Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904, I move to waive any point of order against my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Yes, it is, eliminating some of the provisions we have already debated with respect to the age limitation, MSA's, et cetera.

Mr. REED. I would be happy to let the distinguished chairman do that.

Mr. REED. Fine.

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I did not hear the amount of time remaining based on 10 minutes.

Mr. REED. I thank the President.

Mr. REED. It would substitute.

Mr. REED. I thank you, Mr. President, Mr. President, my amendment this evening gives my colleagues of the Senate a clear choice to stabilize the solvency of the Medicare trust fund without including some of the provisions which we already talked about this afternoon, and others which undermine the concept of a universal Medicare system. Medicare provides excellent health care for all of our seniors--it is a system that has operated for 30 years, a system that works, a system that is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Specifically, what my amendment will do is provide for the revenue savings and the cost savings that are incorporated in the underlying bill, but remove from that bill those provisions that harm the structural integrity of the Medicare program. My amendment would retain the Medicare eligibility age of 65. It would strike the home health copay. It would add the current law that protects Medicare recipients with respect to balanced-billing protection for those recipients and beneficiaries who may choose to opt for private fee-for-service Medicare health coverage. It would also eliminate the means-tested provisions for Medicare. And, finally, it would eliminate the medical savings account as a Medicare option. All of these provisions which I have mentioned are not necessary to preserve the solvency of the Medicare fund. We can achieve solvency by agreeing to the savings and reimbursement changes which are in the underlying bill. And we can provide for a solvent Medicare system in the future without endangering the Medicare program itself. I would like to comment on the specifics in my substitute. First, as I mentioned before, my amendment would strike the rollback of the Medicare eligibility age to 67. I realize that this has been debated today. But this is such a critical point that it bears restating. Reducing the Medicare eligibility age is exactly the wrong way to proceed with respect to health care reform--not just Medicare reform, but health care reform in this country. Our goal should be to encourage more participation in health care, to extend health care benefits to more Americans and not to reduce health care coverage. Indeed, it is a cruel irony tonight that one of the beneficial aspects of the underlying legislation is the extension of health care to more children and, yet, we are contracting the health care coverage of seniors. I believe also that this provision will send shockwaves throughout our entire health care system as companies are forced to realize the additional liability under current accounting rules. Many employers provide health care to their employees until Medicare eligibility age. If that age is rolled back, employers incur more costs. If they incur more costs and have to show it on the balance sheet, they are going to have to make very difficult choices not only about the coverage for retirees, but also if they are going to continue to provide coverage for their current workers. This is something that should not be done lightly and, indeed, represents, a retreat from our commitment to provide more and more Americans with access to good quality health care. Let me also suggest with respect to the home health copay that this is a provision which does not support those people who particularly need this type of support. Forty-three percent of the individuals who would have to pay this copay have incomes under $10,000 a year. Two- thirds of persons using these benefits are women, one-third of whom live alone. Just yesterday we heard from a woman--an 82-year-old woman --who desperately relies upon home health care services. She--and many others like her--would be in no condition to pay the increased costs. This provision should also be stricken. With respect to medical savings accounts, this is the provision which I think will go toward the unraveling of the Medicare system as we know it. Under the MSA concept, a senior would be required to use Medicare money to buy a catastrophic health policy, and any savings left over from Medicare's payment could be put in the medical savings account. This provision will attract wealthy seniors who, frankly, can pay for some of these costs. It would also attract those people who are healthy. Essentially, they would be making a judgment whether they are healthy enough to run the risk of avoiding significant illness, and, if so, this is a good option. If they are not so healthy, then their best rational choice would be to go for fee-for-service, traditional Medicare. The consequence would be that we would see wealthy, healthy seniors leave the Medicare system and, with them, the proportion of money that is contributed in their behalf. The remaining seniors would be sicker, older, and more likely to use services. This would put increased pressure on the Medicare program. Those who see this as a way of making the system more solvent and more secure are missing the point. MSAs would lead to a situation in which the system is harmed, more costs are piled upon Medicare, Medicare becomes more difficult to fund and, indeed, to support. Also, my substitute would eliminate the means testing provision. Philosophically, I think Medicare works because it is seen as a health care program and not a welfare program. To the extent that we make this part B premium differential between wealthy individuals and nonwealthy individuals, this program will take on quickly the shades of a welfare program. It will undercut the tremendous support in all ranges of American life for the Medicare system. This part B premium adjustment is done in the context of a voluntary system, a system in which seniors might perceive--particularly wealthy seniors--that it is no longer a good deal to be part of part B. These seniors could voluntarily leave or buy other types of insurance--in fact the industry, I think, right now is probably planning to sell. Once again, we will see the unraveling of the Medicare system as more people leave and as their contributions are taken with them from the Medicare system. All of these together will lead to a situation in which we hear the first crack in the system. And as time goes on, those cracks will widen to deep fissures, and the solid support that we have today will ultimately erode. A final point is with respect to a provision in the underlying bill, the lack of balanced billing protections in the private fee-for-service option. Current Medicare law balance billing limits protect seniors now and would be undercut because of the options in the underlying bill that allow beneficiaries to choose medical policies in which physicians could charge beyond the Medicare limits. This balanced billing protection exists for fee-for-service, traditional Medicare recipients. It should be in place for all beneficiaries of Medicare regardless of the program they choose. My amendment would add balance billing limits to the Medicare Choice provisions of the bill currently without them. In a sense, what this amendment does in the nature of a substitute is say that we can provide solvency for Medicare. We can go ahead and provide the opportunities to make careful, comprehensive review of the system. We can make changes. But we don't have to do it today. We don't have to have to do it hastily. We don't have to do it in an ad hoc fashion which misses the systematic impact of all of these changes we have talked about today. Rather, we can--as I think the agreement reached with respect to the budget agreement several months ago indicates--we can stabilize the system, reduce the increasing costs associated with Medicare by roughly $115 billion and not defer, but study carefully and comprehensively and thoroughly the impact of some of these proposed changes. This amendment stabilizes the system. It eliminates precipitous changes in Medicare that will undermine the program--changes in this bill that may leave us in a situation where Medicare is no longer a universal program in which all of our seniors can participate. Medicare should continue to be a program in which all of our seniors can and will participate, and a program in which all of our seniors will be guaranteed high quality health care that they can afford.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.

