worked to address this issue. Mr. President, it is heartbreaking for a parent to send a child off to a summer job only to see him die in an accident, and it is infuriating for these parents to wonder whether other youngsters now working on that job are safe. I am sensitive to the concerns that some Senators will have about protecting the interests of family farms. That is why I have attempted to only moderately amend the current rider. Indeed, my amendment only allows OSHA access to small farms if there is a death, and only for investigation, not punitive action. I have advanced this proposal in the hope of disseminating information about the causes of fatalities in order to prevent repeat tragedies and to bring a sense of closure to families who lose a loved one. When I raised this issue during the markup of the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act in the Labor and Human Resources Committee during the last Congress, several of my colleagues expressed a willingness to work with me on this issue. Regrettably, there is little the authorizing committee can do, because the problem stems from an appropriations rider, and an appropriations bill is where a correction should be made. Mr. President, agriculture is one of the most hazardous industries in the United States today. We should take at least this minimal step to ensure the safety of agricultural employees. Last Fall, the National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), issued a report entitled Protecting Youth at Work. Among its recommendations was the following related to small farm safety: To ensure the equal protection of children and adolescents from health and safety hazards in agriculture, Congress should undertake an examination of the effects and feasibility of extending all relevant Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations to agricultural workers, including subjecting small farms to the same level of OSHA enforcement as that applied to other small businesses. Mr. President, it is the opinion of the NAS panel that small farms should be subject to the same level of enforcement as all other small businesses. In comparison to this recommendation, my proposed amendment is moderate, because, again, my amendment only allows an OSHA inspection on a small farm following a fatal accident. The inspection could not result in fines or any other OSHA enforcement. During consideration of the SAFE Act in the 105th Congress, the Labor Committee voted for a provision requiring an NAS peer review of all new OSHA standards. Today, we have a report from the NAS making recommendations on OSHA enforcement on small farms. I hope that colleagues will keep that in mind and that they will remember that my amendment is not as extensive as the NAS recommendation. Mr. President, some have criticized my amendment as unfair to small farm owners. I am mystified by their argument. The only small farms to be impacted would be those where an employee dies in a work related accident. Then, the only imposition the business would face would be an investigation: no fines, no enforcement, and no regulation. If information could be disseminated to prevent just one of the 500 deaths that occur annually in the agriculture industry, I believe this minor inconvenience would be worth it. I know my constituents who lost their son feel that way, and I would venture to guess that many other families would feel that way too. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Specter, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, for his good faith efforts to address this issue. His commitment to continue working with me was a major reason for my decision not to proceed my amendment on the Supplemental Appropriations bill. I look forward to working with the Senator from Pennsylvania and other concerned Senators in the months ahead.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Less than 10--10 will be fine, but I will try to be quicker.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Their efforts are complementing what States are doing. Our Lieutenant Governor, Bernard Jackvony, is proposing this initiative. I hope we can all stand behind this amendment, and I thank the Senator for yielding me time. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding the time, and I also commend him and Senator Harkin for their amendment to this supplemental bill. They have done something that I think is incredibly important, and that is to provide some emphasis on smoking cessation and also public health in the use of the funds from the tobacco settlements that the States are beginning to receive. The amendment by Senator Specter and Senator Harkin strikes a very reasonable balance between the desires of the Governors to use these funds and also the willingness of the Federal Government to forgo its share of the tobacco settlement, and also the need to ensure that we do have in place significant tobacco prevention activities, as well as being able to meet other public health priorities. This amendment reserves 25 percent of the overall settlement to these priorities-- smoking cessation and public health--and allows 75 percent of the funds to be spent at the discretion of the States. I think this is an appropriate way to deal with the proceeds of the tobacco settlement. When we consider the fact that the basis of these claims rested upon Medicaid spending by the States, and we also consider the significant contribution the Federal Government makes to the Medicaid Program, it is not unrealistic--in fact, it is entirely appropriate--that we would be able to, and should be able to, lay out some broad guidelines as to the use of a small portion of the settlement funds. I can't think of any more appropriate topic of concern at every level of government than the reduction of smoking in this society. Let's step back a minute. This process of suing the tobacco companies, this process that led to the settlements, is not about getting some money for new highways or new types of programs at the State level. It started with the realization that smoking is the most dangerous public health problem in this country and we have to take concerted steps to do that. The suits resulted in a settlement, financially, but it won't result in the effective eradication, elimination, or reduction of smoking unless we apply those proceeds to smoking cessation programs and other public health initiatives that are critical to the health and welfare of this country. We know that each day more than 3,000 young people become regular smokers. We also know that 90 percent of those who are long-term smokers began before they were 18 years old. So there is a critical need for more and more efforts particularly targeted at youngsters to ensure that they do not start the habit of smoking, and by requiring a certain portion, a rather small portion, of the proceeds of these settlements to that end is, again, not only sensible but it is compelled by the crisis we face in the public health area of smoking in the United States. One of the other things that we must also recognize is that this settlement represents a concession, an acknowledgement by the tobacco industry that their marketing practices were sinister, that they targeted young people, and that, in fact, their product causes disease and death. And in that context we have to respond with some of these funds to recognize the public health impact of smoking overall. On both the law and the logic, it seems to me entirely appropriate that this amendment should not only be debated but passed. I think we have to recognize, too, that what the amendment proposes is not some type of grandiose Federal program. It simply directs the Governors and the legislatures in their own way, form, and fashion to use these funds for very broad programmatic initiatives in public health which encompass such things as smoking cessation. So this is not an overwhelming usurpation of State and local prerogatives by the Federal Government; it is a common way to deal with problems that got us here in the first place, the fact that smoking, particularly youthful smoking, is one of the major public health crises in this country. I believe Senator Specter and Senator Harkin have balanced and complemented the way in which States are using these funds.