[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 61 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4433-S4440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
1, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An original bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities 
     under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358 in the nature of a substitute.
       Craig amendment No. 372 (to amendment No. 358), to tie 
     funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 to improved student performance.
       Kennedy modified amendment No. 375 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to express the sense of the Senate regarding, and to 
     authorize appropriations for title II, part A, of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with respect 
     to the development of high-qualified teachers.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to be back on 
this extremely important piece of legislation on which many of us, on 
both sides of the aisle, have worked on these past weeks. With the 
leadership of President Bush, we have made every kind of effort, 
because of the importance of education, to try to find common ground.
  We remember very well the debates and discussions we had a little 
over a year ago when we were at such odds and unable to move ahead with 
the reauthorization bill. The other side wanted to abolish the 
Department of Education. How far we have come. Now we are together with 
a unanimous vote out of our Committee to move this reauthorization bill 
forward, although there are those who still have some concerns about 
the legislation they have spoken to in these past days and will speak 
to as we continue to debate this legislation over the course of this 
week and I expect coming into next week as well.
  We all understand this legislation is really about our future. It is 
called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but it really is a 
recognition that we have 20 percent of our children in this country 
living in poverty and about 50 percent of those are eligible for 
coverage by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  We are trying to bring some focus and attention to these children in 
their early years so they will be able to be a part of the great 
American dream. We recognize if they do not get off to a Head Start or 
Early Start or Smart Start, and they are not qualified when they go to 
school, not able to learn, it is extremely difficult, if not 
impossible, for them to go through the education system and continue to 
develop skills in college or afterwards, or in alternative training 
programs, and be a part of a new economy in the United States and 
throughout the world.

  All of us understand that in many respects, of all the things we are 
going to do this year, this debate will say more about what kind of 
country we are going to be in 10 or 15 years than anything else we do. 
This debate is about the future. This is about our children. This is 
about the seriousness with which we, at this time in American history, 
are prepared to invest in those children to give them the opportunity 
to be a part of our society.
  We cannot knock down all the walls of unfairness in our society, but 
one thing we know for sure: If a child does not start off with the 
ability to learn and is not challenged in those early years of 
education, it is difficult to believe they will be equipped to play a 
meaningful role in our society.
  In many respects this is a defining issue. It is a defining value of 
our country. Do we really believe in equality for our people? All 
Americans understand the very special role of public education in our 
society and what a difference it has made to our greatness as nation. 
We, in each generation, have to find ways to make sure that playing 
field is going to be fair and equal and that those children who will be 
coming up all across this Nation, and their families, can have 
confidence in our public school system. That ought to be generally 
applicable for children from

[[Page S4434]]

homes of every income, but we all understand children who come from 
economically challenged situations are facing additional problems.
  We have tried to work together on these challenges. We have 
legislation that reflects the best judgment of those on the other side 
of the aisle as well as this side of the aisle. We are prepared to see 
this legislation move forward. As we go through this week, we will 
consider changes on the legislation, but we are prepared to see this 
legislation move forward. It has important provisions on 
accountability. It has accountability for schools, it has 
accountability for parents, it has accountability for children. It 
provides some resources to make those services available.
  But if there is one overwhelming flaw in this legislation--and it is 
an overwhelming flaw--it is that after all is said and done about the 
importance of this legislation, we are failing to give the life to the 
legislation which it is capable of providing to so many of the children 
because we are not providing the services contemplated in this 
legislation to all the children who need it. We will not be providing 
the services to the children, about which those who talk about this 
legislation too frequently and glibly talk.
  We have to provide support for needy children. We have to do it by 
providing resources. You cannot have education on the cheap. You cannot 
have an education budget that is a tin cup budget. We have to invest in 
our children. That is what this debate is about, investing in our 
children.
  It is important for the country, as we are debating these issues, to 
understand exactly what we have done and what we have not done. The 
good news is that the Senate, in a bipartisan way last Friday, with the 
strong bipartisan leadership from Senators Harkin and Hagel, agreed to 
ensure that the Federal Government is going to meet its 
responsibilities to local communities and, most important, to disabled 
children in our communities. What a help that is going to be for 
millions of children. Full IDEA funding necessary will be available for 
children with disabilities. That is the guarantee that was made more 
than 25 years and never lived up to. Only a third of full funding 
was provided. Now we will be able to help every child with a 
disability.