Mr. REED. Indeed, I did.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding. I join him in my opposition to this provision in the bill. I also have great respect and regard for Senator Kerrey, the primary sponsor of this provision. He has courageously identified many issues with respect to Medicare and has provided great insight, but in this particular situation I believe that to raise the eligible age for Medicare is going in exactly the wrong direction. It forgets why we created Medicare in the first place in the mid-1960s. The overwhelming reality was that seniors at that age could not get health care. That is why the Government stepped in. Private insurance companies were unwilling to sell insurance to those people at any reasonable price. Many things have changed since the mid-1960s--the demographics of our population, the efficacy of a health care program, the longevity of our citizens--but one thing has not changed, and that is the unwillingness of private insurance to step in and provide affordable and accessible health insurance to seniors. Today, 13 percent of the 21 million people aged 55 to 64 lack health insurance, and by adopting this provision we will simply add to that number because, now, from age 65 to 66, they will not have access to the Medicare system. Therefore, we have to, I think, maintain a situation where the Medicare system begins at age 65. Indeed, I hope that we will endeavor to try to develop programs that would broaden the base of health care insurance for all Americans. It is quite disturbing to listen to the statistics cited by my colleague from Illinois, and to point out that many, many companies are now no longer insuring, as a matter of routine, their employees and, consequently, the percentage of insured Americans, particularly in the later years of their work life, is declining. We would add to that precipitous decline by adopting this particular amendment. Indeed, also, we have to understand that the majority of Medicare beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 67, who would be affected by this amendment, have incomes below $30,000. They certainly would not be in a position to pay a $10,000 a year private insurance premium, as is evident in some States, like Illinois. Often they are single, poor, unemployed. They would have no recourse. And this is not the way to fix the Medicare system--by denying health care insurance to people, by essentially pushing them out of the system of health care with the idea that we will somehow stabilize and increase the longevity of our health care system. There is another aspect of this that should be studied much more deeply before we embark on such a change; that is, many employers have provided health care benefits to their employees until they reach the Medicare age of eligibility. As a result, if we were to push back the eligibility table, we would require corporations throughout this country to immediately recognize, because of accounting rules, an increase in their liability, a significant increase in their liability. This could force them to rethink their overall health care strategy to accelerate the decline of health care not only for seniors but for working Americans, as companies simply say, ``we can't afford to shoulder this burden any longer.'' As a result, we also, I think, have to recognize the significant impact this would have on the application of health care insurance throughout our society. As one employer wrote to me, ``The impact of this legislation will be to discourage companies from offering comprehensive retiree health benefits to their employees.'' I think we have to be very careful and thoughtful about how we reform Medicare. We all want to stabilize the system, to ensure solvency. We can do that without adopting this amendment. To move away from a guarantee of health care for seniors, beginning at 65, is a retreat that I don't think we should make and I don't think we have to make. Therefore, I join my colleague from Illinois in objecting to this provision of the bill before us today. I thank the Senator and yield back my time.

Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield one more time. The fact is that this will create a significant system impact. For example, private companies may change their insurance packages, et cetera. There is another impact, also. In this country, sick people--and I hope in this country they will still get care someplace. As a result, without the Medicare Program, they will be thrust upon the hospitals for uncompensated care and thrust upon--if they are low-income citizens-- Medicaid programs or special programs at the State level. So as we hope to save at the Federal level, we very well may generate other costs, and perhaps larger costs, at local-State levels and in other insurance programs. So, essentially, our commitment to Medicare, I feel, should be maintained. I, again, concur with the Senator and thank him for yielding me this time to further comment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Vermont and my friend and colleague from Nebraska for their leadership on this very important issue. Mr. President, I am here to support, as an original cosponsor, the Leahy-Hagel landmine legislation, which would ban deployment of landmines after January 1 of the year 2000. The fact that this legislation has already acquired 56 cosponsors in the Senate is testimony to the compelling force of their logic and their argument. We should, in fact, ban landmines across the world, and we should begin with this legislation. Antipersonnel landmines have always been one of the greatest dangers facing our troops--one of the most horrific weapons on the battlefield. Indeed, the only United States casualty we have sustained in operations in Bosnia was an individual who was killed by a landmine. These landmines are scattered across the world. One hundred ten million active landmines are hidden in as many as 64 countries. And while 100,000 landmines a year are identified, deactivated and removed, another 2 million to 5 million are planted. These landmines claim about 2,000 victims a month. These are civilians. These are children. These are women. These are individuals who are not combatants but are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. In the military, there is a quite strict regime for using landmines: Mapping them out, putting them in place, having the records so that, at the conclusion of hostilities, they can be identified, deactivated, and removed. But what has happened is that these landmines are now being used by renegade bands, by militias, by paramilitary units, and they are literally being scattered about those countries indiscriminately. I was in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia a few months ago visiting our troops and visiting Russians who are participating with us. Literally within a few yards of the camp of these Russian soldiers is an area into which they cannot enter because it is strewn with landmines. They are unidentified, unable to be removed. This is just one example of the dangers that lurk because of the proliferation of landmines throughout this world. I hope that we will move aggressively to pass this legislation. It will be a testament, I think, to those individuals who are sponsoring it. But also it will help highlight other initiatives that need to be on the table. For example, in October 1996, Canada announced the goal of completing a treaty totally banning the use, production, and stockpiling of landmines by the year 2000. In addition to that effort, two months later the United Nations General Assembly, at the urging of the United States, passed a resolution by a unanimous vote, to vigorously pursue a treaty banning the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of antipersonnel landmines. These treaty negotiations will receive, I think, tremendous impetus from the actions we take on this floor. I hope this bill will be passed quickly into law. I hope we can essentially begin here today to outlaw the use of landmines for the protection, not only of our own forces, but for the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians throughout the world who are, each day, subject to the dangers of landmines. This will make the world safer. It will not harm our military security. And it will give us, I think, a goal and the momentum to move forward toward a more comprehensive landmine ban. Again I compliment and commend my colleagues, Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel, for their efforts and for their leadership on this important measure.