[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4061-S4066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to vote on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 1.
  Under the previous order, in accordance with the provisions of rule 
XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the clerk will report the 
motion to invoke cloture.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 23, S. 1, an original bill to extend 
     programs and activities under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965:
         Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, Don Nickles, Tim Hutchinson, Strom 
           Thurmond, Frank Murkowski, Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, 
           Jeff Sessions, Mike Crapo, Judd Gregg, Susan Collins, 
           and Jesse Helms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1, an original bill to extend programs and 
activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Landrieu
     Reed
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Leahy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
caucuses I be allowed to speak at 2:15 for my time, post cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe there are a number of people who 
want to have the opportunity to speak on this, and we traditionally 
alternate. I respectfully object.
  Objection is heard.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that we are now going 
to have a real opportunity for debate on education policy in the 
Senate. I expect that it will take a number of days in order to address 
many of the interests of our colleagues, but I think the time could 
hardly be more well spent. This is the major debate that we will have 
on a matter that is of central importance to families all over this 
country. I thank our two leaders for working to make sure that we could 
have this debate.

  As the ranking minority member on the Education Committee, I thank 
our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords and 
others, who have been active and involved in helping to bring us here. 
I am enormously grateful to all of the members on the full committee 
who have spent a great deal of time on education matters and have 
provided leadership in the past in so many different aspects of the 
education debate.
  We are looking forward to this debate. We are looking forward to 
taking action on education here in the Senate Chamber.
  Just to review the bidding, we have filed a cloture motion to proceed 
to a bill which was reported out of the committee virtually 
unanimously. However, this vote should not be taken to indicate that a 
clear consensus has been reached between the administration's best 
judgment of what is needed and the best judgment of a number of us on 
how we can really deal with strengthening our educational system. The 
legislation will be the basis for amendments, although under the rules 
of the Senate it will be possible, as I understand it, to amend the 
bill that will be before us, but I expect it is

[[Page S4062]]

going to take at least a day before we have real answers.
  It is important that our colleagues be given a chance to talk about 
the areas where this legislation is strong and also the areas where it 
is weak.
  I take this brief time to make a couple of points. First, this 
legislation is not just about education, it is about the future of our 
country and the kind of country we are going to have. We know we are 
talking about the most important quality of our society; that is, for 
all young people to have a chance for academic achievement and, 
hopefully, academic excellence. It has been, since the mid-1960s, the 
priority of this Congress to ensure that the neediest children in our 
country and to get the special focus, attention, and help that they 
deserve. It was a national finding in the early 1960s that, despite 
state efforts in the area of education, we had not really met our 
responsibility to these needy children.
  It has been a long march since that time. There have been many 
failings in schools along the way. There have been some remarkable 
successes along the way. There have been some very notable achievements 
in the more recent years.
  We have to look at the fact that even with the investment that has 
been made by the Federal Government, federal spending on education 
amounts to about 2 cents out of every federal dollar. We spend close to 
$30 billion a year on elementary and secondary education in the K-12 
programs. This current bill would only account for $8 billion of that 
total. Through current Title I we only reach a third of eligible 
children. Even if we had all the programs right in this bill, we are 
still only reaching a third of Title I eligible children.
  This has been a long process. We will hear many of those on the other 
side talk about the failures of our education policy. There are some 
remarkable changes that have taken place. Fifteen years ago we didn't 
have the 4.5 million children who have disabilities in our public 
schools. They were shunted off into state hospitals, into special 
schools, not really mainstreamed. Today, they are in our public school 
system attending school alongside their friends and family.
  Fifteen years ago, we did not have programs like those in my State 
today, at Revere High School, a wonderful high school where 43 
different languages are being taught. That was not true 20 years ago or 
30 years ago. We didn't have the number of single parent families, 20, 
or 30 years ago, that we have today that puts additional stress on 
children attending schools. We didn't have the levels of violence that 
is so prevalent in many of our inner cities where so many of these 
children live and attend school. We didn't have the levels of substance 
abuse that we have at the present time. Children are growing up in more 
complicated and difficult circumstances, and their teachers are facing 
much more complicated and difficult circumstances. They need our help.