  In a very positive way in another very important bipartisan effort, 
Senator Dodd and Senator Collins made the compelling case that if we 
are going to provide assistance to needy children under the Title I 
program, then we ought to provide it to every needy child.
  We have been unable to get a similar commitment from the 
administration, from the President of the United States, on the funding 
of the Title I program. The initiatives provided by the President are 
inadequate to even get to 50 percent of the children, let alone 100 
percent of the children, even though in the underlying legislation we 
effectively promise a fair chance at proficiency to all children, under 
the Title I program.
  That is enormously troublesome. If we do not provide the funding, 
which we are strongly committed to on this side of the aisle--and with 
notable recognition of a number of our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle who have supported those efforts--then, frankly, this 
legislation may become just a cliche. It will be just a cliche for two-
thirds of the children who are eligible for Title I, but who do not 
receive full services.
  Someone watching this debate over recent times must wonder what 
happened here in the Senate. If they watched the debate on the budget a 
few weeks ago, they saw the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, talk about 
having some $250 billion of tax reductions that would go to support 
increased education funding.
  That passed overwhelmingly. I think that was a very clear indication 
about the priorities in the Senate and the priorities across this 
country.
  We are taking less than 10 percent of the tax break, which has a 
great percentage going to the wealthiest individuals, and saying, let's 
fund the Early Start Program, the Smart Start Program, and the Head 
Start Program. Head Start is only funded at a 40 to 45 percent level, 
and in some of the poorest areas of this country, only 25 percent of 
eligible children can be served because of inadequate funding. These 
are eligible children about which we are talking. Their parents want 
them to be able to get the Head Start Program. And they are told, no. 
Why? Because we are making a judgment in this body that the reduction 
in the tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals ought to have a 
preference over children who are in some of the most challenging and 
difficult circumstances.
  Under the Harkin amendment, we effectively have full funding for the 
Head Start Program. We would have substantial funding increases in the 
Title I program. We would provide more help and assistance under the 
Pell Grant program for children who are academically gifted and 
talented, but don't have the resources to afford colleges.
  The Harkin amendment was a real indication of our Nation's 
priorities. What happened to it? We will see on the budget bill that 
comes back from the House of Representatives. We can ask ourselves: Did 
the Republican leadership consider the vote on the floor of the Senate 
of $250 billion for education? Did they include $200 billion? No, they 
didn't include $200 billion. Did they include $150 billion? No, they 
didn't include $150 billion. Did they have $100 billion? No. Fifty 
billion dollars? No. Twenty-five billion dollars? No. Five billion 
dollars? No.
  Zero, Mr. President; zero.
  That comes directly from the White House. We wouldn't have that 
unless the White House had given those instructions. Republican 
leadership and the White House--zero for education funding increases.
  We have had debates about money isn't everything. We have had it said 
that money is not going to solve all of these problems. We are going to 
have a modest increase in terms of the budget over future years. Next 
year it is going to be an increase of 5 percent on the budget.
  That was interesting to me because we have seen what has been the 
increase in education over the period of the last 5 years. It has gone 
up 12.8 percent a year in the last 5 years at a time even when we had 
sizable deficits--12.8 percent in the last 5 years.
  Now we have a new sense and a new administration that says education 
is a top priority important? And what is their increase for the next 
year? Their figure is 3.6 percent for 2002.
  How did we get that amount of money? That amounts to $1.8 billion.
  That is $1.8 billion they didn't have last year. Where did they get 
the $1.8 billion? It might be of some interest the Republican budget 
cuts job training by $541 million. The job training program is the 
result of a bipartisan effort that Senator Jeffords was a part of, led 
by Senator Kassebaum, myself, and others, in order to consolidate 126 
job training programs into 12 different agencies with one-stop 
shopping. It had the broad support from the trade union movement and 
from the business community. It is to try to continue skilled 
training for workers who need it. No. No. We need $1.8 billion in 
education. We take $541 million out of job training.

  Early learning opportunities--this is, again, a bipartisan program. 
Senator Jeffords and Senator Stevens were very involved in that; my 
colleagues, Senators Dodd and Kerry, very much involved in this, with 
perhaps a very small appropriations. That is with the recognition that 
study after study says that ages 1 to 3 are enormously important for 
children, and the early interventions from the ages of 1 to 3 to give 
support to children prior to the time they are even thinking about 
going to Head Start. That was all zeroed out in the Republican budget.
  Pediatric graduate medical education cut. $35 million to train who? 
Pediatricians. Who do they care for? Children. Yes. They got a cut. 
They should have gotten an increase, because that has been one aspect 
of medical training of professionals that has gotten no help until 
recent years.
  I applaud the previous administration in recognizing that. I want to 
make sure we are going to have the best pediatric specialists in the 
world to take care of our children.
  We have taken $35 million from the EPA clean water fund; $497 million 
from renewable energy; $156 million from the National Science 
Foundation; and $200 million from the National Science Foundation.
  Talking about math and science, on the one hand, the National Science

[[Page S4435]]

Foundation is supposed to be trying to help develop national policies 
to help our country deal with math and science. We are taking $200 
million out of that. FEMA disaster relief cut $270 million; community 
policing cut $270 million.
  They are cutting all of those programs and putting them up for the 
increase in the education next year.
  This is not the kind of endorsement for education that I think most 
of the American people were expecting when we heard during the 
President's campaign that education is a top priority.
  Let's look at the out years of the Republican budget. If we pass this 
budget, this budget has a zero increase in 2003, a zero increase in 
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 in the area of education. 
Zero.
  What are we supposed to believe? I was absolutely startled when I saw 
that. I thought, well, maybe they are not going to give us all the 
money we need in order to cover all Title I children. But at least they 
will do it a little bit--maybe not as fast as I would like to do it, or 
virtually everyone on this side of the aisle wants to do it. Every 
Democrat has supported our proposal to provide Title I services to 
every eligible child within a 5-year period. We are unanimous on that. 
But, no, the Republican budget provides zero in fiscal year 2003, and 
zero every single year, all the way out for the life of their ten year 
budget bill.
  Nothing is in there in terms of the poorest of the poor children--
zero, nothing; nothing in there for any expansion of the Pell grants. 
Nothing is in there in terms of expansion of Head Start. Nothing is in 
there in terms of children with disabilities. But there is plenty--$1.2 
trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals.
  How many times do we have to come back to the Senate and say, no, 
that isn't where the American people are. We are in a bipartisan 
saying, no. Education is the key. Education should be our top budget 
priority.
  But around here, you find out that this is what talks. Money may not 
be the answer to all the problems in education, but it is a clear 
indication of where a nation's priorities are.