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, in April, President Clinton with former Presidents Bush and Ford convened a Summit on Service in Philadelphia. They and other national leaders called upon young people to serve their communities and urged them to spread the spirit of service throughout the country. The Corporation for National Service [CNS] is among those advancing this spirit. Its mission, as my colleagues are well aware, is to help the country meet its educational, environmental, and public safety needs through service projects conducted and led by young people. The young people who participate in the AmeriCorps Program assist needy individuals, families, and their communities, while building their own self-esteem and earning grants to help them meet the financial costs of higher education. Since its inception, the Corporation for National Service has taken steps to address the charges of its critics by making necessary changes. Today, CNS fulfills its mandates successfully, efficiently, and cost effectively. In fact, a University of Minnesota study shows that AmeriCorps Programs in that State return $3.90 in benefits for every dollar spent. Studies in Washington State reveal a similar return on investment. When the Senate considers the reauthorization of the Corporation for National Service, I hope we will continue to foster the spirit of service that was celebrated in Philadelphia. To open the discussion, I ask my colleagues to take the time to read an article entitled ``The Value of Service,'' which appeared in the June edition of Government Executive magazine. This article offers, I believe, a balanced view of CNS's first 4 years. Mr. President, I ask that it be printed in the Record. The article follows: The Value of Service (By Annys Shin) These should be heady days for the Corporation for National Service, the 4-year-old agency that oversees AmeriCorps, President Clinton's pet program to give students financial aid in exchange for a year of community service. In February, Clinton announced in his State of the Union address that he would use thousands of AmeriCorps volunteers to mobilize an army of reading tutors for grade-school children. In March, CNS chief executive Harris Wofford got a favorable reception on Capitol Hill when he testified before the House and Senate on his agency's budget request. A month later, he stood with President Clinton and former President Bush at a summit meeting on national service in Philadelphia. All this just a year after AmeriCorps' budget was zeroed out by the House (only to be restored later in negotiations with the Senate) and Congress failed to bring CNS' reauthorization up in committee. Still, CNS is still fighting to prove that its programs are worth the $600 million a year taxpayers spend on them. President Clinton's proposed tutoring effort, known as the America Reads Initiative, has further raised the stakes for AmeriCorps and CNS. The Clinton administration has requested $1 billion over the next five years to cover the costs of the program and an additional 50,000 AmeriCorps Challenge Scholarships. Any funding increase or new service initiative can't go forward unless CNS is reauthorized by September, according to a CNS spokesman. Since CNS is the Clinton administration's most significant expansion of the federal bureaucracy, its leaders have been meticulous since 1993 about measuring the results of their programs to show that they work. Other federal operations will soon follow suit, as the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 takes full effect, forcing agencies to develop outcomes-based approaches to running their programs. However, few agencies are likely to face the relentless criticism that CNS has from its Republican opponents, who see the agency and its programs as little more than a political boondoggle. So far, reams of positive data have not been enough to get CNS out of the partisan cross hairs. AmeriCorps Under Siege At the center of all the controversy is AmeriCorps, CNS' flagship program. The agency administers two other service programs, Learn and Serve and the Senior Corps, but neither have received the scrutiny AmeriCorps has. CNS jointly administers AmeriCorps with 48 state commissions, which vary in size. CNS gives half of AmeriCorps grant funding to the state commissions, which then issue sub- grants to projects. CNS directly funds projects with the rest of the money. AmeriCorps members are involved in a variety of activities, including assisting crime victims, immunizing children, restoring national parks, developing community-based health care programs and setting up credit unions in low-income communities. In return for a year's service, they get living allowances of $7,600 a year, which can be supplemented by the member's employer. They also receive an education award of $4,725 to put toward paying off student loans or to finance higher education or vocational training. Members can receive living allowances and education grants for up to two terms of service. Last year, the $215 million that AmeriCorps distributed in the form of grants to states and direct funding of projects went to 450 programs that operate at more than 1,000 sites nationwide and employ 24,000 AmeriCorps members. None of AmeriCorps' critics have disputed the value of building housing for low-income families or teaching children to read. But some members of Congress question whether the program's benefits are worth its cost to taxpayers. At many federal agencies, the cost-benefit calculation is far from simple. The Government Performance and Results Act is supposed to help by forcing agencies to come up with strategic plans and to measure the results of their programs. ``The Results Act is a major culture change for most agencies,'' says Jerome F. Climer, president of the Congressional Institute, a think tank that studies governmental reforms. But at CNS, which was created the same year GPRA became law, no such culture change is necessary. ``There was a decision made early on in the program that AmeriCorps had to be judged on the basis of what it actually accomplished, on services delivered,'' says Steven Waldman, assistant managing editor at U.S. News and World Report, who wrote The Bill (Viking, 1995), a book about Clinton's effort to start a national service program, and later served as Wofford's senior policy adviser. ``It was not sufficient to have anecdotal evidence that it was good for the AmeriCorps members. We had to have proof that it was good for the communities it was serving.'' Costs and Benefits But measuring community impact has proved to be easier said than done. Older service programs such as the Peace Corps have tended to focus more on participant benefits, in part because the impact on participants is easier to gauge than the effect on communities, says JoAnn Jastrzab of the Boston research firm Abt Associates, who has studied some of AmeriCorps' efforts. Last July, Jastrzab and her colleagues released the findings of a 14-month study of the country's eight largest and most-established youth conservation corps, which get about a third of their funding through AmeriCorps. The study was funded by CNS. Jastrzab followed participants in one Washington state project who went out into fields armed with toothbrushes to talk to migrant farm laborers about oral hygiene and to try to persuade them to visit a local health clinic on a regular basis. Other volunteers served as translators in the clinic. These services may have raised the number of workers who receive preventive care, and the eventual cost-savings of such preventive care to taxpayers could be measured, Jastrzab concluded, but documenting it could be costly and would require a separate study. Nevertheless, after comparing operating costs to the value of service provided and the gain in participant earnings in the 15 months following service, Jastrzab and her colleagues estimated that each hour of service youth corps members performed resulted in $1.04 more in benefits than it cost to employ them. Evaluators have come up with similar cost-benefit ratios for other AmeriCorps programs. Researchers from the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory found that every federal dollar invested in two Washington state AmeriCorps projects yielded a return up to $2.40 in benefits. University of Minnesota researchers found benefits up to $3.90 for each federal dollar put into several Minnesota AmeriCorps projects. CNS officials say such figures show taxpayers are getting bang for the bucks AmeriCorps spends. CNS officials have also compiled lists of AmeriCorps project accomplishments. The San Mateo, Calif.