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, prior to making comments about the senior Senator from Nebraska, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, today is one of those rare moments on the floor of the Senate that we can, with respect and reverence and, indeed, humility, salute a true American hero, Senator Bob Kerrey. Senator Kerrey is a man of great courage. That is obvious from his accomplishments, not just as a SEAL in Vietnam, but as a public figure for many, many years. He is also a patriot, someone who loves this country deeply and sincerely and fervently. It is this patriotism which caused him to join the U.S. Navy, although I suspect if you asked him back then, he would have made some type of joke about his joining the Navy and joining the SEALS. But in his heart, it was because of his profound love for his country and his dedication to his future. Then I suspect also that in the course of his training, he began to realize that he had been given the most profound privilege any American can be given, and that is the opportunity to lead American fighting men. That privilege also implies a sacred trust, a commitment to do all you can to lead your troops with both courage and sound judgment. He was leading his SEALs that night 30 years ago. He had brought them to a dangerous place, and he was bound and determined, at the risk of his own life, to bring them all back. He fought with great valor. He never lost faith. He always insisted that what he would do would be in the best interests of his men. For him, the world then was very simple: his mission, his men, and then, and only then, himself. He was and is a hero. Bob Kerrey saw war in all its brutality, in all its confusion, in all its senselessness, but he never surrendered his heart and his spirit to that brutality. He never let it harden his heart or cloud his judgment. He came back from a war committed to continue to serve his Nation. He remains an idealist, and more importantly an idealist without illusions. And again in his acerbic way he would deny all this. But it is true. He still believes deeply in his country. He still understands that it is necessary to lead. He still understands and keeps faith with those he led and those, sadly, he left behind. He is somebody of whom we are all tremendously proud. And there is something else about Bob Kerrey which might explain how he could lead men successfully on virtually impossible missions, because he has that kind of talent to walk into a room when everyone else is depressed, feeling oppressed, feeling without hope, and the combination of his energy and his confidence and that glint in his eye convince people they should follow him, even if the task appears impossible. Fortunately for us, he has brought these great skills to the U.S. Senate. He continues to serve his country. He continues to take the tough missions--not the milk runs but the hard missions. We all appreciate his courage and his valor. We all have many personal anecdotes. Let me just share one. I admired Bob Kerrey long before I ever got to the U.S. Senate. I met him several times before, but the first time I was really sort of speechless was on Inauguration Day in 1996, where I showed up outside there in the corridor a few feet away from here, ready to meet with my new colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and for the first time in my life, within a step away, I actually saw someone wearing the Medal of Honor. I looked at Senator Kerrey as a star-struck teenager would look at a great hero. And, in fact, that was one of the most rewarding and impressive moments of that very impressive day. But I will recall one other final anecdote. Bob and I were together in Nantucket a few years ago. We got up early one morning to go running. Now, I must confess, I thought I might have an advantage running against Senator Kerrey. After all, I am younger. But at about the 3-mile mark, when he turned around and said, ``got to go'' and sped away, I felt a little chagrined. My youth and my other talents could not keep up with this gentleman. He honors us with his presence. He has honored us with his service. We treasure him. We respect him. And today we are giving him his due. Senator Kerrey, thank you for your service to this Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I may just respond briefly to the comments made by my colleague, the Senator from Arizona. First, let me again emphasize something that I think is implicit in his statement, and that is we all recognize the threat that is posed by the potential development of intercontinental delivery systems by these rogue nations. No one is discounting that. That has changed the calculus significantly. The question is whether we are going to move forward on the very simple--and one might say simplistic--criterion of ``technologically possible,'' or if we are going to, in this legislation, and in practice, address the complexities of this issue. Historical analogies are never perfect, but I suspect back in the 1930s when France was debating defense policy, the notion of building a series of concrete forts along their territorial line was not only technologically feasible but ultimately was constructed. But when it came to 1940, the Maginot Line just did not work to defend the people of France. I am not suggesting we are in the same type of debate, but I think it is sometimes too alluring to think in the simple terms of: If we have the technology of doing something, let's do it--particularly when we get to the issue of national missile defense. The Senator talked about a window of vulnerability, and there is increasing potential, because of the development of these missiles by North Korea and others, of threats to our territory. But I ask that we think also of the potential vulnerability if Russia, for example, decides, because of our actions, to abandon reasonable arms control; decides, instead, to walk away from START II, to keep their launchers, their land-based systems with multiple independent reentry vehicles which complicate our defense enormously; if it decides, in fact, to more aggressively deploy its submarines with cruise missiles that may have nuclear warheads, all of which could easily defeat the system that we are proposing to spend billions of dollars on today to counter a limited military threat. Put that new sort of spirit--an ill spirit, I should suggest-- together with what one can see as a decaying command and control system and we might be increasing our vulnerabilities by moving forward with this particular legislation. I think we have to be sensitive to those issues. I would not readily accept the notion that simply because of the number of launchers that we have, the number of launchers that they have, that the Russians would simply disregard our unilateral abandonment of the ABM