Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for that response. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment increases the appropriations of title I, part A, to $10 billion. Actually, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously voted to authorize this to the $15 billion level. I think right now we are at $8.36 billion. This is an amendment to get us at least part way there. I come to the floor today to speak on the agreement that has been reached regarding some of the spending cuts in the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. It is my understanding that Senator Stevens has agreed to drop certain provisions of this bill in conference; in particular, I understand that the 1.9 billion dollar S-CHIP cut, the 240 million dollar TANF cut, the 50 million dollar welfare-to-work performance bonus, and the 1.1 billion dollar cut to the Social Service Block Grant (SSBG) will all now be restored in conference. I would like to thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Stevens, Senator Roth, and Senator Graham, for ensuring that the funding for these critical programs is restored. However, I also feel that it is important to stand up today and remind all of my colleagues that it never should have come to this--none of these programs should have ever seen their funding streams reduced in the first place. In particular, the proposed 1.1 billion dollar cut to the SSBG, a cut that would have reduced the block grant to just 600,000 dollars, should never have made it into this bill. I have to say how disappointed I was to learn that the FY 2001 Labor- HHS Appropriations bill contained such enormous funding cuts to the Social Services Block Grant, cuts of more than 1 billion dollars. And while I find it deeply disturbing that such cuts would be proposed under any circumstances, I find it even more deeply disturbing that these cuts were proposed as part of the FY 2001 Labor-HHS Appropriations since we had this exact debate last year. In the FY 2000 Labor-HHS Appropriations, the SSBG faced cuts of just over 1 billion dollars. At that time, Senator Graham of Florida and I offered an amendment to restore SSBG funding, and in my mind, the question was settled. When asked, ``Should we reduce funding to the SSBG?'' the overwhelming response was, no, absolutely not. At that time, fifty- seven Senators said that the services their states provide using SSBG funds--services like Meals on Wheels, congregate dining, assisted living for the elderly and the disabled, foster care services, and child care services, to name only a few--are important to the people in their communities and that they did not want to see these funds cut. I ask you, why then did the SSBG face such enormous cuts again this year? This program is simply too important, and it is critical that we set a new standard by which the SSBG is always funded first, not last, never as an afterthought, never as the result of intensive last-minute lobbying and negotiation, and by which the SSBG is always funded to the full statutory amount. As many of my colleagues already know, the SSBG is a flexible funding stream that states use to pay for a wide variety of services and programs for many of their most vulnerable citizens. The states have a tremendous amount of leeway in how they use their SSBG funds, and this is one funding stream they are able to use to try to develop innovative and creative programs to help the poor and needy. SSBG funds can be spent to serve people with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and the money need only be used to help people achieve and maintain economic self-support and self-sufficiency, and to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. SSBG funds may be used for services that prevent or remedy neglect and abuse, and to prevent or reduce unnecessary institutional care by providing community-based or home-based non-institutional care. States use this money to care for people who would otherwise slip through the cracks; these funds are critical for the well-being of the most vulnerable people among us--the very old and the very young, the poor, and the disabled. These are people who most need our help, and we should not be slashing the very money that is most likely to serve them. Title XX (20) of the Social Security Act specifies that 1.7 billion dollars is to be provided to the States through the SSBG for FY 2001. However, in spite of its status as a mandatory program, the SSBG has been raided repeatedly over the years to fund other priorities. Beginning in 1996, as part of the welfare ``reform'' law, the SSBG was cut by 15 percent, from 2.8 billion dollars to 2.38 billion dollars, for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, after which point its funding was supposed to go back to 2.8 billion dollars. The states reluctantly accepted these cuts, and only after they obtained a commitment from Congress that we would provide stable funding for the block grant in the future. As it turns out, the lifespan on that particular Congressional commitment was only two years, because by 1998, we were back to raid the SSBG again when the highway bill cut funding for the block grant further, to 1.7 billion dollars for fiscal year 2001 and each year after that. And now here we are again, with our hand in the cookie jar, trying to raid the SSBG one more time. The FY 2001 Senate Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that came out of committee proposed slashing funding for this block grant yet again, this time to only 600 million dollars, a cut of more than one billion dollars. If this proposed cut were enacted, funding for the SSBG will be almost 80 percent lower in 2001 than it was in 1995. Mr. President, I feel certain that by no stretch of anyone's imagination does an 80 percent cut qualify as the stable funding we promised the states in 1996. And what kind of a message do we send to the States when we talk about cutting block grant funds? Congress sold welfare reform to the states on the promise that they would have the flexibility