  It is as simple as that. You will hear from many friends over here 
that money doesn't solve problems. You keep adding money they say, and 
too often children still will not make progress. Well, money is not 
going to solve all of our education problems. But when you follow the 
money, you can see where a nation's priorities are, and where they are 
prepared to invest in terms of the future.
  This is a shocking budget that absolutely fails the children in this 
country.
  I hope this will be defeated on that basis and that basis alone.
  Many of our colleagues, hopefully, are not going to have it both 
ways--vote for increases on the floor of the Senate, and then vote on 
the budget for irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy. You have my vote 
on the Senate floor: That is how I stand on education. Here is my vote. 
And you have my vote on the budget. That shows how I stand on taxes.
  I can remember very well a true story from when I first came to the 
Senate. In my first week in the Senate, I listened to my colleague, 
Willis Robertson, a Senator from Virginia. He gave an impassioned plea 
in favor of an issue. When the time came to vote, he voted in 
opposition to it. I said: Willis, you gave a speech in favor on the 
floor, and I supported it. He said: In my State on this issue the 
people are evenly divided. For those who favor it, I send my speech. 
For those who oppose it, I send my vote. That was 40 years ago. I hope 
we are not going to see that again. People laugh about it--and they 
should laugh about it--but it will be a sad thing if that is what 
Senators do on education this year.
  What are we trying to do on investing? This is what we have been 
trying to do with children who have disabilities. Under the Republican 
budget, their proposal will cover 825,000 children this year, and it 
will be the same number 10 years from now. It will be different 
children, but it will be the same total: 825,000 children--no increase.
  Under the Democratic proposal, we are raising that up to cover the 
5.5 million. We are saying that no child with a disability should be 
left behind. We want our President to join us. We do not want him on 
the outside of this debate. We want him to join us. We want him to lead 
the bipartisan effort in the Senate and the bipartisan effort across 
the country. We want him out in front on this. But if you are going to 
get out in front, you are going to have to support the kind of 
investments about which we have been talking.
  Low-income children: We have about 10.3 million children who are 
eligible for Title I. Under the administration's budget, for the next 
fiscal year there will be 3.7 million covered; and in fiscal year 2011, 
the same 3.7 million children. There will be no increase whatsoever. We 
increase it--almost double it--next year under the Dodd-Collins 
amendment; and then we phase in and reach the whole 10.3 million 
children by fiscal year 2011. We get the greatest bulk of those 
children covered within 5 years from now. I think it is the appropriate 
way to do it. I would like to do it even somewhat faster, but we were 
able to have an overwhelming vote, in excess of two-thirds of the 
Members, for that Dodd-Collins commitment.

  We see how the Republican budget shortchanges children in another 
area: limited-English-proficient children. In this country, we are 
benefitting in so many different ways from those who come from 
different cultures and different traditions. The children are trying to 
make their way through our school systems. We find in the Republican 
proposal, 699,000 children are provided help in 2002. The same number 
of children, 699,000, are covered in 2011. In 2002, we ramp it up to 
1.5 million children; and by 2011, serve all 2.6 million limited 
English proficient children.
  I want to mention one of the important areas we will be voting on 
tomorrow, and that is in relation to professional development. We have 
750,000 teachers teaching poor children who are hard working, decent, 
wonderful people, but do not have all of the background and competency 
in the areas in which they are teaching. They need additional training. 
This is aside from the continuation of professional development, an 
ongoing responsibility.
  In the legislation, we say in 4 years that half of all the children 
in Title I will have well-qualified teachers, but we do not provide the 
resources for it. So we have pending an amendment that I and others 
have offered to make sure we are going to be able to reach those 
750,000 teachers.
  How are we going to expect children to take tests and measure up on 
the tests when they are not going to have teachers who can teach their 
subject matter properly? It just does not make a great deal of sense. 
You have to have a well-qualified teacher.
  We know there is $137 billion of need out there in terms of school 
repairs. We do not expect the Federal Government to pick up all of the 
cost, but we ought to be able to at least do our part. The Harkin 
amendment, which provides $1.6 billion this year, is a good departure 
point, but it is not in the underlying bill. I wish it were. If I had 
drafted it, it would be in the bill. There are others who did not want 
it in the bill, but we are going to see an amendment from the Senator 
from Iowa to try to make sure we are going to provide the construction. 
There is nothing in this Republican budget for school repair. We 
believe there should be a modest school construction amendment.
  After-school opportunities: There are 7 million children between the 
ages of 8 and 13 who go home alone every single day. As this body 
knows, if you take out the various charts, you can show the increased 
escalation in terms of violence in society from children getting into 
trouble and also the increase in contact with alcoholism and antisocial 
behavior.
  We know the important role that after-school programs play in 
connection with schools and educational centers to provide an 
atmosphere where children can receive additional kinds of help and 
assistance in the afternoon. The Boys and Girls Clubs are excellent 
examples such as in my own city of Boston. We know the difference they 
make.
  In the Republican proposal, there are only 1.1 million children who 
get assistance in 2002; and in fiscal year 2011, there will still be 
only 1.1 million children who get assistance. Under our proposal, 1.5 
million children will get assistance in 2002--a very small increase, 
but we are going in the right direction--and then afterschool programs