as not a threat to them. We feel threatened, I think with good reason, when the North Koreans--a very, very remote and ill-prepared power--begin to experiment with intercontinental ballistic missiles which would have a capability years from now. To hear on the floor the suggestion that the Russians will just casually shrug their shoulders, although we have made no attempt to renegotiate the ABM and we will have a law that says we have to put the system in place as soon as we can technologically do it, I think misreads their character and, frankly, the predictable character of any country--particularly one like Russia which sees its national greatness eroding greatly, to react, perhaps not rationally but predictably--to not be cooperative, in fact creating more vulnerability. The issue, too, of how much is too much, is a question that can be raised in every context. But, frankly, we all understand that there are opportunity costs, not with respect to using defense dollars for other nondefense matters, but within the context of defense. Take, for example, not the theoretical but the operational possibility of an enhanced submarine fleet which the Russians might deploy with cruise missiles. By the way, those cruise missiles launched reasonably close to our shores could not be countered by any type of national missile defense, C-1, C-2, or C-3. So, in respect to what we have to do, I think we have to ask ourselves, for one thing, is this the wisest course of action? Are we truly protecting the American public? And there can be many answers to that question. But I hope, in the course of this debate and in the conclusion of this debate, we will simply embrace the reality of the situation. It is not one dimensional. It is not just technological feasibility. It has to do with cost, it has to do with threat, it has to do with the evolution of a threat. It has to do with already- existing agreements with respect to international arms control. If we reflect those issues in our legislation, we will find, I suspect, unanimous support for a strong message which would correspond with the administration's message on national missile defense. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, we are here today debating an issue of fundamental importance to the United States and to the world community, and that is whether or not we will adopt a resolution of this Senate to proceed with a national missile defense as soon as it is technologically possible. As many of my colleagues have indicated, I believe there is strong recognition of the need for the careful deployment of a national missile defense because we are at a historical crossroads. First, there have been technological advances by rogue states which, for the first time, allow them in the near future to be able to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles that would strike the territory of the United States. That, in and of itself, has focused our attention, our resolve, and our commitment to begin accelerated development and, one would hope, the eventual deployment of a national missile defense. But the issue before us today is whether this legislation, S. 257, will materially aid that effort without unduly complicating our ability, first, to defend the United States and, second, to maintain the regime of deterrence that has lasted throughout the cold war and has avoided to date, and we hope indefinitely, the use of nuclear weapons in the world. I mentioned that we are at a historical crossroads, the first element of which is the fact that rogue nations can, in fact, begin to launch in the near future intercontinental ballistic missiles. But the second aspect of this historical crossroads is the fact that we have been maintaining over decades a strategic balance which always contemplated limits on offensive capability and which has led to treaties between ourselves and the former Soviet Union, and now Russia, with respect to limitations on offensive weapons. Complementing that has been, since 1972, the limitation on antiballistic missile systems. Sometimes I think we take this balance for granted. We assume that is the way it always will be because it exists today. But we are seeing pressure on this balance. First and most obviously, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the constrained position of Russia, we are seeing some operational wearing around the edges in terms of their ability to maintain the same type of controls that they had at the height of the cold war. We are also seeing a situation where operationally they might, regretfully, be a little bit quicker on the draw, since they do not have the same type of panoply of long-term observation or radars that they had or those that they have are beginning to deteriorate. The point I want to make with respect to strategic balance is that this is not something automatically that comes into play, it is something that has to be sustained and maintained, and when we look at legislation like the bill before us, we have to seriously ask the question, Will this aid the maintenance of this strategic balance, or will it give incentives to act unilaterally? That is a serious question which I think we have to address. There is a second factor with respect to the historical crossroads, and that is, for the first time in recent memory, Russia, as the legatee of the Soviet Union, is not able to match dollar for dollar, ruble for dollar, if you will, developments that we, in fact, might put in place. Unlike the cold war, where they could accelerate their offensive missile capability by putting out more launches if we did something, they cannot do that too easily. Nor could they easily copy an extensive national missile defense if we put it in place. Again, this is another strategic aspect that has to be considered when we consider this legislation. All of these issues together suggest a few things. First, we have to seriously address the issue of the rogue state with intercontinental ballistic missiles, but, just as seriously, we have to be concerned about doing something that might destabilize the overall arms control regime in the world. What we want to avoid is the temptation for states with nuclear weapons and a capacity for intercontinental-range launches to start taking unilateral actions which may imperil us just as much as the development of missiles by a rogue state. Having said that, I think we can look at the situations which we potentially are trying to cover with this national missile defense and pose two questions which I think are at the heart of our debate. First of all, we are really focused at this juncture, with respect to this legislation, on what is called the simple case, as the Ballistic Missile Defense Office will describe it, the C-1 situation: A few simple ICBMs, no sophisticated countermeasures. In that context, we are proposing to create a system to deter that threat and also, in some respects, to undermine or simply, hopefully, to modify, through mutual assent, the arms control regime in the ABM Treaty. That is just one situation. The second situation is what they call C-2. That is not just some simple ICBMs but a few advanced ICBMs--those having, for example, multiple independent reentry vehicles and some more sophisticated countermeasures. Finally, the category of many sophisticated reentry vehicles, many with independently targeted warheads, and also with sophisticated countermeasures. For this latter category we have to ask ourselves, is that technologically possible, national missile defense scoped and designed for the first simple