to administer their own social service programs. But as the National Conference of State Legislatures point out, ``these cuts [to the SSBG] would set the precedent that the federal government is reticent to stand by its decision to grant flexibility to states in administering social programs.'' Couple this with the nearly 2 billion dollars the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill proposed cutting from S-CHIP, another block grant critical to the states' ability to provide services for vulnerable citizens, and I think the states could take only one message away from this bill as it came to the Senate floor: Don't make long- term investments in these social service programs, because you simply can't count on the federal government to keep up their end of the bargain. SSBG funds are used by the states to provide services for needy individuals and families not eligible for TANF, and to reduce federal Medicaid payments by helping vulnerable elderly and disabled live in their homes rather than in institutions. States also use SSBG funds for child care services and other supports for families moving from welfare to work. When Congress proposed slashing these funds, we sent a clear, and I believe extremely damaging, message to the states. I think we told them not to invest in these kinds of social support programs, because they just can't count on the money being there. But let's just say for a minute that we were to go back on our word and break our commitment to the states--so what? What exactly does SSBG fund? Anything important? Only if you think adoption services, congregate meals, counseling services, child abuse and neglect services, day care, education and training services, employment services, family planning services, foster care services, home delivered meals, housing services, independent and transitional living services, legal services, pregnancy and parenting services, residential treatment services, services for at-risk youth and families, special services for the disabled, and transportation services are important. All of these programs are funded, in part at least, through the SSBG. Each year, SSBG funds are used by the states to provide critical support services to millions of vulnerable people. In 1998, for example, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, roughly 10 percent of SSBG funds were spent on programs that provided child care for low- and moderate-income families, while another 18 percent of SSBG funds were spent on services to protect children from abuse and to provide foster care to children. Other SSBG funds were used to provide services to low- and moderate- income elderly, truly some of our most vulnerable community members. Services provided to this population through the SSBG include home- based care and assisted living services intended to help many elderly people stay out of institutions, so that they can continue to live with dignity in their own homes, where they feel safe and comfortable. In many cases, the costs the federal government would incur if SSBG funded services were withdrawn and these individuals forced into nursing homes instead would far exceed the savings generated by slashing this important block grant. In some states, SSBG funds are also used to pay for protective services to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable seniors. No other program provides significant funding for those services. Additionally, the SSBG helps to fund support services for nearly half a million people with mental retardation and other physical and mental disabilities. The services provided with SSBG funds include transportation assistance, adult day care programs, early intervention, crisis intervention, respite care, and employment and independent living services. Again, these are services that help keep vulnerable people in their own homes and out of costly institutionalized settings, allowing them to live their lives with dignity and respect. In my own state of Minnesota, SSBG funds are used to provide an enormous range of important services. For example, some counties use SSBG to augment child care for low-income single women and families. Yet even with these additional funds, there are currently huge waiting lists for subsidized day care in most counties. If we further cut SSBG funds, these county level programs are going to have to reduce or eliminate services that they provide. And when a single mom who's just gotten off welfare and is trying to make ends meet while she starts working at her new job, when she loses the subsidized day care that she counts on, what do you think is going to happen? Which do you think is more likely--that she'll be able to afford to pay for day care herself, or that she'll be forced to go back onto welfare? Many Minnesota counties use SSBG money for home care services for the elderly. These counties use SSBG funds to pay for a care giver to go into a vulnerable elderly person's home and help them with basic ``home chore'' services like taking their medicine on time and in the right doses, keeping their home clean and safe, taking a bath, or making sure there is food in the refrigerator. These are simple, basic services, but they often mean the difference between allowing someone to stay in their own home or being forced into an institution. If SSBG funds are cut, vulnerable elderly are likely to lose home care services like a visiting nurse or case management person, which might then force them into a nursing home or an assisted living situation that would, in the end, cost much more money than will be saved by reducing the SSBG. When speaking with people in Minnesota about how they use their SSBG funds, I learned that SSBG money is also sometimes used, especially in rural areas, to fund transportation for elderly and disabled, so they can access services like doctors, getting groceries, and just simply so they're not so isolated in their home (a ride to the senior center, perhaps). There's no other funding source that will pay for this. For disabled people who are just over eligibility