[[Page S4436]]

would be available to virtually all latch-key children.
  We would be developing the afterschool program and have good 
teachers, good mentoring, and doing something about the school 
construction, and having support for the early interventions with 
children, good funding for the Head Start Programs, the consolidation 
of the computers, and doing something about the curriculum, and then 
the accountability, finding out what the children don't know, and 
giving the help in the supplementary services to those children so they 
can make progress. We would give help, making these programs available 
to them afterwards; not using tests as punishment, but using them as 
ways for educators to understand where these children are falling out 
and falling behind.
  It is a pretty good check on some of the schools as well to find out 
which schools are working and getting that information back to the 
parents so the parents understand what is going on and can tell which 
schools are working. Then they can do some things about it.
  This is what we are talking about. I am enormously distressed about 
what we are looking at in this budget that has been proposed.
  We want to make it crystal clear that we are going to continue to 
battle during this authorization for investments in children. I am 
hopeful we can resist this budget when it comes, but if we do not, we 
are going to have the tax program coming in several weeks and we will 
have an opportunity again to battle to make education a priority in 
this nation's budget.
  We know we have people in this body who are prepared to support us. 
We are putting this Congress, this President, on notice that this fight 
will not end until we make funding education a top priority. We are 
either going to get the commitment from the Administration that they 
are going to fund education or we are going to be back here when the 
specifics of the tax program are debated. We are going to come back 
when the Appropriations bills come out.
  I have been around here enough to know how important the budget can 
be and not be when it comes to the will of the Senate. We are going to 
be right back here on the appropriations. This is going to be a long, 
continuing, ongoing battle and one in which I am absolutely convinced 
we will be successful. We are just expressing the sense of the American 
people.
  Mr. President, at this time I would like to offer two amendments and 
ask unanimous consent to set them aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 378 To Amendment No. 358

           (Purpose: To provide for class reduction programs)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Murray and ask that it be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mrs. 
     Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 378 to amendment No. 
     358.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                 Amendment No. 379 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Mikulski on community technology centers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Ms. 
     Mikulski, for herself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 379 to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for the establishment of community technology 
                                centers)

       On page 245, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

          ``Subpart 1--21st Century Community Learning Centers

       On page 245, line 15, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 245, line 18, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 246, line 13, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 249, line 11, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 249, line 16, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 249, line 18, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 250, line 16, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 250, line 23, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 251, line 2, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 251, line 22, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 251, line 25, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 252, line 13, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 252, line 15, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 252, line 20, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 252, line 23, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 254, line 2, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 254, line 12, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 254, line 15, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 255, line 3, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 256, line 24, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 257, line 1, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 257, line 12, strike ``part'' and insert 
     ``subpart''.
       On page 257, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

               ``Subpart 2--Community Technology Centers

     ``SEC. 1611. PURPOSE; PROGRAM AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this subpart to assist 
     eligible applicants to--
       ``(1) create or expand community technology centers that 
     will provide disadvantaged residents of economically 
     distressed urban and rural communities with access to 
     information technology and related training; and
       ``(2) provide technical assistance and support to community 
     technology centers.
       ``(b) Program Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized, through the 
     Office of Educational Technology, to award grants, contracts, 
     or cooperative agreements on a competitive basis to eligible 
     applicants in order to assist such applicants in--
       ``(A) creating or expanding community technology centers; 
     or
       ``(B) providing technical assistance and support to 
     community technology centers.
       ``(2) Period of award.--The Secretary may award grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements under this subpart for a 
     period of not more than 3 years.
       ``(3) Service of americorps participants.--The Secretary 
     may collaborate with the Chief Executive Officer of the 
     Corporation for National and Community Service on the use of 
     participants in National Service programs carried out under 
     subtitle C of title I of the National and Community Service 
     Act of 1990 in community technology centers.

     ``SEC. 1612. ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Eligible Applicants.--In order to be eligible to 
     receive an award under this subpart, an applicant shall--
       ``(1) have the capacity to expand significantly access to 
     computers and related services for disadvantaged residents of 
     economically distressed urban and rural communities (who 
     would otherwise be denied such access); and
       ``(2) be--
       ``(A) an entity such as a foundation, museum, library, for-
     profit business, public or private nonprofit organization, or 
     community-based organization;
       ``(B) an institution of higher education;
       ``(C) a State educational agency;
       ``(D) a local education agency; or
       ``(E) a consortium of entities described in subparagraphs 
     (A), (B), (C), or (D).
       ``(b) Application Requirements.--In order to receive an 
     award under this subpart, an eligible applicant shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, and containing 
     such information, as the Secretary may require. Such 
     application shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the proposed project, including a 
     description of the magnitude of the need for the services and 
     how the project would expand access to information technology 
     and related services to disadvantaged residents of an 
     economically distressed urban or rural community;
       ``(2) a demonstration of--
       ``(A) the commitment, including the financial commitment, 
     of entities such as institutions, organizations, business and 
     other groups in the community that will provide support for 
     the creation, expansion, and continuation of the proposed 
     project; and
       ``(B) the extent to which the proposed project establishes 
     linkages with other appropriate agencies, efforts, and 
     organizations providing services to disadvantaged residents 
     of an economically distressed urban or rural community;
       ``(3) a description of how the proposed project would be 
     sustained once the Federal funds awarded under this subpart 
     end; and

[[Page S4437]]

       ``(4) a plan for the evaluation of the program, which shall 
     include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific 
     project objectives.
       ``(c) Matching Requirements.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of any project funded under this subpart shall not exceed 50 
     percent. The non-Federal share of such project may be in cash 
     or in kind, fairly evaluated, including services.