threat going to meet what might evolve into the more complicated threat? That is a technological question. I think that is a question that gives us some pause in the sense of rushing into this, this declaration that we are going to do it now and we are going to do it with respect to the rogue nation threat. Again, I think we have to ask two basic questions: First, will this first technologically possible solution be the best solution, not just to our short-run dilemma with respect to potential missile development in North Korea or Iran but over time as these systems may well evolve from a simple missile threat to a very sophisticated missile threat? Then second, we have to ask ourselves, will we build a system designed to counter this simple threat, the rogue threat, and cause, unwittingly, the precipitation of a much more sophisticated threat--to cause, unwittingly, powers like Russia, that have the capacity to put MIRVs on top of their launchers, to have, through strained resources and through frayed nerves, perhaps the potential to shoot a little quicker than they did in the cold war? That, I think, would be a tremendous misstep in maintaining our strategic balance. For all these reasons, I suggest that we must move with caution--with deliberation but with caution. I think we have to move not with some single-factor analysis, simply ``technologically possible,'' but with a multifaceted analysis which I hope would undergird all our decisions with respect to momentous decisions and costly decisions. We have to consider cost. We have to consider the evolution of the threat. We have to consider our diplomatic relationships and the fact that we have maintained this nuclear balance through mutual decisions. First we maintained it through the policy of mutual assured destruction. We built enough offensive weapons so that no enemy thought they could conduct a successful first strike. And then we moved down a much more promising road by talking about limiting offensive weapons and limiting defensive weapons through diplomacy. The rejection of this mutuality would be a casualty which I do not think any of us would like to see. So I think we have to be very, very careful. And if we need an anecdote to suggest the care which we must devote to this exercise, I think it could be seen from a story I recently read in the Washington Post about an incident that took place on September 26, 1983, where a Russian lieutenant colonel was sitting in his bunker and suddenly all the lights went on that said ``start.'' And what the ``start'' meant was to start a nuclear retaliation round. But because of that officer's judgment, in the environment of that time of 1983, an environment in which the thought was that a nuclear attack by the United States would not be possible --the fact that there was no effective ABM system providing national defense--the fact that the operative motivation was not ordering a counterstrike but waiting for further information, that could be changed by what we do in the next several months, particularly, I think, if we do not make a good- faith effort to modify, through negotiation and through mutuality, the ABM Treaty. We could have a situation in which, through an error of software, an error of misperception, instead of waiting the extra second, a lieutenant colonel in the Russian rocket forces could decide that this very well could be an active launch by the United States and that his only recourse is to launch a retaliatory strike. So we have to be careful. I believe that such care would lead us, I hope, to consider legislation that does not just talk about technological possibility but talks about a range of things, including, we hope, a mutual adjustment of the ABM Treaty. Missile defense is a situation, a topic, that has followed us since 1940, when we first became aware that Germany was developing intercontinental ballistic missiles. It has followed us through my entire life, and it will go on, we hope, without a dramatic conclusion, for as long as we can foresee. We have been able to manage these issues, and each administration has taken them seriously, and the Clinton administration is no stranger to the seriousness of this endeavor. We have also seen changes in terms of programs, in terms of budget. Just a few years ago, in the Persian Gulf we discovered that there was a real threat to our theater forces, our forces in the field, and we began actively upgrading our theater missile defense, a program which we also bought and which we consider to be vital to the operational effectiveness of our forces around the world. In 1996, the administration announced that they were moving forward with respect to national missile defense with their 3+3 approach. That would be 3 years devoted to research and development, a deployment decision due in June of 2000, and then, if required, the deployment would take place within the next 3 years. All of this, of course, supposed and presumed that there would be active discussion with Russia and others with respect to the ABM Treaty. We have devoted not only conceptual energy to this project, we have also devoted dollars. We have increased the administration's proposal for efforts through fiscal year 2005 to the order of $10.5 billion. This is not a project that is languishing without financial support and financial resources. In short, in sum, both the Congress and the administration agree on the importance of missile defense, of providing the resources to do that, and are hoping that we can in fact develop a technologically feasible, cost-effective system that will be appropriate to our needs and also, hopefully, will be agreed upon by the world community as a necessary part of our defense. I have mentioned before what I think some of the limitations are of the approach that we are debating today with respect to S. 257. Principally, it is the sole reliance upon one criterion, and that is, ``technologically possible.'' There are other parameters that we have to look at. The threat: Again, today we are looking at a very limited threat, that C-1 threat, a rogue nation with a simple IBM, without any countermeasures. But that threat quickly will mature to something else. It does not take too much to incorporate countermeasures on our reentry vehicle. And once we do that, we might be into a configuration of national defense which does not fit that neat picture of what is technologically possible right now. Of course, we have to look at cost. And it is not just an issue of cost in and of itself, it is the classic issue of opportunity cost. To develop this system immediately might preclude us from taking other steps which are just as important with respect to our defense, with respect to our missile defense, with respect to other aspects of our defense policy. And then we certainly, I think, have to look at the effect on arms control agreements. Consideration of these factors I think would mitigate against unconstrained, unconditional support for S. 257 and would suggest that we would amend this measure and adopt a more comprehensive and a more realistic approach to the decision matrix we face when it comes to national missile defense. Just briefly, there is a threat out there; no one is denying that. The administration is not denying it. No one in this body is denying it. We have seen just recently, in May of 1998, India and Pakistan conduct nuclear tests. We have also been the beneficiaries of the Rumsfeld Commission report that anticipates the ability of a rogue nation to have an intercontinental capability by the year 2010. Then, on July 