guidelines for medical assistance, SSBG money is used to help meet their needs--managing medication, transportation, and community based services like training and counseling. Basically, the way it's been explained to me, Minnesota counties typically rely on SSBG money to pay for services for people who otherwise fall through the cracks. They count on this money to provide simple, basic services that keep the most vulnerable among us in their homes and out of much more costly institutions. When I asked people in Minnesota to explain to me exactly what kinds of services they provide with SSBG funds, I was amazed by what I heard. Rex Holzemer, who works for Hennepin County, which is the county where Minneapolis is located, gave me several short case examples from the county's social services areas that are supported by SSBG funds. He told me about: An 84-year old widow who was neglected and financially exploited by tenants in her duplex who had isolated her socially and taken over her financial affairs, including cashing her Social Security checks. When a social worker intervened, he found this woman emaciated and unaware of her circumstances. The woman was hospitalized and subsequently transferred to a care setting. Adult Protection arranged for a conservatorship, and as part of a court-supervised settlement, the perpetrators agreed to pay back the bulk of the money. Rex also told me about an 8-year old girl with autism, behavior problems and a sleep disorder, who was provided temporary crisis transitional care while her parents worked to modify her physical environment at home. The crisis service provided special training on appropriate behavioral interventions for the parents and other caregivers, which produced positive behavioral outcomes for the child, thereby avoiding inpatient hospitalization and/or out-of-home placement. Then there is the case of a 48-year old woman with schizophrenia who called looking for help finding a living situation that would offer her some needed supervision. She was referred to several community transitional programs, but was unable to follow through due to her illness. The intake worker connected her with an outreach case manager who helped this woman stabilize her life. She was referred to a psychiatrist, found crisis housing, and ultimately moved into her own apartment with only periodic supportive services. Or how about the case of a child born addicted to cocaine, who Child Protective Services had to place into foster care? The child's mother has never been able to pass drug testing as required by the court- ordered child protection plan. The child's 25-year old father, who has mild functional impairments, worked intensively with the Developmental Disabilities Parent Support Project for eight months to learn appropriate parenting skills. Due to the progress the father made, the child was transferred at age one from foster care into the father's home. And what about the two-parent family with four children that was overwhelmed by the needs of their 15-year old son who was violent and out-of-control? The mother had been assaulted several times by the son, and had finally asked that the child be placed out of the home. The county was able to provide intensive in-home therapy with the entire family. The son also received individual therapy and participated in after-school programming. The parents were provided with training on appropriate behavioral interventions through the in-home counseling and were ultimately able to manage their son within the home, averting the need for out-of-home placement. In each of these cases, Hennepin County drew on SSBG funds to provide services to people who desperately needed help. And in each of these cases, because the county was able to provide assistance, vulnerable individuals were able to stay out of institutions, with their families, in safe, comfortable settings. But if the Labor-HHS bill is enacted with the proposed SSBG cuts, Hennepin County will have to reduce exactly these kinds of services. And it isn't just urban counties that rely on SSBG funds, but many of our rural Minnesota counties also use SSBG funds to provide critically important services. Sue Beck, the Director of Human Services in Crow Wing County, Minnesota, a rural Minnesota county, also told me how her county uses its SSBG funds. Sue explained that her county counts on SSBG funds to make sure that vulnerable populations, the elderly, the disabled, children, and poor people, have the services they need to live economically secure, self-sufficient lives. The vulnerable adults they help with SSBG money tend to be elderly people, seniors or disabled people, who get home care services--someone to come in to help them clean their home and maintain a safe environment, bathe, have food to eat, to see that they take the right amount of medicine when they're supposed to. Oftentimes these people aren't eligible for medical assistance, so there's not another source of funding available to them when they're living in the community. What will happen if SSBG funds are cut is that they will wind up having to go into a nursing home in order to qualify for funds to pay for their care. Over the past several years, due to SSBG cuts that have already been imposed, her county has had to cut back services in transportation and ``chore services''--for disabled and elderly people who need just a little bit of help--things like help shoveling snow or grocery shopping. They use SSBG money currently to augment their employability budget--to provide supported employment, and community based employment for people who otherwise might not be able to compete successfully in the job market. All of this is at risk when we talk about cutting SSBG by more than 65 percent. Dave Haley, from the Ramsey County Department of Human Services, the county where St. Paul is located, also told me about how his county spends their SSBG money: The first example Dave gave me was that of a typical family of a single-mother who has three young children. The oldest child, a 7-year- old boy, has