-based research firm Aguirre International studied the program's first year of service and put together a list of beneficiaries, which included 10,000 children who were escorted to school through safe corridors, more than 1,000 teen-agers who received counseling about drug and alcohol abuse, more than 700 families who were able to move into new or refurbished homes, apartment units or shelters, and more than 1,200 people with AIDS who received services. Tracking Results But whether this laundry list of good deeds translates into long-term impact is another story. AmeriCorps participants, says Lance Potter, director of evaluation at CNS, ``are people who are out there to solve the problem of homelessness or to teach every child to read. They don't have goals that you can reach in a year.'' However, social scientists say that the long-term effect of service programs can be measured through studies that track, for example, literacy rates in areas where AmeriCorps members serve as reading tutors. Such studies are being designed, Potter says. In September, research firm Aguirre International is slated to issue a report on the long-term impact of AmeriCorps' programs. Tracking the benefits of service work on the people who join AmeriCorps is also a challenge. As with gauging a project's community impact, economists and social scientists have yet to slap a price tag on boosting participants' self- esteem, raising their job aspirations, or increasing the likelihood that they will volunteer in the future. Adding another wrinkle to measuring benefits to participants is AmeriCorps members' demographics. Programs such as the Youth Corps recruit mostly among disadvantaged youth. When comparing kids who participate in Youth Corps to a group of their peers who didn't, gains in educational attainment or work experience show up clearly. But in evaluating AmeriCorps members, who are recruited regardless of socio-economic status and tend to be older, more educated and better off than Youth Corps members, the benefits to participants are sometimes less dramatic. An Abt Associates study of Youth Corps programs found they did little to boost the incomes or job opportunities of white male participants when compared to white males who didn't perform a year of service. Black and Hispanic participants, on the other hand, made more money and got better jobs than their non-service counterparts. The findings reflect a better job market for white males, says Jastrzab, not a detrimental effect of service. But without detailed explanation, the finding gave the appearance of failure. ``When the findings come around to showing different impacts on young people by race, then CNS wants to distance itself from that,'' says Andy Moore, a spokesman for the National Association of Service Conservation Corps. ``This study was publicized in spite of CNS, not because of it.'' When there really is bad news about a AmeriCorps-backed project, it doesn't necessarily mean the project loses its funding. But projects that show no interest in completing evaluations at all probably will be cut off, according to Potter. After its first year, CNS defunded only 50 AmeriCorps grantees, and only 20 in its second year. ``We don't want to be in the business of punishing programs for finding out that they have shortcomings,'' Potter says. ``If we do that, we send the message that we don't provide an incentive for them to look hard at their program and find ways to improve it.'' In order for an outcome-based approach to work ``there must be consequences,'' argues the Congressional Institute's Climer. ``Poorly performing programs must be repaired.'' There also have to be rewards for improvements, he says. AmeriCorps' critics have kept CNS officials keenly aware of what will happen if the agency doesn't meet their expectations. This spring, AmeriCorps' congressional critics were disappointed by what they saw as the agency's lack of improvement in management practices and cost control, and renewed threats to kill the program if it doesn't make significant strides over the next year. Such threats carry greater urgency in the current climate of deficit reduction. ``One of the greatest difficulties that we have is that [AmeriCorps'] funds compete directly with dollars for federal housing programs, veterans benefits, the space program, natural disaster relief and more than a dozen other federal agencies,'' says David Lestrang, an aide to Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the CNS budget. ``It all comes down to a matter of priority. I know this is a priority for the administration but they have to weigh it against other priorities. For Congress, the jury is still out on AmeriCorps.'' ``If you focused entirely on the cost, you could justify killing any program if you never looked at the benefits,'' counters Waldman. Dual Goals The question of whether CNS' programs are cost-effective depends largely on how you define its goals. In the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, the agency's mission is defined as helping ``the nation meet its unmet human, education, environmental and public safety needs.'' But President Clinton also sold AmeriCorps as a way for young people to earn money for college. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a vocal AmeriCorps critic, doesn't dispute the benefits of its programs. But he questions whether it is an efficient way to help kids get to college. Grassley ``has no problem with the work AmeriCorps volunteers are doing-it's valuable work,'' says Jill Kozeny, one of his aides. ``He has a problem with the huge burly cost structure.'' Grassley has commissioned several General Accounting Office studies of CNS operations. Two years ago, a GAO study he ordered concluded that the agency was expending about $17,000 in resources on each AmeriCorps participant. Adding state, local and private support for the program, GAO pegged average resources per participant at $26,654. Grassley said this figure was way too high. He also blasted CNS for giving grants to other federal agencies and not garnering more private support for projects. CNS officials say it's unfair to include other federal, state, local government, and private contributions when estimating program costs. But last year CNS chief executive Harris Wofford said he would implement a plan to require grantees with above average per-participant costs to lower them by 10 percent in the next grant cycle. Wofford also agreed to end funding to other federal agencies, which had totaled $12 million a year for programs such as WritersCorps, a tutoring program underwritten by the National Endowment for the Arts. And he said he would raise requirements for matching private funds from 25 percent to 33 percent of a grantee's budgets. Grassley then helped save AmeriCorps funding for another year. In March of this year, Grassley and others found more fodder for discontent in another GAO report on the role of state commissions in administering AmeriCorps. The report included costs, attrition rates, and rates of educational award usage among several AmeriCorps projects. One project, the Casa Verde Builders Program in Texas, had an attrition rate of more than 50 percent and cost $2.5 million, half of which came directly from CNS. Grassley's office estimated costs for the program at close to $100,000 per participant. ``We have to look at whether this program is the most cost- effective way to help people go to college,'' Grassley said on NBC Nightly News shortly after the report came out. Wofford protests that AmeriCorps is not simply a scholarship program, but a national service one as well. That is exactly what bothers some of AmeriCorps' critics, who say that the federal government shouldn't be in business of promoting service. Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., abhors the idea that AmeriCorps members are in essence ``paid to volunteer,'' according to one of his aides, Fred Greer. ``The aim is worthy,'' Greer says. ``But why does it have to be a public program from the start?" AmeriCorps supporters counter that federal investment is a vital catalyst to boosting community service and a necessary incentive for overworked citizens to volunteer. Still, even the most ardent AmeriCorps supporters are starting to concede that the non-government sectors have a bigger role to play in national service. At the April summit on service in Philadelphia, Clinton proposed the creation of 50,000 new AmeriCorps Challenge grants that would allow AmeriCorps to add 33,000 members over five years. The new grants would only cover the education award; private and nonprofit organizations would pick up the tab for other program costs and living expenses. ``We're extremely open-minded to ideas from all parts of the political spectrum on how to make national service work,'' Waldman said in an interview before he left the agency. ``Outside of Washington, AmeriCorps is much more a nonpartisan issue.'' Congressional opposition puts CNS officials in a bind, because they're forced to be accountable for the effectiveness of projects that they don't directly run, half of which they don't even choose to fund. ``Congress set it up this way and if they believe in it they ought to take it seriously,'' Waldman said. ``It puts us in a ridiculous position: Congress wants us to not have any control but hold us accountable.''