     ``SEC. 1613. USES OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Required Uses.--A recipient shall use funds under 
     this subpart for--
       ``(1) creating or expanding community technology centers 
     that expand access to information technology and related 
     training for disadvantaged residents of distressed urban or 
     rural communities; and
       ``(2) evaluating the effectiveness of the project.
       ``(b) Permissible Uses.--A recipient may use funds under 
     this subpart for activities, described in its application, 
     that carry out the purposes of this subpart, such as--
       ``(1) supporting a center coordinator, and staff, to 
     supervise instruction and build community partnerships;
       ``(2) acquiring equipment, networking capabilities, and 
     infrastructure to carry out the project; and
       ``(3) developing and providing services and activities for 
     community residents that provide access to computers, 
     information technology, and the use of such technology in 
     support of pre-school preparation, academic achievement, 
     lifelong learning, and workforce development, such as the 
     following:
       ``(A) After-school activities in which children and youths 
     use software that provides academic enrichment and assistance 
     with homework, develop their technical skills, explore the 
     Internet, and participate in multimedia activities, including 
     web page design and creation.
       ``(B) Adult education and family literacy activities 
     through technology and the Internet, including--
       ``(i) General Education Development, English as a Second 
     Language, and adult basic education classes or programs;
       ``(ii) introduction to computers;
       ``(iii) intergenerational activities; and
       ``(iv) lifelong learning opportunities.
       ``(C) Career development and job preparation activities, 
     such as--
       ``(i) training in basic and advanced computer skills;
       ``(ii) resume writing workshops; and
       ``(iii) access to databases of employment opportunities, 
     career information, and other online materials.
       ``(D) Small business activities, such as--
       ``(i) computer-based training for basic entrepreneurial 
     skills and electronic commerce; and
       ``(ii) access to information on business start-up programs 
     that is available online, or from other sources.
       ``(E) Activities that provide home access to computers and 
     technology, such as assistance and services to promote the 
     acquisition, installation, and use of information technology 
     in the home through low-cost solutions such as networked 
     computers, web-based television devices, and other 
     technology.

     ``SEC. 1614. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For purposes of carrying out this subpart, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6 
     succeeding fiscal years.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these amendments are two very worthwhile 
amendments with which this body is familiar, and with the excellent 
presentation we will be hearing and have heard from the Senator from 
Washington about the importance of class size. As a former school board 
member and first grade teacher, she makes a case that is irrefutable. 
We are looking forward to at least some support on the other side.
  I can remember the first year it was accepted, Speaker Newt Gingrich 
went out and gave a positive statement how Republicans had supported 
this very important breakthrough in education, smaller class size. 
Subsequently, we haven't been able to get quite the breadth of support 
on that side of the aisle. Now that this has been in effect for a 
number of years and is working in a number of the States and we are 
seeing important, significant, and positive results, hopefully we will 
have support for it.
  Senator Mikulski is our leader in the Senate in terms of the digital 
divide. We have seen in our society where education has been a divide, 
and we are committed to making sure that this piece of legislation 
isn't going to further that divide. We want to make sure, with this new 
phenomenon and new technology in terms of the Internet and the high 
technology, that we are not having another phenomenon that comes into 
our society and impacts our society between the haves and have-nots. 
Senator Mikulski has been the leading voice. These community technology 
centers have made an enormous difference in reducing that disparity. I 
know she will speak very eloquently about that shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I won't take the time of the Senate at 
this point to answer the suggestions of my good friend that we have 
done less on this side than we should for education. I think we have 
all done less than we should for education.
  I will point out that during the Clinton administration, there was 
practically little or no increase in title I funding. They did have 
other requests for increases, but for the very needy they did little. 
Also, for professional teachers, they did little. There was the class 
size proposal to add more teachers. We can debate this back and forth, 
but we are all guilty of not providing the necessary resources for 
education.
  I am hopeful we will go forward and pass the amendment I had, along 
with Senator Harkin, to fully fund IDEA.
  Right now, Senator Allen has an amendment and I defer to him.


                 Amendment No. 380 To Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself and Mr. 
     Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 380 to amendment No. 
     358.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide a Sense of the Senate Regarding Education 
                        Opportunity Tax Relief)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY 
                   TAX RELIEF.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Improving the education of our children is an essential 
     and important responsibility facing this country.
       (2) Strong parental involvement is a cornerstone for 
     academic success; it is parents who know and understand the 
     special, individual needs of their own children.
       (3) Advanced technology has fueled unprecedented economic 
     growth and positively transformed the way Americans conduct 
     business and communicate with each other.
       (4) Families will need ready access to the technical tools 
     and skills necessary for their school age children to succeed 
     in the classroom and the increasingly competitive 
     international marketplace.
       (5) Studies have shown that the presence of a computer in 
     the home has a positive impact on a student's level of 
     academic achievement and performance in school.
       (6) Tax relief, enabling the purchase of technology and 
     tutorial services for K-12 education purposes, would 
     significantly help defray the cost of education expenses by: 
     empowering families financially and increasing education 
     spending; allowing families to provide their children access 
     to a far greater range of educational opportunities suited to 
     their individual needs, and; bridging the digital divide.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress and the President should--
       (1) Act expeditiously to pass legislation in the First 
     Session of the 107th Congress that provides tax relief to 
     parents of K-12 students for the cost of their children's 
     education-related expenses, specifically, computers, 
     peripherals and computer-related technology, educational 
     software, Internet access and tutoring services; and
       (2) That such tax relief would not apply toward the cost of 
     private school tuition.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, having listened to the impassioned words of 
the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and knowing the great 
leadership that he and Senator Jeffords, chairman of the HELP 
Committee, have provided on education, it is very good for the American 
people to recognize how important education is to those of us at the 
Federal level. Education is not just a Federal responsibility; it is 
primarily a State and local responsibility.
  The actions that have been taken so far and will be taken in the days 
to come will result in the Federal Government being there to be of help 
and assistance to local schools, to parents, and, most importantly, to 
students in getting a good education. Indeed, all of