missed a significant number of school days. The mother is experiencing problems with chemical dependency and involved in a violent relationship with her boyfriend. The mother cannot make sure that the child gets up every day on time, and is promptly fed and dressed for school. The family does not have a car or other personal means of transportation. Through programs partially funded with SSBG money, the County is able to provide support to the mother to resolve her chemical dependency problems and domestic abuse. Services ensure that the seven-year-old is attending school on a regular basis and the boy is beginning to make academic progress. There are over 2,000 young children in Ramsey County currently in this situation. Ramsey County and local school districts have been able to develop a very active program to address these educational neglect issues and insure that children attend school on a consistent basis. They will be forced to scale back this effort, though, if SSBG funds are cut by more than a billion dollars. Another example that Dave gave me is that of a 30 year-old woman that is living in her own apartment in her home community. Thirty years ago, a similar individual with moderate mental health needs would have been placed in a state hospital miles from their family home. Over the last three decades, needed supports have been developed, including programs to monitor and assist individuals in managing their medications, checking on their money management and assisting when necessary with proper budgeting, teaching needed independent living skills, and employment support to maintain their current job. Without periodic weekly checks, the individual would have great difficulty managing their daily life, and might be forced into an institutionalized living situation. The system that has developed over the last three decades has not only improved the lives of hundreds of people in Ramsey County, it has also enabled the state and federal government to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on more expensive institutional care. Because of recent budget cuts to the SSBG, Ramsey County has already reduced a wide range of services: homemaker services; chemical dependency and mental health counseling services; budget counseling and money management for adults with chemical dependency or mental health issues; chemical dependency education and prevention services; parenting support programs for families in the child protection system; parenting support programs for teenage mothers; targeted efforts in neighborhoods with high rates for child abuse and neglect; monthly grants to help families with a developmentally disabled child continue to provide in-home care for that child; and semi-independent living programs for elderly and disabled individuals to live in their homes and not have to move into residential treatment facilities. These are programs that have already been cut. If SSBG funding is cut further, Ramsey County will be forced to additionally reduce funding for Meals on Wheels, transportation services for seniors, outpatient mental health services, sexual abuse services, employment and training programs, and social adjustment programs for Hmong and Lao immigrants. If the proposed SSBG funds cuts are not restored, all of these programs, and all of the people they serve, will suffer. So you tell me, which of these programs deserves to go, because something is going to have to if this provision passes. Who do you think we should turn away? Maybe low-income families with children? Or perhaps the elderly or disabled? You tell me, who should be the one who goes to bed hungry, or sick and alone, or just plain afraid that they won't make it through tomorrow? I have to explain that this program is particularly important to my own state of Minnesota, where the proposed cut to the SSBG will have an immediate and deeply felt effect. Minnesota communities are supposed to receive 30 million dollars in FY 2001 under the current law; if the allocation is cut to 600 million dollars as proposed, Minnesota will lose more than 19 million dollars in funding, nearly two-thirds of its grant, receiving only 10.4 million dollars in FY 2001. Most states would feel similar cuts if SSBG funding were to be cut from 1.7 billion dollars to just 600 million dollars. Minnesota is unique among all the states, though, because, by law, SSBG funds by-pass the governor and flow directly to the local level. The state cannot touch the money--they can neither add or subtract funds from the block grant. Minnesota law further requires local levels programs to run balanced books, which means that they cannot carry any budget surplus from one year to the next. So what that means is that if these cuts to the SSBG go through, the state will not be able to help offset any of the lost funds with funds from other sources, the local level programs will have no budget surpluses to fall back on, and these federal level cuts will be reflected immediately at the local level in program cuts. It would mean substantial reductions, or perhaps even the elimination of local Minnesota programs like senior congregate dining, meals-on-wheels, and a host of other local community based programs. It would also mean cuts in health and substance abuse programs, as Minnesota is one of only seven states in the country that relies more heavily on its Title XX grant than its SAMSA grant to fund mental health services. Furthermore, because the law governing the flow of SSBG funds in Minnesota would actually have to be rewritten to offset the federal funding cuts, the state would not be able to make up the funding shortfall to the counties until the Minnesota legislature comes into session next year and passes new legislation. So some of my colleagues may be saying to themselves, well that's unfortunate for Minnesota, but in my home state we'll be able to supplement the cuts with other money--maybe the money we got from the tobacco settlement, or perhaps we will just transfer money from our TANF surplus. First, let's talk about the tobacco