22, 1998, Iran test fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile capable of hitting most of the Middle East. Then, finally, perhaps most chillingly, on August 31, 1998, North Korea launched a Taepo Dong 1 missile that was far more advanced than we thought capable at that time. These threats are serious. They are not taken lightly. It is because of these threats that we are moving and committing dollars for the development of a national missile defense system. As General Shelton, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pointed out in ``Seapower'' magazine: There are other serious threats out there in addition to that posed by ballistic missiles. We know, for example, that there are adversaries with chemical and biological weapons that can attack the United States today. They could do it with a briefcase--by infiltrating our territory across our shores or through our airports. Essentially, it raises the issue that if we, in a break-neck race to just deploy our first technologically possible system, all of these resources--are we missing out on providing effective deterrence and defense for these other approaches? I think we raise that issue with respect to S. 257. Now, the other aspect of this is we don't want to buy a system with billions of dollars that will work for a couple of years and then be obsolete. We don't want to go through the trouble of renegotiating a treaty--or perhaps the worst case, of walking away from a treaty for a system that is just not going to work. William Perry, our former Secretary of Defense, put it well when he said: Think of this problem in terms of buying a personal computer for college. If you had ordered your computer as a high-school sophomore it would have been obsolete by the time you started college. It would lack the capabilities you now need and would be impossible, or prohibitively expensive, to update. In many respects, that is the same type of intellectual dilemma we face today. Putting a system in the field because it is technologically possible might not be the best approach. That is the only criterion in S. 257. We know this is also a very difficult technical problem, essentially because we are using ``kill'' vehicles that are target upon target, using kinetic energy--i.e. impact. It is like a bullet hitting a bullet. That is a tough problem. In fact, we have had very few successes in the experiments we have tried to run to date. So few, in fact, a Pentagon review panel has called the program to date a ``rush to failure.'' We don't want to rush to failure. We want ``progress to deployment'' of a system that works for us, defends the country and maintains our strength--not just in the small case of a rogue nation but in the larger case of international nuclear stability. Now, S. 257 will require us to deploy this system as long as it is technologically possible. Again, one could ask, what does that mean? Is that the first step that succeeds? Is it a series of two or three tests to succeed in any case? That type of analysis alone is not, I think, the optimal way to approach this issue. As I mentioned before, we have to consider costs. Between 1984 and 1994, the Congressional Research Service estimated that the Pentagon spent $70.7 billion on ballistic missile defense activities, yet no system was deployed. I hope valuable information was gained and research could be applied to the ongoing projects, but $70 billion was spent in a decade without the breakthrough deployment, the breakthrough technology of a system. Again, we have to consider costs. Just the simple preparation of one site for a national missile defense would range between $6 and $13 billion. These costs would be justified in many respects by the threat if we are confident or more confident that the system we are putting in place would be something that could evolve to the greater threats in the future and is something that really does provide comprehensive protections to the United States--not just today but in the future. This legislation does not call for such a comprehensive measure in which to determine whether to deploy or not to deploy. As mentioned before, every dollar we spend on national missile defense is important, but there are some other measures of defense which are equally important and which may find themselves shortchanged if we have this rush for deployment as soon as we are technologically possible. Again, we have to consider, I think, this issue in broader terms beyond just technological possibility. Then we have to consider, as I have mentioned, the effect of arms control agreements. Since 1940, we have been wrestling with this issue of how to defend the United States against intercontinental ballistic missiles. We tried to develop defense mechanisms. We have had systems in place. We were developing in the 1970s and the late 1960s a central system. The central system turned into Safeguard and Safeguard was moving forward, but at the height of the cold war at a time when the tensions between ourselves and the Soviet Union were extremely pronounced, President Nixon negotiated and ultimately agreed to an antiballistic missile treaty. In fact, this treaty limited what was technically possible. The Safeguard system was going in place to protect our ICBM fields. It was technically possible, it was thought then that we would be more secure if we limited the deployment of ballistic missile systems--mutually limited--amongst ourselves and the Soviet Union. That decision was made. That decision has stood the test of time to date. The ABM Treaty has been questioned over time, but it has provided us a situation where we have a more stable balance between ourselves, certainly, and at one time the Soviet Union, and now Russia. I think, however, recognizing the rise of these rogue states with their missile capability, it is appropriate to look at ABM. It is appropriate to go back and attempt to modify the treaty--modify it not just in terms of the simple case, the C-1 case, but look at it in terms of modifications that will carry us through the medium and the long run for systems that very well may not be technically possible today or in 2 years but would be extremely important, indeed perhaps necessary, in 5 to 10 years. We could do this if we negotiate with the Russians. We have to ask ourselves what kind of message S. 257 would send, basically saying we are going to deploy this as soon as we think it works, without any mention of negotiation of ABM. I don't think it sends the right message. It sends the message at a time when the Soviet missile force has been transferred to the Russians. We know it is fraying on the edges in terms of command control, in terms of its replacement, in terms of its technological sophistication. Again, do we really want to change what was the operative rule in the cold war--that a missile strike by the United States, a first strike; or by Russia or the Soviet Union--would be unlikely if not impossible? That is the type of mindset which gave a lieutenant colonel in the Russian rocket forces the gut feeling to disregard all the warnings on his computer and on the screen to say, ``This can't be right; it would be reckless and foolish for the United States to launch five or so missiles against us.'' We certainly don't want a situation where some lieutenant colonel says, ``They have an ABM system which they put in unilaterally without our consent, over our opposition. You know what? Maybe these five missiles are more than a mistake on my computer.'' We have to very serious about this. I know we are all serious, but I