[[Page S4438]]

us can agree that ensuring that our children receive the best possible 
education is one of the most important responsibilities to the people 
in our States and all across America.
  Quality education, why do we care about it? Because a quality 
education is absolutely necessary for our children and all children 
across this country to be able to compete, succeed, and lead a 
fulfilling life. It is key for their future success, personally and 
professionally. It allows them, with a good education, economic freedom 
and financial security. A good education allows someone greater career 
opportunities and choices and mobility. It also allows them to provide 
for themselves financially as well as for their family. Education also 
is very important to society and for our American civilization to 
compete and succeed internationally.
  I was made chair of the Senate Republican high-tech task force. One 
of our key policy agenda items is in promoting education and 
technology. I quote from our policy agenda:

       Without a workforce fully capable in math, science and 
     computing skills, our competitiveness is at risk. Without a 
     consumer base able to utilize the latest technological 
     advances, our economic growth may wane. The task force 
     believes that a top priority in education should be the 
     development of policies that encourage the use of technology.

  I speak as a father. I speak with my previous experience as Governor 
and also as a candidate with certain promises I made to the people of 
Virginia, should I be elected, in the area of education. We talked 
about the need for more teachers, allowing the localities to determine 
what those needs would be as far as funding for teachers, whether they 
use increased salaries for existing teachers, pay stipends for math and 
science teachers; whether it is hiring more teachers; that is important 
to reduce class size so children in the early grades get more 
individualized attention. There is action, activity so far on this 
measure and will be in the days to come to improve it.
  The early reading initiative, which we started in Virginia, is part 
of the package. It is very important to make sure youngsters at the 
earliest grades--kindergarten, first and second--are reading at speed. 
Of all the academic subjects, nothing is more important than reading. 
We have testing in Virginia, as do many other States. Testing and 
standards are very important for identification of children who need 
additional help as well as giving parents a school performance report 
card.
  I agree with the outstanding amendments Senator Jeffords put forth 
last week to make sure the Federal requirement of testing in a couple 
subjects would not become an unfunded mandate. What we ought to do is 
empower and help local schools, certainly not add unfunded mandates. 
Senator Jeffords' leadership in that regard was essential, and, 
fortunately, it passed overwhelmingly.
  Another good thing about this measure so far is that it seems the 
Federal Government is trusting localities and States with greater 
flexibility to identify what their specific needs are in that 
particular school district. That is important.

  Now, in addition to all of this, the President has gotten involved, 
so obviously it has been a priority. The House and Senate have been 
involved, and we have made it a priority.
  As important as our local school boards and State governments and the 
Federal Government are, parents are important. For a good student, you 
will find that you need good teachers, yes, and they need to be in a 
good environment. But also key is good parents.
  I want to take this opportunity to focus on increasing access to 
technology for those students in grades kindergarten through 12th 
grade.
  We all understand, and I think the Presiding Officer today sure 
understands, how technology has fueled the unprecedented growth and 
transformed the way Americans conduct business and communicate with one 
another. As the global economy brings in new opportunities and greater 
prosperity, all families will need ready access to the technical and 
technological skills and tools necessary for students to succeed in a 
classroom and also in the digital economy.
  Together schools, communities, and government have worked to bring 
computers to the classrooms and integrate technology into daily 
classroom curriculums. Classroom connectivity has soared from 14 
percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 1999. When I was Governor, we finally 
were able to get the Goals 2000 money and put it into Network Virginia, 
to connect all our colleges, community colleges, and schools. So that 
has been going on across the country.
  The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides a separate 
funding stream for teacher technology training, which is important. 
There are tax incentives for companies to donate computers to schools. 
That is going on in Virginia and across the U.S. However, it is not 
enough that there be a computer present in the classroom or in a 
community center. I think it is great what Intel is doing with the 
Girls and Boys Clubs with their computer club houses. That is really 
good. But I also would like to see people have computers at home. Only 
through consistent access to technology can students develop the 
necessary technical skills to succeed and compete in the future 
marketplace and economy. Children must have access to the Internet at 
home so they can better complete afterschool homework. If you want the 
children to be able to have access to information or to do word 
processing, all that ought to be done on a computer at home, and they 
should not have to go to the school or a library or a community center.
  The homework assignments are done after school and on weekends, and I 
think also by having the children working on computers at home, that 
increases their programming and technological skills. It also allows 
them to discover additional academic opportunities. There are some 
great educational software programs in geography, history, math, 
science, and the language arts, which all go at the pace of the student 
who is on the computer. E-books are coming around and that is another 
way of having children get interested in reading in a more easy way.
  All of this, again, is gathered at the pace of the students. Studies 
have shown that the presence of a computer in the home has a positive 
impact on a student's level of academic achievement and performance in 
the school. For example, a study using NAEP data found that eighth 
graders who use computers frequently at home demonstrated higher levels 
of academic achievement than those who do not. Parents in those 
situations became more involved with the daily assignments, and it also 
increases their communication with teachers through the use of e-mail.