settlements: in some states, anti-smoking and other health needs will receive first priority for use of the settlement funds, not unanticipated reductions in SSBG funds. Also, some states have already enacted legislation committing the tobacco funds for other purposes. Okay, well, then if not the tobacco settlement funds, then maybe the TANF surplus funds, since states will be able to transfer up to 4.25 percent of their surplus to SSBG. Except, according to an analysis done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there are 37 states that wouldn't be able to offset the funding cuts proposed in the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill by transferring TANF funds. More importantly, though, we send the wrong message to the states when we tell them to rob Peter to pay Paul. States should not have to steal funds from one social services funding stream, in this case TANF, to replace funds rescinded from another social services funding stream, the SSBG. In this era of prosperity, of enormous budget surpluses and huge government windfall, of tax breaks and increased defense spending, it simply defies logic to further reduce SSBG funding. Now is the time for us to invest in meeting the needs of our most vulnerable citizens-- the very young and the very old, the disabled, and the poor. It would be a terrible breach of faith with the states, but more importantly with the people who live in those states, if we continue to raid the Social Services Block Grant. And while I am pleased that my colleagues have pledged to restore funding to this program, as well as several other critically important social service programs, I would just say again that it should never have come to this in the first place. These programs are too important to our most vulnerable citizens, and we have a responsibility to see to it that they are funded first, not last. It should simply be a matter of course that these programs are always fully funded, and the fact it isn't, that we still have to come out here year after year to fight the same fight to protect these programs, is ridiculous. In this era of budget surpluses and tax cuts, the fact that programs to aid the elderly, the disabled, the young, and the poor as somehow continue to remain vulnerable to spending cuts ridiculous. I am pleased that we now have the budget chairman's promise to restore these cuts, although I hope that other, equally important programs don't fall victim to these funding reduction in their stead in conference. It is crucial that we maintain our end of the deal we struck with the states, and with the people who live in those states, and protect these programs. Again, I thank Senator Stevens, Senator Roth, and Senator Graham for their efforts to protect these programs, and hope that we see a final Appropriations bill that fully funds all of these critical programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens. I thank Senators Harkin and Specter, and also Senator Stevens and Senator Graham of Florida, for their work. My understanding is we will be able to get this resolved; that we will be able in the conference committee to work hard to restore the funding for the social services block grant program. I ask my colleague from Iowa; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. I say to both Senators that there are two issues here that are important to me. I understand the pressure under which both of my colleagues have labored. I thank them for their support. We went through this debate last year, and we had a vote. I came out here with Senator Graham on an amendment to restore the funding. The notion that we would actually be cutting the block grant program--which is Meals on Wheels, child care services, and help and assisted living, help for people to stay at home, elderly people to stay at home, people with disabilities to stay at home--to me is so shortsighted. There is very moving testimony from a lot of people in Minnesota in the human services area who talk with great passion about what these cuts would mean--especially in a State such as Minnesota where we automatically pass this money directly to the county level. We wouldn't be able to make up for it. The consequences of these proposed cuts in the block grant program would be just unbelievable. To cut the social services block grant program by over $1 billion would have a very harsh impact. I have complete confidence that this funding will be restored in conference committee. This is all about the heart and soul of the Senate. I do not believe with a flush economy, and yet another revised estimate of the amount of money we are going to have for surplus, that we would be cutting these kinds of programs that are so important to vulnerable citizens around the country. In particular, I speak for people in Minnesota. The health committee voted unanimously to increase the authorization of title I to $15 billion. Right now, this bill we are considering provides for $8.36 billion. That is a little more than 50 percent of what we called for in the authorizing committee. The interesting thing is this was a unanimous vote in the health committee. This is about a $400 million increase from last year. That is what we have here in the appropriations bill on the floor. The House gave almost no increase to this valuable program. This amendment says: Look; let's at least bump this up to $10 billion. I point out at the very beginning that the title I program is one of the most important education programs that we support at the Federal level; and the title I program allocates money back to our communities to help those students who are especially disadvantaged. The title I program is a very targeted program. It goes to the lowest income school districts--be they urban, rural, or inner suburban. The title I program allocates money back to our local communities and our local school districts to provide assistance for children, whether it be more assistance for reading, whether it be more help vis-a-vis prekindergarten, or whether it be afterschool programs. I also want to point out to my colleagues that the title I program is funded at best at about one-third of the level, so we really haven't even come close to backing up this mission and this commitment to children with the resources. I have great appreciation for what my colleagues have done in this appropriations bill, but for some reason title I really stays very low. Again, our committee, the HELP committee, unanimously voted to authorize this up to $15 billion.