  There are so many dedicated teachers in our inner-city schools who 
have the opportunity to go to other schools and make a good deal more 
money. They would most likely have a more modern building, a smaller 
class size, better access to technology, more professional development 
opportunities, but they decide to stay. They continue working with 
challenging situations in the inner-city schools and with the children 
who so desperately need dedicated, highly-qualified teachers. We must 
provide these teachers with the educational resources they need, and 
the professional opportunities they deserve.
  This bill can do quite a bit for education in this country, however, 
it's promise will remain unfulfilled if it is not adequately funded.
  We know the importance of investing in children at an early age. We 
have, over the last 25 years, seen the results of the Carnegie 
Commission studies and many others that discuss the importance of child 
development in the early years, the zero to 2 years when brain synapses 
develop. At that early time their minds begin to develop some ability 
to learn, an ability that is being awakened as children are being 
supported and nurtured and given additional kinds of help and 
assistance.
  We know the importance of Early Head Start. We know the importance of 
Head Start Programs, if they are good Head Start Programs. We are 
troubled by the fact that we see so many Head Start teachers leaving. 
There has been a serious decline in their incomes. Even though their 
incomes are $8 or $9 or $10,000 a year, their purchasing power has 
deteriorated as we have failed to have any increase in the minimum 
wage. We see children now in the Head Start Programs that have two or 
three teachers in the space of one year. They are not able to develop 
the kind of ongoing relationship with a caring adult that they need at 
that stage of their life. We are not providing sufficient support to 
these programs.
  When we talk about education in this bill, Democrats on this side and 
many of our Republican friends on the other side know that this is only 
one part of the whole education puzzle. It is important that we get it 
right. But it is also important, if we are really interested in 
strengthening our education system, that we come back and revisit the 
priorities of the Early Head start Programs, the early interventions, 
the Head Start Programs, adequate funding, the child care programs, all 
the kinds of outreaches that impact these children along the pathway as 
they come to school.
  When we talk about leaving no child behind, at a composite of 
different times during the children's development, we have to make 
sure, to the extent that we can, through policy and through priorities, 
to reach out to those children. We understand, all of us, that the 
first way the children learn is through their parents and their 
families--we understand that--and by working through their faiths and 
other support programs. But to the extent we can impact it, we ought to 
make sure we get the policy right, but also that we are going to make 
sure no child is going to be left behind.
  That brings me to my third point, and that is the issue of resources.
  I welcome the opportunity, unlike last year when, quite frankly, with 
all respect, there was more of an effort to deny President Clinton a 
win on the extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act than 
there really was a serious effort to pass a decent bill. But that is in 
the past. What we have been trying to do is to respond to the 
President's invitation to work with him on what he considers to be the 
No. 1 priority.
  For us, it is the No. 1 priority. For the parents and the children, 
it is the No. 1 priority. But we believe strongly--I do, and I know 
others of our colleagues do--if it is going to be the No. 1 priority, 
it has to be the No. 1 priority in terms of resources. That is not 
where this legislation is headed. We have seen the request of the 
budget for $659 million, when we are talking about 7 million children 
who are left out. Their increase is $659 million. That just is not 
going to respond. The President has indicated they are prepared to do 
somewhat more. We said at the start of this debate, we cover a third of 
the children at the present time.
  Title I funding should cover all children. No child should be left 
behind when it comes to providing funds for students who most need 
educational resources. We hope that by the end of the first term of the 
Bush Presidency the Title I program will cover all eligible children.
  We need full funding for the title I program to make sure that no 
child will be left behind in this program. We are going to then come 
back on these other programs as well, to the Head Start Programs, and 
early intervention programs. We are also going to have an important 
debate on funding of the IDEA for the education of children with 
special needs. There are cross currents of children who need special 
kinds of help and attention who are included in that program. Some of 
the children are, obviously, the same who need additional help in 
reading and other programs.
  We will have the chance at the end of this debate to find out who is 
truly committed to leaving no child behind because that is going to 
take resources. We heard a bit of the debate yesterday which tried to 
make the case that Democrats simply want to spend more money. Money, 
say some, is not the answer to our problems in education. But reform, 
without the necessary resources, is not reform--it is a formula for 
failure.
  If a child doesn't learn algebra in the eighth grade, they are less 
likely to go