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for yielding. I commend him for his leadership on this important issue. And I also want to commend my colleague from Illinois for his very eloquent statement on this very important topic. I join my colleagues today in urging the administration to submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for its consideration and, hopefully, ratification. On this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy delivered his famous address to the graduates of American University. He made his famous call for peace for all time. He was then searching for a solution to a tense nuclear standoff. He stated in that speech: Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient means of assuring peace. Mr. President, today we have an alternative means of assuring peace. After years of negotiations and false starts, 60 countries have approved the text of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which would prohibit all nuclear weapons test explosions or other nuclear explosions anywhere in the world. This treaty would prevent deployment and impede the development of these deadly weapons. It would not enter into force however until ratified by all 44 states which possess nuclear power, including the five countries which have harnessed this power to make nuclear weapons. Its comprehensiveness would reassure the 177 nonnuclear weapons states that nuclear proliferation is waning, thus eliminating the need of these states to develop their nuclear capability. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty clearly has one purpose: To end the arms race and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It seeks to accomplish its goal in an objective and fair manner. The membership of the executive council, the treaty's principal decisionmaking body, will be distributed evenly throughout the world. An international monitoring system will use scientific methods to detect and identify prohibited nuclear explosions. A network of seismic, hydroacoustic, and radionuclide monitoring stations will continuously collect and analyze data to ensure global compliance. A consultation and clarification regime will provide state parties with the opportunity to address accusations of noncompliance before an onsite inspection is ordered. And any state party which demands a frivolous or abusive inspection may be subject to punitive measures. How can the United States not take the lead in this cause? If we ratify this treaty, others will follow. Imagine a day when world peace is not decided by the size of nuclear stockpiles, but rather by the will and wishes of the people of the world. This treaty is the next step toward that reality. Mr. President, in his book of several years ago, ``The Good War,'' author Studs Terkel presented an oral history of those touched by World War II. He spoke with many individuals whose lives were shaped by the bomb. Indeed, he spoke with survivors of Hiroshima, who still do not talk about the events of August 6, 1945, without breaking down. He spoke with an American sailor who swam in the waters of the Marshall Islands the day after a test explosion. He died of cancer before the book was published. But perhaps Terkel's most disturbing chapter is his last, when he interviewed some children, aged 11 to 15, on a Chicago street corner in 1965. One child, Sam, stated, ``I hope I can die of old age, before the world starts THE war.'' Ethel then chimed in, ``I wanna see if I'm gonna grow up first. I mean, I might not live to be grown up. Cause I don't know when my time is up * * * I never know if I could die overnight from the bomb or something.'' And finally Raymond said, ``This might sound crazy, but I'd like to see a world without bombs. I mean without wars. It would be a lot bigger, the world. Maybe we could enjoy it more. Get a lot out of life, without worrying you would be blown up tomorrow.'' Mr. President, generations growing up after World War II were haunted by the specter of annihilation by nuclear weapons. We now have an opportunity to rid these fears, the fears of our children, forever. The American people want this treaty. Over 80 percent of the public support its ratification. It is incumbent upon us to consider this treaty and to ratify it, to put to rest once and for all the specter of nuclear annihilation. I yield back my time to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievement of Mercymount Country Day School of Cumberland, RI, which was recently honored as a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School. As I think all in this chamber know, it is a highly regarded distinction to be named a Blue Ribbon School, since these schools represent some of the cream of our educational crop. Through an intensive selection process beginning at the State level and continuing through a Federal Review Panel of 100 top educators, many of the very best public and private schools in the Nation are identified as deserving of this honor. These are schools that are particularly effective meeting local, State, and national goals. But, Mr. President, this honor is not about determining who is best, it is about learning what works in educating today's children--the leaders of tomorrow. Now, more than ever, it is important that we make every effort to reach out to students, that we truly engage and challenge them, and that we make their education come alive. At the Mercymount Country Day School in Rhode Island, partnerships between parents and teachers have made an enormous difference in the education of their students. They have understood that the quality of education depends not only upon the efforts of schools and government; it also depends upon the ideas and innovation of parents and community. At Mercymount, parent-teacher cooperation has brought computers into the classroom, and their ``Pull the Plug'' on TV initiative has helped students get away from television sets and into reading and other challenging activities. Mercymount has also developed a wonderful fine arts program, and as research has shown, the pursuit of education in the arts at an early age improves a child's cognitive ability. Again, Mercymount is making a huge difference in the lives of its students. Mr. President, the Blue Ribbon School initiative shows us the very best we can do for students, and the techniques that can be replicated in all schools to help all students learn. I am proud to say that in Rhode Island we can look to a school like Mercymount Country Day. Under the leadership of its principal, Sister Martha Mulligan, its capable faculty, and its improved parents, Mercymount will continue to be a shining example for years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the Rhode Island Historical Society on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. Founded in 1822, the Rhode Island Historical Society was established for the purpose of rescuing artifacts and records pertaining to the history of our State and spreading the legacy of Rhode Island history. The society today represents the fourth oldest historical society in the United States and remains as one of the noble guardians of American history and culture. Over the years the society's repository of Rhode Island history and culture has grown under the stewardship of generations of knowledgeable scholars, dedicated staff, and the generosity of gracious benefactors. From its humble beginnings, the society has served as a haven for precious artifacts which serve to record and preserve the rich history of Rhode Island. Today, we mark not only the past accomplishments of the Rhode Island Historical Society, but we pause at an exciting threshold as we embark upon the creation of Heritage Harbor. Housed at the site of a former power plant at the head of Narragansett Bay, the historical society will lead a consortium of museums and cultural organizations in forming Heritage Harbor. The new community will bring together the stories and treasures of the Ocean State through entertainment and enlightenment. Remaining true to Rhode Island's founder Roger Williams, this new endeavor will be a lively experiment. It will teach, entertain, and inspire. The Heritage Harbor promises to bring together the diverse cultures and communities of Rhode Island to celebrate the time, traditions, and our many contributions to collective greatness of this Nation. Mr. President, I would ask that my colleagues join me in applauding the Rhode Island Historical Society as we mark this milestone of 175 years, celebrating its legacy, both past and future.