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have just begun. In the spirit of cooperating with management, I am pleased to lay the amendment aside if the Senator wishes. But I will say to my colleague, I probably need about half an hour to make my case.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. That will be fine with me.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, asked for a few moments to speak in regard to this issue before us. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Vermont be allowed to speak and I then follow him.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, Senators Specter and Harkin, are we to go until 12:30 p.m. and then break for the caucuses; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I can in 4 minutes start to describe a little bit of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that when we come back from the caucuses, my amendment be in order. I will not be able to do this in 4 minutes. Other colleagues have spoken.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to both of my colleagues, I appreciate there are a number of amendments. I will take time just to make sure colleagues know what this amendment is about. I do not intend to take a long time on this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, having been a teacher for years, in 1 minute I do not know how to summarize an amendment that is all about education and kids.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I do not think it will probably be necessary. At least on my part, I think within a half an hour I can make my case for the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be pleased to accommodate my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, I would like to send an amendment to the desk that I ask be laid aside, if I could.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is just an amendment to be filed.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could clarify----

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President and colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--just for a little bit of context for this amendment, this amendment deals with an increase in funding not to where we should be but at least a step forward for the title I program. When the HELP Committee authorized the title I program, we actually voted to increase the authorization of title I to $15 billion. The interesting thing is that every Democrat and every Republican on the HELP Committee supported this increase. Every Democrat and every Republican supported the increase to authorize up to $15 billion. As a matter of fact, during the floor debate on May 1, the majority leader himself, Senator Lott, said: This is a $15 billion reauthorization bill. Good work has been done by this committee. We have a budget resolution that doesn't work. We are not able to adequately fund important priorities. Given the emphasis on tax cuts, given the significant allocation of money for the Pentagon, we have robbed ourselves of our capacity to invest in children and in education. What this amendment does is essentially say that the appropriation would go from $8.36 billion for title I up to $10 billion for title I. Right now, all we have in this appropriations bill is a $400 million increase, when the HELP Committee authorized $15 billion. We are trying to bump up the appropriation so we can do better for our children. What I was saying on the floor earlier is important: The title I program is one of the heart-and-soul Federal programs. This is targeted money that goes to primarily low- and moderate-income communities and low- and moderate-income students. It is assistance for the schools and the school districts for more reading instruction, for afterschool programs, for prekindergarten programs, for more teaching assistance. It is a very important program. The title I program has made a difference, even as severely underfunded as it is. One of the reasons I bring this amendment to the floor--I have continued, week after week, month after month, it seems year after year, to come to the floor and talk about the need to provide more funding for the title I program--is that right now this program is funded, maybe, at the 30-35 percent level, so that 65 or 70 percent of the children who could benefit don't benefit. These children come from primarily low-income families. These are kids who have been severely disadvantaged. We are trying to give these schools and the teachers and, most importantly, the children some additional help so they can do better. In my State of Minnesota, for example, typically the situation is that if a school has less than 65 percent of the students on a free or reduced school lunch program--say it is only 60 percent--there is no money for the school because we have run out of the money. We have run out of financial assistance. The HELP Committee Democrats and Republicans are on record saying we ought to authorize this to $15 billion. The majority leader came out and said: Authorize the $15 billion; good work. But we have a budget resolution that has so constrained the work of appropriators that we have not made the investment in education. This is precisely the opposite direction of where Americans want us to go. People want more investment in education. Over 60 percent of the American people say that we spend too little on education. The Federal share has gone from 12 cents to 7 cents on the dollar. The title I program is a flexible program that allows our school districts to use this money to provide help for these children so they can do better. One