[[Page S4063]]

on to college. Eighty percent of the children in the inner cities do 
not have a math teacher who can teach algebra. That is a fact today. We 
know that. But you cannot bridge the gap between our poorest and 
wealthiest schools, without providing them the resources to train their 
teachers and to hire new, fully qualified teachers. Only with these 
resources will more of our students in the inner cities have a better 
chance of taking classes like algebra and a better chance of going on 
to college
  We know the problems we are facing in reading today. We know what it 
takes to catch up. We heard discussions about the Sylvan Learning 
Centers. Will they be permitted to provide tutorial services? Yes, they 
will be. We will use those, even though they are for-profit.
  Sylvan says they need 36 hours to work with a child to bring that 
child up 1 year in reading achievement. But the average child spends 50 
hours over the course of a year. That would cost $1,900 per child. We 
cannot say we are for reading and then fail to provide the necessary 
investment to improve the performance of our nation's students in 
reading.
  But today many of our children aren't reading. We know many children 
aren't reading and we know what it takes to get them reading. It is 
going to mean an investment: an investment in our neediest students so 
that their schools can work effectively to improve their performance in 
reading; an investment in training for our teachers in the latest 
methods of teaching reading; an investment in providing educational 
opportunities after school.
  It also means an investment to make sure that we have the best tests 
that will fairly and accurately assess students. Investment is 
necessary to ensure that we will test a child's ability to reason, 
rationalize and distinguish. We have seen those developed in a number 
of our States. The MCAS test in Massachusetts is this sort of a test.
  We need to make a lot of progress. But we are not for a quick, slick, 
easy examination. We want to make sure we are going to have thoughtful 
teachers. We want to make sure the teachers are going to be quality 
teachers for our children. We want to make sure the schools are going 
to be quality schools to the extent that we can help and assist them.

  We know we have 10,000 failing schools today. That is the last 
projection. We know that the average cost to bring those schools along 
and turn them around is $180,000. There is a whole series of different 
ways they can be turned around that have been tested and examined. 
There are 57 proven, research-based comprehensive reform models that 
have been identified by the New American Schools Development 
Corporation, a creation of the first Bush Administration. These models, 
including Success for All and Reading Recovery among others, cost an 
average of $180,000. That would cost a total of $1.8 billion to turn 
around all 10,000 failing schools.
  If you are going to turn around schools, you are going to have to 
invest. Currently the Department of Education is able to fund less than 
20 percent of after-school grant applications. There are 7 million 
latch key children nationwide. In the first hour after school lets out, 
the juvenile crime rate triples. If we are going to use the afterschool 
programs to help strengthen and tutor the children, we are going to 
have to invest. We are going to have to invest in our children.
  So what are we asking? Is this something that just the Democrats are 
asking for or speaking for? Absolutely not. Later, when we get into the 
real debate, I will put in the Record what the National Governors have 
said in terms of funding for this program. I will put into the Record 
what 38 organizations that have represented children and parents and 
schools have said in terms of the full funding of this program. I will 
put into the Record what the League of Cities, who have a direct 
insight into what is happening in the inner cities, say in terms of 
full funding. They say if you are going to do the job right, you need 
to have the resources. That is what we are saying at the outset of this 
debate. We have to have the resources to be able to do the job, or we 
are failing these children and failing them in a very important way.
  That is why this debate is so important, because it is about the 
future. We know that as we move into a global society and economy, that 
only about 20 percent of the new entrants into the job market have the 
skills which 60 percent of them need at the present time. We are not 
giving them the kind of training they need. We are lagging in education 
and in investing in people and training. The Republicans act as if the 
tax cut is an economic program--it is not. It is not. We need to invest 
in the quality of education, which is basic and fundamental in a 
democracy. We have to invest in terms of the training, and we have to 
ask this Nation what its priorities are. Should we trade in a small 
fraction of a $1.6 billion tax cut to invest approximately $5 billion a 
year in title I to cover every child by the end of FY 05?
  We are going to be asked, according to the Wall Street Journal in a 
recent report, to increase our budget $25 to $30 billion a year for 
defense. That is going to pass in this body. Are we saying that we are 
unwilling to provide approximately 5 billion a year for the next 4 
years to get to full funding for Title I? Are we saying that we are 
unwilling to provide the additional resources for afterschool programs, 
or professional training, or for libraries or smaller class sizes? We 
are saying we are going to spend the $25 billion a year. You can expect 
that for the next 6 to 8 years, but we are not going to give you the 
$5.5 billion.
  This is about priorities. I guess we can't do that. That $1.6 
trillion tax cut is too sacred to say we are going to reduce that a 
little in order to fund this program. We think it should be reduced. We 
believe the American people believe so, too. We are going to give the 
opportunity to this body to express itself on that issue. We are going 
to give them the opportunity to do so today, tomorrow, every single day 
that we debate this. Then we are going to have the opportunity to vote 
on it every time we are going to face the budget when it comes back 
from conference and every time in appropriations.
  So get used to it because we are going to give this institution the 
opportunity to vote and vote and vote about whether they are going to 
put the children as the first priority. We guarantee it. That is going 
to be it. Hopefully, if we are able to get that kind of commitment, we 
can move along and join hands together and say we have a bill that is 
worthy of the children of this country. But it is not there yet.
  I see others who want to speak. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my colleague from 
Massachusetts for his eloquence and his passion about a subject matter 
to which he has dedicated a substantial part of his public service--the 
plight and condition of America's children under a variety of adverse 
circumstances. His passion and concern about the condition of our 
public education system at the elementary and secondary level has, once 
again, been expressed in the most heartfelt of terms and views, which I 
am hopeful and confident express the views of a majority of Members of 
this body regardless of party or ideology.
  I am very confident I express the views of the majority of American 
citizens who, without knowing the details, understand intuitively that 
if this Nation is going to live up to its potential, to its own 
aspirations as expressed more than two centuries ago by the founding 
members of this Nation's Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, 
that we need to have the best quality of education this country can 
provide, particularly to a generation that will face challenges 
unimaginable by even this generation, not to mention generations past.
  This is a critical debate. It doesn't get any more important than 
this. I have often said if you get the educational needs of this 
country right, you may not have an absolute formula to address every 
other concern, but an educated population, an educated America, is in a 
far stronger position to resolve the great issues of their day than an 
ignorant population. An ignorant nation, an ignorant democracy is a 
dangerous country, in the sense that people don't understand or grasp 
the subtle nuances of our Constitution, of