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I will make two very brief points. First, in 1972, we passed the Pell grant. If we simply indexed that grant for inflation, the maximum Pell grant today would be $4,300. We are asking for an increase from $3,000 in this budget to $3,500. Second, back in 1980, the maximum Pell grant covered 72 percent of the cost of a 4-year public college. Now it covers roughly 20 percent. We need more. That is what the Wellstone-Reed amendment asks us to do.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, no one objects to Pell grants. This should be a vote about expanding the Pell grants so we can change the reality that faces working families in this country. In 1975, 80 percent of Federal financial assistance was in the form of grants and 20 percent in loans. Today, those numbers are reversed. I believe we should expand the Pell grants along the lines of the Wellstone-Reed amendment. I hope we can do that sometime.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, like many I recognize that this budget agreement is a good faith effort. It shows a recognition by Republicans that their past plans were extreme and unpopular. Indeed, the agreement acknowledges, to a degree, that Americans want us to invest in priorities. However, for all its positive steps, I do not believe it is the right budget outline for our future. I support a balanced budget plan, but I cannot support a resolution which sets in motion a questionable package of unfair tax cuts and other misguided priorities. The agreement contains a number of laudable elements. The welfare act's excesses are curbed. It takes a small first step toward health care coverage for children, and important education tax credits are provided. And it does purport to continue the march toward a balanced budget. Indeed, we would not be able to consider this agreement without the 1993 budget agreement. With only Democratic votes, that package has cut the deficit for 4 years in a row and brought the deficit to its lowest point as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] since 1974. Ironically, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle predicted the 1993 budget would cause economic collapse and ruin. Yet, today, the economic growth generated, in part, by the 1993 budget has brought us to the point where it is conceivable to reach budget balance. Today's national economy is a marvel of low inflation, low unemployment, and strong revenues, which is good news for many although it has yet to reach some in my State of Rhode Island. Again, there are sound elements of this plan, but I would caution that a budget resolution is short on specifics, long on figures, and tends to obscure the magnitude of what is under consideration. While the budget resolution is nonbinding, it imposes an austere procedural and fiscal discipline on what the Senate can and cannot do. Certainly the defeat of the Hatch-Kennedy amendment showed that this budget resolution can, and could continue to be, used to thwart efforts to meet even the health care needs of America's children. Mr. President, for all its effort, I believe this agreement falls short in a number of key areas. First, the deal's economic assumptions are optimistic, and are based on a $225 billion midnight revenue windfall estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Sadly, the accuracy of these estimates is not guaranteed. Since 1980, CBO's revenue estimates have been wrong 11 times, and, on several occasions, these estimates have been off by more than $50 billion. I would also add that try as the Senate might, the business cycle cannot be legislated out of existence. My sincerest hope is that the current economic growth continues, however, history shows that what goes up usually comes down. If we experience a downturn, this agreement could need massive retuning, which would probably not include the elimination of tax breaks for the well-to-do, but would mean pain for society's most vulnerable. Second, and, most important, I believe the agreement's nontargeted tax breaks are the wrong direction for an agreement which claims to balance the budget. When we are engaged in the task of trying to balance the budget, we should not make the job more difficult by enacting questionable tax breaks for those individuals who are already benefiting handsomely from the current economic growth. This agreement calls for tax cuts totaling $250 billion over 10 years. When it comes to taxes, what starts small, explodes later. Indeed, 44 percent of the cost of the agreement's tax breaks are packed into the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Indeed, the cost of these tax cuts grows 32 percent in the final 2 years of the deal. What does this portend for the second 10 years of the agreement? According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the revenue loss could reach up to $650 billion from 2008 to 2017. I would hasten to remind my colleagues that this is the time when the baby boom retirees will begin to place enormous pressure on already strained entitlement programs. In contrast, targeted, middle-class tax breaks, like the Hope Scholarship, are supportable because they help working families afford college and prepare their children for the competitive international economy. Unfortunately, the agreement lacks even the attractiveness of closing corporate welfare loopholes that subsidize the shipment of jobs overseas and other questionable business activities to pay for tax breaks. Mr. President, the specifics of the tax bill this agreement calls for are questionable to say the least. As the resolution's year-by-year revenue loss tables show, there is plenty of budgetary room for time bombs and gimmicks. Indeed, after the revenue loss from the tax breaks doubles between 1999 and 2000, it falls in 2001 and 2002, but it keeps rising and explodes after 2007. As others have pointed out, the pattern is not accidental. Instead, it is designed to permit a number of questionable tax gimmicks to give the appearance of fairness and fiscal propriety. One such revenue trick is to phase in the capital gains indexation which conveniently hides the first 5 year revenue loss and assumes more revenue early on in the second 5 years as investors rush to cash in on capital gains indexing. According to experts, capital gains indexing will cost three times as much in the second 5 years as in the first 5 years of the budget deal. Some may argue that if gimmicks are employed and subsequently wreak havoc on deficit reduction, Senators will do the right thing and repeal these taxes. Mr. President, I am not so sure that you can put the tax cut genie back in the bottle. This agreement contains no commitment to control a revenue loss explosion. Indeed, all of the President's requests for such assurances were rejected by Republicans. The word ``permanent'' is used to describe the capital gains tax cuts, but not the President's education tax incentives. I would also add that it is very difficult to repeal taxes both politically and practically. For example, phased-in capital gains indexing and other revenue games are hard to repeal or modify because taxpayers will have accepted the Government's tax cut offer on which the Senate would be hard pressed to renege. But, I am not simply concerned with revenue loss and tax cut chicanery. I believe that many of the tax cuts called for in this agreement are of dubious merit and