suggest, and I think Senator Levin would suggest later, that this legislation could benefit mightily from the amendments that at least acknowledge the importance of negotiation, the importance of cost estimates, the importance of evaluation or threat before we go forward. The other aspect of this legislation is that it will not speed up the deployment of a national missile defense. The administration is committed to developing, doing the research, making a decision based on all of these factors I mentioned and deploying a missile defense, at the same time negotiating with the Russians with respect to the ABM Treaty. As the President indicated, if those negotiations are fruitless, if we are ready to deploy, if the threat is there with respect to rogue states, he is quite prepared at that point to make a decision to deploy. That is a far cry from standing here today saying, ``Disregard negotiations, disregard the evolution of the threat, disregard the cost. As soon as we have one successful test we are going to put it in the field.'' I don't think that is the wisest course. I think we can do better. Indeed, I believe that everyone--the sponsors of the legislation, those who disagree with the legislation--want to do the best for this country and want to ensure that we are protected, want to ensure that in the long run we have comprehensive national security; that we don't have a situation where we might provide for the inherent missile strike from a rogue nation, yet we have undermined the balance between ourselves and another major nuclear power--Russia or, indeed, China. I think we can do this, but I think we have to begin with the conception that it is just not one parameter, one criteria, and that it is done in a careful way on a multiplicity of issues like cost, technological possibility, threat, and also maintaining a strong regime of arms control, which has benefited us mightily over the course of many decades. So I hope very much that we will be able to amend this legislation to reflect those different aspects and, having amended it, to agree unanimously to send it forward to the President for his signature. I hope we can do that in the days ahead. We will see. At this time, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Madam President, first, as a procedural matter, I ask unanimous consent that Anthony Blaylock, a defense fellow working in Senator Dorgan's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on S. 257.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I first thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me time but, more importantly, thank him for his tremendous efforts on the floor of this Senate for the last several days. Hour upon hour, he has been battling to ensure that this education flexibility bill is not simply a blank check to the States but it also has the kind of accountability that will be necessary to ensure that this flexibility will result in improved student performance. In fact, it is a battle the Governors urged us to take up because they are as concerned as anyone else to ensure that this flexibility is accompanied by accountability. He has also taken up the fight on two important issues of unfinished business. Last year, we appropriated significant amounts of money over the next several years to ensure that we could reduce class size by hiring additional teachers. It is now imperative that we authorize that appropriation, that we give a sense of continuity, stability, and assurance to the local communities that this money, this program, will be in place over time. Second, last year we also went a long way toward developing programs to prevent students from dropping out of our schools. Senator Bingaman has been the champion of this program and that is unfinished business that we want to take up. What has happened in the course of this debate is we have moved beyond both Ed-Flex and accountability and some unfinished business to embrace other issues. The positive value of that is any debate about education, I believe, is inherently healthy, and I am pleased to do that, but we have taken some steps away from the main topic. There is one issue I particularly want to concentrate on and focus on. That is an amendment I introduced that would go directly to the issue of educational flexibility, directly to the issue of accountability. I had hoped to have the opportunity to offer the amendment as a stand-alone, that I could debate it and engage in a principled discussion, but because of the parliamentary condition of the floor, because of the unanimous consent, the only opportunity I had to have the amendment offered was to do so in conjunction with one of Senator Lott's amendment. I am in the awkward position of supporting my amendment and grateful that Senator Lott included it in his amendment, but respectfully differing with Senator Lott on his proposal with respect to IDEA. What Senator Lott is essentially providing to the school districts of America is a Hobson's choice, a choice between decreasing class size or additional resources for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I don't think we should present that choice to school districts. I think we should do all we can to ensure that we properly fund IDEA and at the same time we are able to reduce class sizes throughout the country. In fact, I argue that a reduction in class size will materially benefit the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs throughout the country because the reality of many schoolrooms is that there are IDEA students in large classrooms. They are not getting the attention they need and deserve. At the same time, the other students aren't getting that type of attention. By reducing class size--and this is an amendment that Senator Murray has championed and I salute her--we will help both programs, but ultimately we should be able to find the resources to fund both reduced class sizes and also keep up our commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program. Let me speak specifically about my amendment that goes to the heart of Ed-Flex. It goes to the heart of accountability. What it would do is involve parents, which I think is a topic we have not paid enough attention to. I hope in this oncoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we would put a special emphasis on innovative ways of involving parents in the educational process. We know it works. We know it is important. We know that good schools are schools not only with robust and intellectually curious children and good teachers, they are those schools that have strong parental involvement. My amendment would simply require the States to have a comment period with respect to their proposals for educational flexibility. Specifically, ask that parents and other interested parties be allowed to comment. These comments would be taken pursuant to State laws. We are not trying to create a special unique procedure. We don't want to add to the burden of States, but we want States to listen to the parents in their communities when they talk about educational flexibility. More than that, we want these comments to be incorporated in the application to the Secretary of Education so that the Secretary understands not just the perspective of the Governor, but just as importantly--in fact, one might argue more importantly--the perspective of parents in the communities of that State. I am pleased to say after spending a great deal of discussion with Senator Frist, particularly, we have reached an accommodation acceptable to both sides. In fact, it represents a