hundred percent of major city schools use title I funds to provide professional development and new technology, 76 percent of title I funding to support afterschool activities. Ninety percent of the school districts use title I funds to support family literacy and summer school programs. Sixty-eight percent of the school districts use title I funds to support preschool programs. Again, if we look at Rand Corporation studies and others, they tell us that even as a vastly underfunded program, title I is making a difference. In my own home State of Minnesota, the Brainerd public school district, which is in greater Minnesota--that means outside the metro area--has a 70 to 80 percent success rate in accelerating students in the bottom 20 percent of their class to at least average in their classes following 1 year of title I-supported reading programs. We are funding title I at only one-third the level of what is needed to help children in this country. Forty percent of America's fourth graders are still reading below grade level. Forty-eight percent of students from high-income families will graduate from college; the percentage from low-income families who will graduate from college is 7 percent. At the very time that we know that a college education is the key to economic success, more than at any other time in the history of our country during the years of our lives, only 7 percent of children from low-income families will graduate from college. There are dramatic differences in terms of the resources of school districts. My friend Jonathan Kozol, who continues to write beautiful, powerful, and important books about children, sent me some figures from the New York metropolitan area where in the city maybe it is $8,000 per pupil per year that is spent, and in some of the suburbs it is as high as $23,000 per pupil. There are dramatic differences in terms of which schools are wired and which schools aren't; which schools have the technology, which schools don't; which schools can recruit teachers and pay much better salaries, which schools can't; which schools have the support services for students, which schools don't; which schools have the best textbooks and the best lab facilities and which schools do not. I will only say this one more time because it sounds so much like preaching, but this is the best point I can make as a Senator. It came from my visit to the South Bronx to the Mott Haven community about 2 weeks ago with Jonathan Kozol, meeting with the children at PS-30 and with Ms. Rosa, the principal. My colleagues would love this woman. She will not give up on these children. I say to my colleagues, vote for this amendment for some additional help for title I which means additional help for these children, not because if you invest in these children when they are younger and give them this help they are more likely to graduate from high school, that is true; not because if they graduate from high school they are less likely to wind up in prison, that is true; not because if you invest in these children and provide a little bit more help, say, for example, in reading, that they are more likely to graduate and more likely to be productive and more likely to contribute to our economy, that is true. I am telling the Senate, this amendment deserves our support because the vast majority of these children are all under 4 feet tall. They are all beautiful. They deserve our support, and we ought to be nice to them. That is why we should vote for this. I believe this is a theological, spiritual amendment. I do not understand how it can be that we are not investing more money in education and children. I cannot understand why, when we have some proven programs that are so targeted and so helpful to vulnerable children in this country, they are so vastly underfunded. I do not understand our distorted priorities. We seem to have plenty of money for tax cuts, even tax cuts for wealthy and high-income families. We have plenty of money for the Pentagon. Fine. OK. But why can't we, when we are talking about surpluses and about an economy that is booming, make more of an investment in programs that provide support for these children. What about our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? I don't get it. I don't get it any longer. I have been a Senator for almost 10 years. I do not understand how it can be, when the polls show that people want us to invest more in education, when we have record economic performance and we are talking about surpluses and not deficits, and when we all go to schools and we are with children--and we all like to have our pictures taken with children--that we cannot make more of an investment in these children? I am not talking about a new program. I am not talking about a program that has not had a proven record of success. I am talking about the title I program. I am talking about a program that is vastly underfunded. I am just saying we ought to at least get the appropriation up to $10 billion. I reserve the remainder of my time just to hear what my colleagues might say in opposition.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from New Hampshire and all Senators understand this point clearly. This amendment does not call for an additional $10 billion in appropriations. This amendment just simply says we should go from $8.36 billion to $10 billion--a slight increase. It is not an additional $10 billion. Second, my colleague from New Hampshire and every Republican Senator and every Democratic Senator on the health committee voted to authorize title I to $15 billion. Can I repeat that? Every single Member of the health committee--Democrat and Republican alike--voted to authorize title I to $15 billion, and the majority leader came out here on the floor and said: This is a $15 billion reauthorization bill; Good work has been done by this committee. If my colleague thought that the title I program was such a miserable failure--and I intend to certainly take that argument on in a moment since I don't think there is a shred of evidence to support