value. The best example of this fact is an across the board capital gains tax cut. Such a proposal is not investment oriented. There will be no holding period or connection to investments in small businesses. As Paul Volker, former head of the Federal Reserve said before the Senate Finance Committee: ``. . . a near-term reduction in the capital gains tax rate from present levels does not strike me as a pressing matter, especially given the current performance of the economy and the medium and longer-term budgetary prospects . . . [A] very large across the board reduction of capital gains taxes poses serious problems of equity and complexity, of revenue loss and of distortion of decision making. If public policy is to make a serious effort to raise the level of savings and investment, and do so equitably, the priorities seem to me clear. We should move as fast as we can toward a surplus in the Federal budget.'' There are those who would argue that a capital gains cut would help millions of Americans. However, the typical beneficiary of a capital gains cut is not a middle-income family. Indeed, households with incomes over $100,000 receive about three-quarters of all capital gains income, and as the Joint Tax Committee reported--JCS-4-97: ``. . . [W]hile many taxpayers may benefit from an exclusion or indexing for capital gains, the bulk of the dollar value of any tax reduction will go to those taxpayers who realize the bulk of the dollar value of gains.'' In other words a capital gains tax cut benefits the wealthy who actually have capital gains. There are other questionable tax cuts in this plan, such as the estate tax cut which would only benefit the top 1.2 percent of estates and the backloaded IRA proposal which aims to increase savings for retirement, but causes a revenue loss explosion when the pressure on entitlements is most acute due to the baby boomers. Again, the President had tax proposals which were better and helped family business owners without significantly adding to the deficit. Third, while the agreement correctly focuses on education through a $35 billion targeted tax incentives for college costs, a commitment to increase the Pell grant for fiscal year 1998, a commitment to technology in the classroom, and a minimal commitment to improving literacy, the need may exceed what this plan allows due to its 10 percent reduction in domestic investment in real terms. Groups like the Committee for Education Funding are greatly concerned about the restrictive discretionary spending caps in the agreement which could severely thwart efforts to invest in our education needs. The agreement contains no school construction funds and little room in budget caps for such an initiative. There is no room for further Pell grant increases, as the defeat of my amendment to increase Pell grant funding demonstrates. There are scarce resources for the estimated $4.8 billion price tag to reform schools as suggested by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Moreover, there is no commitment to fund Goals 2000, School to Work, national service, or the burgeoning need for research into early childhood development Fourth, the agreement makes very modest room for health care needs, and, as I have stated there was no room in this agreement for a more robust children's health care program paid for with a tax on tobacco. I am also concerned that there are limited resources available for the National Institutes of Health's fight against cancer and HIV. Fifth, I am concerned that the $115 billion in Medicare cuts called for in the agreement may exceed what is absolutely needed to preserve Medicare. Indeed, the level of cuts in the years 2001 and 2002 total $69 billion. I am also disturbed that no solid estimates are available for the premium increases that many seniors face. The agreement also ignores the long-term-solvency issues of the Medicare program and may leave some with the mistaken impression that Medicare is guaranteed to be there for them. There are even those in the other body who would like to add the dubious concept of medical savings accounts to this plan. Sixth, the agreement ignores our investment deficit, and even its new initiatives lose ground due to inflation and in relation to the growing tax cuts. Specifically, infrastructure investment is frozen at a time when the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates we need $50 billion each year just to properly maintain our transportation system. Last week, a Rhode Island television station ran a series on the poor road conditions of my State, but sadly this agreement provides only minimal assistance to fix Rhode Island's roads. In the area of housing, the agreement notably extends essential section 8 contracts for senior housing, but leaves little for other affordable housing programs. Last, my colleagues should ask themselves whether the budget caps employed to offset the cost of unsound tax cuts will crowd out important programs and hamstring the Senate's ability to respond to the needs of all Americans in an increasingly competitive world? The agreement does not continue the path of deficit reduction begun by the 1993 budget agreement. Indeed, the deficit actually increases in each of the next 3 years from $67 billion this year to $90 billion in 1998 to $90 billion in 1999 to $83 billion in 2000. Then miraculously, the deficit falls as the Congress starts to cut $69 billion from Medicare, $49.7 billion from domestic investments, $46 billion from defense, and $10 billion from Medicaid. All these reductions fall in just 2 years, leaving little margin for unsound budget estimates or exploding tax cuts. Mr. President, on balance there is much in this agreement that should be applauded, and the bipartisanship it displays is laudable. It acknowledges that the Contract With America embodied the wrong policies and priorities for our future. It provides for some investments in health care and education. It restores some benefits for legal immigrants hurt by last year's welfare act, and it builds on the success of the 1993 deficit reduction package. However, the fundamental question is, Does this agreement meet the challenges of the future? Will it allow us to truly reform education? Will it help more working families afford college? Will it rebuild our roads, bridges, and rails? Will it provide opportunities for those making the transition from welfare to work? Most important, is this agreement fair or does it ask too much of those who can least afford it? Mr. President, this budget resolution is not the plan for our future. It is too generous where fiscal discipline is required and too tight- fisted where investment is direly needed. And, sadly, it fails to meet the test of fairness and honesty we owe hard working American families. Mr. President, as the specific legislation to implement this agreement is developed, I am hopeful that its excesses can be curbed, and I would urge my colleagues to accept amendments which would make this plan worthy of greater support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota. He has stated very well what is at stake--which is the future of the country through the future of individual students who have the opportunity to pursue higher education. There is something else that I might add. This proposed increase in the Pell grant compliments some of the other provisions in this bill where the President has proposed higher education tax credits and tax deductions which will assist, I think, generally speaking middle- and upper-income Americans. This Pell proposal would be particularly effective in helping low-income working Americans, and also particularly effective in helping a new and growing category of students--not recent high school graduates but those people who through circumstance were forced in midlife to retrain themselves. And there are so many in this situation nowadays due to downsizing. So for all of these reasons this is a very useful and critical step. I thank again the Senator for yielding.