movement on my part from the amendment I suggested last year which would have required a formal 30-day period of comments that would require an evaluation of the comments by the States in terms of their goals for educational flexibility and incorporating that in the application. We have decided to move closer together in terms of a more streamlined process. I point out that just a few days ago the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the other body, by an overwhelming vote of 30-9, passed my amendment of last year requiring a much more rigorous parental involvement, a more heavily regulated, if you will, approach to the issue. In order to have a position in conference that will give us the opportunity to discuss this and discuss this with a principle proposal already on the table, I am extremely pleased that this amendment, the Reed amendment, has been incorporated into Senator Lott's proposal. This Reed amendment is going forward. It also, I might add, follows precedents we established last year with respect to parental involvement, in particular with respect to the Workforce Investment Act and the Reading Excellence Act. I hope this is the beginning of a trend to involve parents directly with the issue of educational reform at the local level. I hope it also represents an opportunity that we will follow up in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to think about ways we can get parents more involved in the education of their youngsters. I also add that the Parent Teachers Association of America supports my amendment, the Education Trust supports it, the American Federation of Teachers and the Center for Law and Education supports this. Also, this was one of the provisions that was pointed out specifically in the statement of administration policy dated March 3 as part of their review of the underlying Ed-Flex legislation. I say with some regret I cannot support Senator Lott's proposal because I do think it is presenting a Hobson's choice. I think we can do better. I don't think we have to choose between some children versus others. I think we have to recognize that class size will help all children. It may, in fact, be additionally beneficial to children with special needs. Again, I think as we all recognize that we have a special responsibility to put our money where our noble words are when it comes to the issue of individuals with disabilities and their education in the United States, that requires looking for additional resources rather than simply trying to play one off the other in terms of some children versus other children. I thank, again, Senator Kennedy's leadership and certainly Senator Frist and Senator Wyden who have been doing a remarkable job on the floor. I hope at the end of the day we will have a bill we can all support. There are some provisions, as I outlined, that I opposed, but I conclude by strongly supporting my amendment which would give parents a real say in the educational flexibility plans that emanate from the States. With that, I yield back any time I have to Senator Kennedy.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for that information. It would have been cleaner to have done it up or down, but the substance is important, and I am pleased that it will be included in the legislation.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. There was discussion previously with respect to my amendment. I wonder if the majority leader has anything to say with respect to my amendment?

Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair for reminding me, and I again urge that we continue this debate, because it is an appropriate, indeed, important, debate, and I hope it continues past this cloture vote. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I rise today to join my colleagues to urge that we not only debate this Ed-Flex bill but we also consider thoughtfully, carefully, and completely many of the amendments that are being put forward by my colleagues. Senator Bingaman has talked with great eloquence and knowledge about dropout prevention. He has worked for many years to make sure there is a response to that growing problem here in the United States. That is certainly a legitimate issue to bring to this debate on education flexibility. And there are other amendments that should and must be considered. Many--in fact, all--who have spoken about education flexibility have stressed the need for accountability. The Governors have stressed it. Several Governors appeared before our Education and Labor Committee to talk about not only the need for Ed-Flex but also to insist that they need real accountability to accompany this legislation. Real accountability means something more than just words. I, for example, have an amendment that would provide for parental involvement in accountability in this process, for notification of parents of the proposed State plan, the pulling together of comments by parents, teachers, and others, and the incorporation of these comments in the application that goes forward to the Secretary of Education. If we can't give parents a voice in education flexibility, then we are not only missing a great opportunity but missing a significant and primary responsibility, and yet that is pending without a vote. So there is much work left to be done, and I hope we will defeat the motion for cloture so that we can get on with this work, so that we can fairly consider these amendments, we can vote them up or down, but we can consider them. I hope that is the case. Interestingly enough--and I know this is something that all of my colleagues do--I spent this morning in a school in Rhode Island. I went to the Norwood Avenue Elementary School in Cranston, RI, and I read to first graders, which is a very challenging assignment. And after that, I am even more in favor of smaller class sizes that Senator Murray proposes. Then I went to the Warwick Neck School in Warwick, RI, and read to first graders. Then I concluded the morning by going to the Mandela Woods School in Providence, RI. This is a new school which just opened, and it has the most diverse population you would want to see in an America school--African Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans. It is a tapestry of urban education in the United States. While I was there, it struck me again and again the importance of the issues we are talking about --not just educational flexibility but all of the issues, how smaller class sizes contribute to better performance. And this is the case in the Warwick Neck school, because that is a small school in and of itself with small class sizes. The principal was very, very proud of the fact it had done very well in statewide mathematics testing as a result of their efforts. So the issue of small class size is there, but also--and I know we have talked about special education--we are beginning to understand now that special education is in many respects a function of early childhood intervention, not just educationally but also in terms of health care. There is a problem in Rhode Island, a terrible problem in Rhode Island, and other places, of lead paint exposure, and that problem leads directly to educational complications.