[[Page S4064]]

our Declaration of Independence, of our Bill of Rights, not to mention 
their ability to provide for themselves and to add to the greater 
prosperity of our Nation.
  This is the No. 1 priority. The President has this right. This is and 
ought to be the No. 1 issue we grapple with as a country. There is no 
more important issue than the quality of our public elementary and 
public secondary schools in America.
  This morning, roughly 55 million children went to an elementary 
school or a secondary school in America. Of that 55 million, 50 million 
went off to a public school; 5 million went off to a private or 
parochial school. Certainly, while we do things we can to support and 
assist those private and parochial schools, our fundamental obligation 
is to public education. It has been since the founding days of this 
country, in one manner or another.
  On the first great debate on education in the 21st century, a debate 
that will determine over the next 7 years what our priorities are when 
it comes to public elementary and secondary education, it is important 
we try and find as much support and common ground for investing in the 
neediest schools in this country. That has been our Federal obligation.
  I make the case we need to change the formulation of how we fund 
public education in the country. I think this idea of depending upon a 
property tax in State after State, community after community, may have 
served the country well in the 19th century, and even for a good part 
of the 20th century, but the idea today that the primary source of 
educating the 50 million young people who went off to school today 
ought to be based on the property taxes of local communities, as is the 
case in most States in this country, is an archaic, backward idea.
  We need to be a far better partner. We only provide a small 
percentage; 6 cents of every dollar spent on elementary and secondary 
education comes from the Federal Government; 94 cents, 95 cents comes 
from our local communities and some from the States. It is mostly from 
local communities.
  I would love to see at some point becoming a one-third partner: One-
third of the resources provided by the Federal Government, one-third by 
States, and one-third by local communities. What a great relief it 
would be to lower property taxes across this country, to be able to 
have the Federal Government contribute a far greater percentage of the 
educational needs of America's children and their families. That debate 
will not occur this week. We are going to argue about the 6 or 7 cents 
and how those 6 and 7 cents are going to be spent.