  There was a study in a New York project where children actually were 
given laptops, personal computers--they weren't just in the classroom 
and the library--and they were allowed to bring the personal computers 
home. The training was provided in this project in New York. Not only 
did it increase academic performance, but it had long-term benefits. 
The results were that the participants were more likely to stay in 
school, graduate, and go on to college.
  Earlier this year, with the support of my colleagues, Senators 
Warner, Allard, Hutchinson, Craig, and Hutchison, I introduced the 
Education Opportunity Tax Credit Act, which would provide financial 
relief for the purchase of technology and tutorial services for K-12 
educational purposes. My proposal would provide a $1,000 tax credit per 
year, up to $2,000 per family, for the cost of their children's 
education-related expenses--specifically computer peripherals and 
computer-related technology, educational software, Internet access, and 
tutoring services. However, the tax credit would not apply toward the 
cost of private school tuition.
  This proposal would significantly help defray the cost of educational 
expenses by empowering families financially and thereby increasing 
educational spending, which would mostly be on technology. Even more 
important, the education opportunity tax credit would improve the 
quality of educational experiences for students by allowing families to 
provide their children with access to a far greater range of 
educational opportunities suited to their individual needs. It would 
encourage parental involvement in their children's education. Indeed, 
parents are the ones who know their childrens' needs, know their names, 
and know their specific problem areas, and we

[[Page S4439]]

need to empower parents. Furthermore, this idea of providing this tax 
relief for the purchase of educational technology would also help 
bridge the digital divide. It is very important that everyone has an 
equal opportunity--whether it is tax policies, regulatory policies, or 
educational and technological policies--so that everyone can seize the 
opportunities in this digital age and this information technology 
economy.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am introducing today would provide for 
a sense of the Senate in affirming how important it is that we increase 
opportunities for home access to technology for school-age children. 
While I am unable to offer the education opportunity tax credit to S. 1 
because tax provisions cannot generally be added to a program 
authorization bill, by voting to support this sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment, we will be setting the foundation for future progress on 
this important matter.
  Generally, I believe we are on the right track, for the most part, on 
educational reform at the Federal level with this bill. There is more 
trust and decisionmaking at the State and local levels. There are more 
funds and will be more funds for teachers, early reading initiatives, 
and protecting against unfunded mandates. This is due in no small part 
to Senators Jeffords and Gregg and other Members and the White House 
and leadership from both sides of the aisle.
  Remember how we get a good student: You need good schools and 
parents.
  We need to not only thank the leaders in the Senate for the good work 
they are doing but also make sure that we don't forget the parents. We 
need to empower parents to provide these technological educational 
schools for their children so their children have the same 
opportunities as all children, and also make sure that our country can 
compete and succeed. As we move forward on educational reform, I am 
confident that we will also be able to increase access to education-
related technology for all children in their homes and pass the 
education opportunity tax credit into law.

  I believe if we work on both sides of the aisle, we would understand 
that children need to have computers at home, access to the Internet, 
and the world of information that comes from having an individualized 
Library of Congress right there at home for our children. I thank the 
Chair and I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me this 
time to speak on this amendment. I thank Senator Kennedy also for 
yielding some time. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, who 
has given us an excellent understanding of what he has done. I think he 
has done a tremendous job for the State of Virginia. I have looked at 
his record and have listened to him and realize that he has made great 
contributions to the State of Virginia, and now he is here to assist 
us. So I praise him for this amendment. I will ask to have it set aside 
for a later vote, but I commend him for what he has done and I look 
forward to working with him.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier I briefly commented on the 
importance of having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. We 
will be asking the Senate to vote for increased funding for that 
tomorrow.
  I hope those who are thinking about this amendment will review the 
excellent TIMSS 1999 eighth grade mathematics benchmarking report. 
These are findings for the United States and internationally. It is the 
leading authority of what is happening in classrooms in mathematics in 
the United States.
  It states clearly on page 7:

       Research shows that higher achievement in mathematics is 
     associated with teachers having a bachelor's and/or master's 
     degree in mathematics. According to their teachers, however, 
     U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely than those in 
     other countries to be taught mathematics by teachers with a 
     major area of study in mathematics.

  It goes on to say:

       The Benchmarking Study provides evidence that some schools 
     in the U.S. are among the best in the world, but that a 
     world-class education is not available to all children across 
     the nation. The TIMSS index of home educational resources 
     (based on books in the home, availability of study aids, and 
     parents' education level) shows that students with more home 
     resources have higher mathematics achievement. Futhermore, 
     the Benchmarking jurisdictions with the greatest 
     percentages of students with high levels of home resources 
     were among the top-performing jurisdictions, and those 
     with the lowest achievement were four urban districts that 
     also had the lowest percentages of students with high 
     levels of home resources. These and other TIMSS 1999 
     Benchmarking results support research indicating that 
     students in urban districts with a high proportion of low-
     income families and minorities often attend schools with 
     fewer resources than in non-urban districts, including 
     less experienced teachers, fewer appropriate instructional 
     materials, more emphasis on lower-level content, less 
     access to gifted and talented programs, higher 
     absenteeism, more inadequate buildings, and more 
     discipline problems.