it--then I don't understand why my colleague and all the Republicans on the health committee and the majority leader said that they supported an authorization up to $15 billion. This amendment just tries to get it from $8.36 billion up to $10 billion. Third, in regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I sure would like for you folks to bring that bill out to the floor. I have been waiting for my Republican colleagues to bring the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to the floor. I have a lot of amendments. I am ready for the debate on education. You pulled the bill from the floor, and I would love it if you would bring it back. My colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, talks about how the title I program has been such a miserable failure. The largest gains in test scores over the past 30 years have been made by poor and minority students. One-third to one-half of the gap between affluent whites and their poor and minority counterparts closed during this time. The Center on Education Policy 2000 report, a study by the Rand Corporation, linked these gains to title I and other investments in education and social programs. The final report of the National Assessment of Title I by the U.S. Department of Education showed that national assessment of education progress scores for 9-year-olds in the Nation's highest poverty schools have increased over the past 10 years by nine points in reading and eight points in math. The Council of Greater City Schools shows that 24 of the Nation's largest schools were able to decrease the number of fourth grade title I students achieving in the lowest percentile by 14 percent in reading, and 10 percent in math. I say to my colleague from New Hampshire that is pretty remarkable, given the fact we don't even fund this program except at a 30-percent level. We severely underfund the program. We make hardly any investments in pre-K education. The Federal Government and the Senate ought to be a player in getting money to the local communities so we can have not custodial but development child care--so that when children come to kindergarten they are not so far behind. We don't make that investment. We don't make the investment in health coverage. We still have millions of children without health care coverage. When they come to school with abscessed teeth, they cannot learn. Is it any wonder? They live in communities where their parents can't afford housing, and they have to move three, four, or five times a year because we don't make the investment in affordable housing. My colleagues, in the face of our failure to do anything about the grinding poverty in the country, in the face of our failure to invest in the title I program, in the face of our miserable failure to invest in education, my colleague from New Hampshire comes out here and says this has been a miserable failure when I can cite reports showing that title I has made a real difference. Colleagues, 46 percent of title I funds go to the poorest 15 percent of all schools in America. When the Senator from New Hampshire says--and I agree with him--that it is just outrageous if a school has a 60-percent low-income population and there may be no money, this is why: Because it is so severely underfunded. We have one group of low-income children in a zero sum game relationship to another group of low-income children. It is severely underfunded. Seventy-five percent of title I funds go to schools where the majority of children are poor. The General Accounting Office estimates that title I has increased funding to schools serving poor children by 77 percent. It is going up. This is a targeted investment that can make a huge difference. Yet even with the increases, we are only reaching one-third of the children who could use our help. By the way, I would like to say this to every Senator before you vote on this amendment. If your staff is looking at this debate, and they are going to be reporting back to you on how to vote, I will tell you: Go back to your States and meet with the educators. Talk to people in your school districts. They will tell you they need more money for the title I program. They will tell you they are interested in a whole range of issues. Senator Bingaman is going to be talking about some of those. Again, just looking at where the money goes, 100 percent of the city schools use title I funds to provide professional development and new technology. Does that sound like a flawed program? Ninety-seven percent use title I funds to support afterschool activities. Does that sound like a mistake? Ninety percent of the school districts use title I funds to support family literacy and summer school programs. Do you want to vote against that? Sixty-eight percent use title I funds to support preschool programs. Do you want to vote against that? The title I program has been a remarkably good program given the realities of these children's lives. I didn't quite add it up. But I think what my colleague from New Hampshire was saying is we spent $4 billion a year, or thereabouts, for title I programs over the last 30 years. I say to the Senator that is not a bad investment. The largest group of poor citizens in the United States of America are poor children. There are 14 million poor children in America today. Twenty percent of all the children in our country are growing up poor today. Fifty percent of those children are children of color. I don't think it is too much to provide a little bit more help for these children. When you go to these schools, you meet people who do not give up. You meet principals and teachers who do not give up on these kids. You wonder how they do it. But they are so dedicated. And the largest part of title I money goes to the children of the youngest ages. I will repeat what I said before. Make the investment and provide the additional help for these children because they are small. They are little. Most of them are under 4 feet tall. They are beautiful. We ought to help them. I rest my case, although I reserve the remainder of my time.