  Let's be clear at the outset; we are a very minor participant. The 
Federal Government is a minor participant in the financial costs of 
public education in this country. How we spend those 6 cents will be 
the subject of this debate which may consume as many as 2 or 3 weeks of 
the Senate's time.
  What do you do with 6 cents? Historically, over the past 25 or 30 
years, we have said our obligation will be to serve the most 
endangered, the most needy students in schools in the country. We have 
done that in title I, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in a 
variety of other proposals, but principally it has been to serve the 
neediest kids and the neediest schools in America in both rural, urban 
areas, and suburban areas.
  Over the next 2 or 3 weeks, we will talk about how to better target 
those resources and how to get some improved accountability so when 
dollars are being spent there is some assurance coming back that kids 
are learning and teachers are teaching. So we will have a good 
discussion about how to improve accountability, how to improve some 
sort of grading system without overburdening school districts.
  We speak in a rather lofty tone when it comes to demanding testing. I 
don't think anyone wants to be part of a formulation that demands 
testing without providing the resources to the schools to see it gets 
done, and also adding to the burdens of teachers and school districts 
and parents by having nothing more than testing going on.
  Someone said in my State the other day, taking someone's temperature 
three or four times a day does not make a child better. It does not 
improve their health. It tells you how they are doing. Testing three or 
four times a year, whether a local test, a State test, or a Federal 
test, doesn't make that student a better student with more knowledge. 
It merely tells you how they are doing. There are many who are 
concerned that demanding more testing will turn the schools into 
nothing more than test prep centers where kids are geared every day and 
every week to pass a test, to get good scores on the tests, and where 
actual learning takes a secondary position.
  While I understand the value of testing, let's not get carried away 
and set up a system that we come back with 4 or 5 years from now and 
all we have done is fulfill a self-fulfilling prophecy; that kids in 
poor districts don't do very well. We know that already. You can spend 
all the time and effort possible to test people. But for the life of 
me, I don't understand all the value of that, at the expense of trying 
to do things that would actually improve the conditions so kids do 
better on the tests we do provide.
  Many feel there are things we can do with the 6 cents. Remember, I am 
talking 6 cents--not 100 cents on the dollar but 6 cents. That is all 
we give now. That is what Uncle Sam sends, 6 cents on every dollar.
  It seems to me we ought to improve the structures where kids attend 
school. We know a child who walks into a building that is 50, 60, or 70 
years old and falling apart isn't going to learn very well. I don't 
need a study by a bunch of Ph.D.'s at the Department of Education over 
the next 6 years to tell me that. Talk to any parent who takes their 
kid to a school that leaks, that is not wired, that is falling apart, 
and I will guarantee that child in those circumstances is not going to 
learn very well.
  Put some of these resources in to see to it that the buildings, these 
structures, these physical plants, might be improved so that child who 
arrives at that school building has a better chance to learn. About 50 
percent of all the kids who went to school this morning entered a 
building built more than 50 years ago--50 percent. I think the need for 
improving the physical structure is quite obvious in the urban and 
rural areas that are the most impoverished and the poorest.

  Reducing class size, again, I don't think it has great value in 
having studies done over the next 5 or 6 years. Any parent will tell 
you, a child will tell you, if they are in a classroom with 20 or 25 
students and one teacher, the teacher cannot teach and the kids can't 
learn. This is not brain surgery. This is about as basic as it can get.
  I spoke to a group of charter school students from Connecticut the 
other day on the east front of the Capitol. I said: Tell me why you 
like the charter school.
  They said: We get more attention.
  I said: Why do you get more attention?
  Because the classes are smaller.
  These were not the teachers talking or the parents. These were the 
kids. We are doing more in charter schools, and that is good news, but 
not every child gets to go to a charter school.
  I asked: How did you get to go to a charter school?
  It was a lottery. We put our names in a hat and they drew out so many 
names. There were hundreds who wanted to go, but it was a lottery. They 
picked them out of the hat, so these kids from this town of mine in my 
State of Connecticut got to go.

  I applaud what they are doing with the charter schools. I think they 
are great ideas. But we cannot just talk about improving charter 
schools at the expense of these other public schools. If it is good for 
a charter school, why can't it be good for the other schools as well? 
Why can't every school be a charter school in America? Are we so inept 
that we cannot come up with the means by which every kid who goes to 
school, as they did this morning, could walk into a classroom where 
they were not one of two dozen students vying for the attention of a 
teacher in order to learn? We know without any question that in a class 
that is smaller, where a teacher has the opportunity to really spend 
some time with these children, you can make a difference in the quality 
of their education and how they will do on those tests that we all seem 
so interested in funding or requiring as part of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.