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his excellent comments. I believe Texas is a great example of what we can do if we give flexibility and demand accountability. As the Senator from Massachusetts emphasized, this accountability is with respect to their own standards, but it is measurable, it is objective, and it has resulted in great success in the State of Texas. In fact, I suggest most of the proponents of this legislation point to Texas as the example of what Ed-Flex can be and should be. As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, part and parcel of that is not just the flexibility, it is rigorous accountability. I hope we can incorporate that notion in this legislation. I think it is also important to recognize, too, that as we debate this Ed-Flex bill, we have yet to have the definitive results from many of the demonstration States confirming that what they have done with Ed-Flex has led to improvement in student performance or just overall improvement in the educational process. The GAO has looked at this issue. Their report certainly raises as many questions as it answers with respect to this issue as to whether Ed-Flex is working in those 12 States that already have the flexibility to do what we are proposing to do legislatively here. The other thing I suggest, too, is it is a concern--and it is a concern that was expressed by my colleague from Oregon--about whether this may endanger funding for the neediest students. I don't think there is anyone in this body, again, who would encourage such a development. We recognize, particularly through title I, that these scarce Federal dollars are going into communities that need them desperately and, in many cases over the decades of this program, have provided a significant makeup for local funds that are not adequate to the purpose. But what we are concerned about--and it is a concern that, again, I hope is worked out through the process of this debate and amendments-- is that unwittingly we might undo some of that emphasis and effort. Again, I would not argue it is the purpose of anyone who has proposed this legislation, but we must be careful because, again, we are looking at the most vulnerable population in this country in terms of education. We are looking at a population that desperately needs the support and assistance of every level of government. There is another aspect I would like to conclude with, and that is the participation of parents in this process. I mentioned initially, I believe one of the great challenges we have this year in our reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is finding ways to encourage more substantive, meaningful parental involvement. In the context of this legislation, along with my colleagues, I will propose an amendment that would allow for greater parental involvement, allow for parental input that would be available for public review and would be included in state or local waiver applications. We are not trying to hamstring local authorities. Last year I had an amendment similar to this that had a 30-day public notice and comment requirement. That is not in this amendment. We are just suggesting, though, if we mean that we want to have parents involved, this is not only a symbolic but a very real and meaningful way to get that involvement--to encourage them to submit comments, to have those comments publicly available, and then have those comments submitted with the application. Again, I am extremely encouraged that we are talking about educational reform. We are working together to come up with innovative ways to do what we all want to do, which is to give every child in this country access to an excellent education. Indeed, we hope to guarantee every child in this country access to an excellent education. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. It is, indeed, invigorating and encouraging to be in the Chamber today to talk about education, talking about an innovative proposal to try to reform education and also being able to have a principled debate about increasing the accountability that should be inherent in this proposal because the issue of flexibility alone without accountability could lead simply to sending funds to States without proper controls. And so I believe we will have to emphasize in this debate and ultimately in this legislation accountability as well as flexibility. I have been working on these issues since my time in the other body on the Education and Labor Committee and here on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and I have always tried to stress the notion of accountability because, sadly, there are too many children in this country today who are not receiving quality education, particularly in rural areas and in central cities. And if we simply transfer funds without some meaningful accountability, I think we will continue to promulgate that disadvantage and continue to do disservice to those children. I would prefer, frankly, to look at all these issues in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, because however innovative this approach is today with Ed-Flex, it is in my view a nod toward reform, a genuflection toward reform, but it is not the comprehensive reform, frankly, that we should be encouraging because that comprehensive reform requires improvement in teacher quality, the repair and modernization of schools, reduction in class size, strengthening parental involvement, equipping our libraries with the modern technology and the modern media, which is so necessary. And those are the hallmarks of real reform, and those we will encounter in a comprehensive and systematic way in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act. But if we are to deal with and move forward on the issue of flexibility, we have to do it right, and we have to do it with respect to accountability. I want to emphasize one other point in terms of this comprehensive approach to education reform. I hope that in this year's reauthorization we would take special strides to try to develop ways to involve parents in the process. This might be one of the most difficult issues we face, one of the most challenging issues we face, but, ultimately, if we get it right, could be the lever that moves significant reform and in a way which we all can afford, because I don't think there is any person in this body who would say that we can do less than improve the involvement of parents in the education of their children. The Ed-Flex bill provides flexibility to States. But, as I have stressed before, flexibility must be a carrot for and matched up with accountability. One aspect of this--and the debate is ongoing now in discussions--and I again commend the sponsors for their willingness to talk and to discuss and negotiate these amendments, these proposed amendments--I think we have to be very clear what we are trying to use the flexibility to achieve. In my view, we are trying to improve student performance. Our focal point should be improved student performance, and this legislation should reflect that overriding focal point. It is one thing to provide relief from forms of regulation to make the life of a principal a little easier, the life of school committee people a little easier, and maybe free up a few extra dollars along the way, but if that does not result in improved student achievement, then we have missed the boat, we have missed the point. That should be our overarching goal, and I believe the amendment Senator Kennedy and I are proposing is a key to that, and I hope we are making progress to come to a principled reconciliation.

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. REED. I think that is precisely correct. We are not talking about a national standard, a national level of achievement. We are talking about letting the States propose their levels of achievement and then measuring how well this flexibility leads to the accomplishment of their goals.