Mr. REED. I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for yielding me this time and also for sponsoring this amendment along with Senator Bingaman and Senator Moynihan. Today we are offering an amendment to increase the maximum Pell grant to $3,500. The Pell grant holds a very special meaning for me. In the last 6 years as a Member of the other body I have worked to open up further access to higher education. The foundation of that access to higher education is the Pell grant. As you know it is probably the enduring legacy of my predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. One of his most significant accomplishments was the creation of the basic educational opportunity grant program in 1972 during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Later, this basic opportunity grant was named in his honor and has become the famous Pell grant. Its purpose then and now is to assist low-income Americans to gain access to postsecondary education, access which is critical not only to their future but to the future of this Nation. Going back to the very beginning of the Pell grants, the avowed purpose was to ``in combination with reasonable family and student contributions and other Federal grant aid meet at least 75 percent of the student's costs of attendance.'' Sadly, we have not met that 75 percent, and we need, in fact, to raise the Pell grant so that we can begin to recoup some of the original purpose and allow students to meet the significant cost increases in higher education. This program was premised on Senator Pell's belief, which is my belief, and indeed I believe the belief of so many people in this Chamber, that everyone who is qualified should have the opportunity to pursue higher education. The Pell grant has been the cornerstone of this effort for many, many years. Since its creation, over 60 million Pell grants have been awarded, providing over $75 billion in aid to students across the Nation. In the first year of the program, 1973-74 over 176,000 students received the Pell grants. By 1980-81, this total had grown to 2.7 million recipients. Today, over 3.6 million American students receive Pell grants. In my home State of Rhode Island, that includes 16,000 recipients. This investment clearly assists our neediest students. In 1995-96, 54 percent of Pell grant recipients had income levels of less than $10,000. Only 9 percent of recipients had incomes over $30,000. In 1992, during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, I worked closely with Senator Pell to increase the authorization level of the maximum Pell grant from $3,100 to $3,700 for the 1993-94 award cycle with increases thereafter of $200 a year with the hopes that by 1997-98 that we would have a maximum Pell grant on the order of $4,500 a year. But, as we are all aware, we have not come even close to that figure. Indeed, this year the appropriated maximum Pell grant was only $2,700--too little to meet the needs of so many students across this country. This lack of resources has had a dramatic impact on students struggling to go to college. Indeed, as college costs have increased over the past two decades at an annual rate of between 5 percent and 6 percent, consistently outpacing inflation, there has been a decline in the purchasing power of the Pell grant. According to the College Board, for 4-year private institutions the average tuition has gone up by over $14,000 between 1980 and 1996. In that same period the maximum Pell grant has only increased by about $950, and the average Pell grant only by about $733. As a result, back in 1980 the maximum Pell grant covered 33 percent of the tuition costs of a 4-year private institution. Now it only covers 14 percent. The average Pell grant covered 18 percent of costs of 4-year private colleges in 1980 and now it only covers 9 percent. If you look at public institutions--those great institutions which we feel have a special obligation to educate all of our citizens, particularly those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds--the maximum Pell grant back in 1980 covered 72 percent of a 4-year public college. Today it only covers 22 percent. As I said before, the grant has not hardly kept up with inflation. If we had simply paid the Pell grant at inflation we would today be looking at not a $2,700 maximum grant but a $4,300 maximum grant. So, before us we have the obligation to raise the maximum Pell grant. I am pleased to note that the proposal in the budget does increase it by $300. But that is not sufficient to keep up with the accelerating costs that I have described. The Wellstone-Reed amendment builds on this request within this budget--the President's request--by increasing the maximum Pell grant from $2,700 to $3,500. This would be a $500 increase above the President's proposal. It calls for a $6 billion investment over five years by an offset of additional reductions in corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare to fund this increase. By increasing the Pell grant to $3,500 we would be able to extend this grant to several hundred thousand more students. The average Pell award among poorest students would increase by almost a third. And, Mr. President, we recognize--all of us--the absolute necessity of higher education. A college education really pays off. It pays off for our country, and it pays off for individual graduates of college. The National Bureau of Labor Statistics has estimated that 60 percent of all the new jobs between 1992 and the year 2005 will require an education beyond high school. Without these skills, college and postsecondary technical school graduates will not be able to man the economy of the 21st century. College education is also the key to higher wages. And one thing that we have been talking about repeatedly here is how do we raise the wages of Americans to give them a fair share in the progress of our economy? Education is the answer--higher education particularly. This translates dramatically. It is estimated that college graduates earn 50 percent more than high school graduates. In 40 years of expected work a college graduate is estimated to earn over a half-million dollars more than a high school graduate. All of this points to the critical need to provide additional access to higher education. Indeed, in terms of the national well being there have been studies, one of which is Trends in American Economic Growth, that point to the fact that 37 percent of our growth as a Nation from 1929 to 1982 was attributable to education, and particularly higher education. So not to invest in Pell grants, not to invest in opportunities for Americans to seek higher education, will I think undercut the goal we all have of growing and providing for an expanding and productive economy. So the amendment before us today is a step in the right direction, to provide more access to higher education, to allow particularly students from low-income households to go to school, to learn skills, to work in this economy, and to build strong communities so that we prosper not only economically but as citizens in a community of other citizens. If we shortchange the Pell grant and other educational programs, we will be reaping a very short and very transparent economy, one that in the clear light of day in the future will reveal itself to be not a savings but a massive lack of investment in the potential of our people and the success of our economy. I hope that we will all join together, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota has done, to put forth this amendment and support this amendment and to increase our contribution to the Pell grant. Doing so I think will prepare us well for the new economy we face, an economy which demands these skills. The world is changed. Technology is forging new boundaries. Capital investment respects no boundaries. The only determinant I believe that we will have to ensure that we maintain our superiority as an economy is that we have the best educated people with access to higher education being the key to that success. This amendment will I hope take that strong step forward to accelerate the process of education for all of our citizens to ensure that we meet these technological challenges, to ensure that we have the best prepared work force, and that we also have people who respect and, indeed, appreciate the value of education because they benefited from it. I yield the remainder of my time.