[[Page S4065]]

  Regarding afterschool programs, how many days do parents worry about 
where their children are? Single parents working, two-income parents, 
parents who stay at home, wondering where that child is, what goes on 
after 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Talk to any police chief. I wonder if 
you think I am making these things up. Call your local police 
department if you question my veracity on this and ask the local police 
chief what is the most dangerous time of day for young kids, in terms 
of them being victims or creating problems themselves. They will tell 
you it is not after 7 or 8 or 10 o'clock at night. The most dangerous 
time is between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Again, that is the conclusion of 
every police chief I ever talked to across the country.
  So afterschool programs become critically important, not just to keep 
kids safe but as part of the learning experience. We think with that 6 
cents I talked about here, we ought to allocate some of those resources 
to expand afterschool programs because we know they work. In this day 
and age, we should be utilizing our school buildings after school, 
weekends, evenings, summers, so these learning centers become more a 
part of our community, assisting the towns and counties and States. 
That is where kids can channel their energies into constructive 
alternatives. Left alone, we know all too often what happens. Good kids 
can make bad decisions, decisions that affect them the rest of their 
lives.
  There are many of us, as we begin this debate, who would like to see 
some effort made to improve the physical structures where kids go to 
school every day, reducing those class sizes so the kids have an 
opportunity to really learn, seeing to it there are afterschool 
programs, making sure we have full funding for title I so these needy 
students and their families across the country will get the support 
they richly deserve.
  My hope is that at long last we will be able to pass some mandatory 
funding for special ed. How many towns across the country have told us 
the costs of special education are depriving them of the resources 
other children need in their communities? I know that will be offered.
  My colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and I will offer an 
amendment on title I for full funding. I know my colleague, the 
Presiding Officer, sat through the debate and discussion in our 
committee, the HELP Committee, and I know he is sympathetic to the full 
funding of title I. If we come up with that as part of the formula for 
funding this authorization bill, we would like to have his support on 
this as well, knowing he was part of the debate during committee 
consideration.

  But I hope we can come up with a mechanism for full funding of title 
I and for special education, to see to it we live up to our obligations 
and fulfill the commitments we must make.
  Again, going back to what I said at the outset of these remarks, 
there is no more important issue to address as a legislative body, as a 
national legislative body. It is not enough any longer that I only have 
to worry about how a child is doing in Connecticut, how a young student 
is doing in Bridgeport or Hartford or Sterling or Union or my hometown 
of East Haddam, CT, but how kids are doing in California, how they are 
doing in Illinois, how they are doing in Florida and Michigan and 
Maine. These are national issues now.
  If a kid fails in Wyoming, then that is a problem for those of us who 
live in Connecticut, just as it is a problem for those who live in 
Wyoming if a kid in Connecticut is not doing well. Children in the 21st 
century will compete with children in Beijing, in Moscow, in Sidney, 
Australia, in Tokyo. All across the world is from where the global 
competition comes. So we have to do what we can with that 6 cents we 
contribute to elementary and secondary education to see to it that 
those dollars are going to reach those families and those communities 
that have the greatest need.
  I wish it were otherwise. I wish we were talking about picking up a 
third of that responsibility, as I think any national government ought 
to do in the 21st century, and contributing to the quality of our 
overall educational system. Unfortunately, that is not part of this 
bill. But I think that in getting these dollars up on title I and 
special ed, contributing to school construction and class size and 
afterschool programs, our dollar is well invested.
  Let me mention last of all the issue of funding, because you are 
going to hear a lot of debate about what we can afford and not afford 
to do. Later today, if he has not done it already, the President of the 
United States is going to call for $60 billion on a national missile 
defense system. I happen to believe in the 21st century we are going to 
have to develop some form of a missile defense system. I will not take 
a back seat to anybody in my commitment to seeing to it that the 
national security needs of my country are met. But we are going to be 
asked today, without knowing much more about it, to spend $60 billion. 
Senator Kennedy mentioned $25 or $30 billion increases each year in the 
coming few years.
  I think there may be a good case to be made for increasing spending 
for the national security needs of this country and for developing a 
national missile defense system. I understand the need for that. But I 
want it to be done in a way that is going to reflect what we can 
achieve, the kind of science that needs to be developed, done in 
coordination, my hope would be, with our allies so this is a shared 
technology that will protect us from potential hazards we face with 
this ever-modernizing technology that puts us all at risk.
  We have been asked to support a $1.6 trillion tax cut. What we are 
talking about here is modest increases for the educational needs of 
America. If it is important to invest dollars to protect the national 
security needs, if it is important to invest dollars for the economic 
security of a country, how can you really talk about being secure 
militarily or economically if you do not have an educated population? 
If you do not have an educated population, how secure are you? If you 
have kids growing up where the gap grows wider and wider and wider 
every single year between those who fit into an economy where they 
understand and have the tools necessary to perform and those who do not 
and are left further and further and further behind. They then beget 
children of their own who get further and further behind. You end up 
having a growing segment of your population that really cannot fit into 
a modern economy or understand or contribute to the national security 
of a nation.
  This is a seamless garment. National security or economic security 
are never going to be secured if you do not have an educated nation. 
That means every child being given the opportunity to reach his or her 
potential.
  None of us has an obligation to guarantee success. I feel no burden 
whatsoever to say to any child in America: I have an obligation to see 
to it you succeed. I do not have that burden.
  But I feel the burden that every child ought to be given the 
opportunity to succeed regardless of economic circumstances, of race, 
of ethnicity, or geographical location. A child should not be left 
behind because of the action in Washington, because of the town they 
are born in, or the economic circumstances of their parents. That is 
not my America. My America says every child should have the chance to 
reach his or her potential to contribute to their own well-being and to 
contribute to the well-being of this Nation. That is what successive 
previous generations have done. That is why this country has achieved 
the success it has.
  If we are going to continue that legacy in the 21st century, it 
becomes the collective responsibility of the 100 of us in this Chamber, 
the national legislature, with the 6 cents we get to manipulate in 
terms of the educational needs of a nation, to see to it that the 
neediest of our citizens are going to have an opportunity to achieve 
America's dream. You cannot do that without an education. You may get 
lucky at a casino or you may hit the lottery one day. But that is not 
how most Americans need to depend upon their economic future and to 
fulfill their dreams. You cannot succeed in America without a good 
education. To do otherwise is totally a fiction.
  This debate over the next few weeks is about as important as it gets. 
This debate over the next few weeks is on whether or not we will have 
the intestinal fortitude to commit the modest resources to seeing to it 
that America's schools and America's children are going to get the best 
they can from their Federal Government under these circumstances.

[[Page S4066]]

  Again, I wish to reiterate that we were a far better partner. I think 
it ought to be a source of collective embarrassment that the Federal 
Government contributes only 6 cents out of every dollar in America in 
the 21st century. Why we cannot be a one-third partner, to me, is 
beyond imagination. Yet that is where we are.
  The 6 cents that we will be talking about contributing will make a 
difference. My hope is that we will fully fund those 6 cents to see to 
it that these schools, children, and families will have the chance to 
maximize their potential.
  There will be extensive debate. I will be talking about the various 
issues that come along. I look forward to the amendment that I will 
offer with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Collins, on 
title I. I look forward to the debate on special education and these 
other issues that come along. I will have an amendment with my 
colleague from Alabama on privacy issues that we will be offering along 
with some other suggestions with my friend from New Mexico, Senator 
Domenici, on charter education.
  We will have a good debate and a good discussion on some of these 
issues. My hope is at the end of this debate we will be able to meet as 
a body and say to each other that we have done the right thing for our 
country. Many of us may not be here when the next education bill comes 
to the floor. I would like to think that on this occasion and during 
this discussion we are mindful that this may be our last opportunity 
individually to leave our signature on how we would like to see America 
meet its educational challenges for the 21st century.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut for his remarks. They are right on. I wish to associate 
myself with them. I wish to thank him for his decades of perseverance 
on behalf of education. It was an excellent set of remarks. I thank him 
very much.
  Mr. President, my understanding is that each Member has an hour to 
speak on the motion to proceed. I intend to use my time not only on the 
education bill, but because of the situation in California with respect 
to energy, I wish to give this body, on the 1-year anniversary of the 
energy crisis, a brief report. I ask unanimous consent to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator realize that we have a 12:30 
recess for the policy conferences?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I do. I will use the 15 minutes, if I may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________