  What have we done with our legislation? I mentioned the other day, a 
point of reference about the excellent book ``What Matters Most: 
Teaching for America's Future,'' the report of the National Commission 
on Teaching & America's Future, September of 1996. Hopefully, people 
following these issues in the debate will take a few moments and read 
through this compelling report. It is an excellent document. This, 
along with the hearings we had and the representations from Secretary 
Paige and the administration, gave very good structure for 
strengthening our Nation's teaching force.
  We have 750,000 teachers who do not have degrees in the subject 
matter they are teaching. This is how we try to address that.
  Part A of BEST will ensure there are more highly qualified teachers 
in the neediest schools because more teachers have access to high-
quality professional development. We have a strong definition for a 
qualified teacher. All highly qualified teachers are teachers who have 
an academic major in the arts and science or have demonstrated 
competence through a high level of performance in core academic 
standards and are certified or licensed by the State. That is a very 
strong criteria to be met. We are going to insist on having a high 
standard and high quality teacher teaching the children.
  The BEST Act ensures that professional development and mentoring 
activities are research-based and high quality. Mentoring support for 
teachers is absolutely essential and key. The continued development for 
teachers in terms of professional development is important. We require 
professional development activities as an integral part of the broad 
school-wide and district-wide educational improvement plans. We make 
sure that it is intensive, sustained, and school-based.
  Those are the elements of effective professional development 
programs. They have to be intensive. We cannot have just 1 day, 2 days, 
a few days at the end of the year or a few days at the beginning of the 
year. They have to be sustained, intensive, school-based, of high 
quality and sufficient duration to have a positive and lasting impact 
on classroom instruction. Too often we have the one-time workshops 
based on the best research designed to help teachers continue to 
improve the practice of teaching and developing instructional skills.
  The BEST Act ensures that professional development activities are 
aligned with State content standards, student performance standards 
assessment, and the curriculum and programs are tied to those standards 
at the local level.
  That is the key. One of most important aspects of school success is 
the presence of highly qualified, highly competent teachers working in 
the development of a curriculum, teaching the curriculum, and the 
students are then examined on that curriculum, finding out what the 
student does not know, providing the supplementary services available.
  That is as clearly stated in the legislation as we could. This is 
very important and is one of the most important

[[Page S4440]]

parts of the bill. It guarantees funds for professional development and 
mentoring. To date, we have not been guaranteeing the funds for 
professional development.
  The BEST Act moves to ensure that all teachers in schools with 50 
percent of poverty or higher are highly qualified in 4 years. I welcome 
that language. That is putting a challenge to the Congress: Are we 
going to provide the resources to make sure we have the highly 
qualified teacher that will teach in these urban areas or rural areas, 
where we have the high percentage of needy children?

  We are committing ourselves. If we are going to commit ourselves to 
getting well-trained teachers, we have to provide the resources. That 
is what this amendment does. It holds all States accountable for 
ensuring all teachers are qualified, and if we hold the States 
accountable, we have to provide the resources and require States to 
provide assistance to teachers in schools. It ensures teachers receive 
professional development to help students reach higher standards.
  Requiring professional development helps all students, including 
those diverse racial and ethnic students, students with disabilities, 
students with limited English proficiency, meet higher standards.
  The States are required to set the performance goals that include the 
annual increase and the percentage of highly qualified teachers that 
schools with 50 percent of poverty or more are highly qualified within 
4 years. The States have to set their goals and know at the beginning 
of this walk that we are going to walk the walk with them, that we will 
provide the resources.
  How do we expect the States to accept this responsibility if we are 
not going to provide the resources? We expect in their plan that the 
States are going to have to have accountability as well. States that do 
not meet this goal in 4 years will lose 15 percent of their 
administrative funds and risk increased sanctions in the following 
years.
  We are asking everyone to be responsible and to be accountable. We 
are asking the States, the schools, and the students to be accountable.
  The last question is whether we are going to be responsible. The way 
we are going to be responsible is supporting this amendment which will, 
hopefully, establish the guideposts for sufficient funds for the 
training of teachers and professional development.
  My amendment effectively is a sense of the Senate that the Congress 
should appropriate the $3 billion authorized in the BEST Act for 
improving teacher quality, and authorizes a $500 million increase per 
year for the subsequent 6 years, 2003 to 2008. I hope this amendment 
receives a strong bipartisan vote in the morning.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call 
     the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 372

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will vote on the 
amendments now pending, including an amendment offered by Senator Craig 
that will deny increases in funding under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act if a State fails to make adequate yearly progress as 
defined by the BEST Act. That is the Education Act on which we are 
working.
  This amendment by Senator Craig addresses a very important issue--
accountability for results--the issue on which we spent the bulk of our 
time working when crafting S. 1.
  There is already a mechanism for holding States accountable in S.1. 
Keep that in mind. We already have a provision for that.
  In title VI, part B, if a State fails to meet its goals for adequate 
progress in improving student achievement, the Secretary must reduce 
the funds available to that State in succeeding years.
  I should add that there are also accountability provisions directly 
related to student performance at the school and district levels.
  It does not make sense to reduce the overall funding to a State, when 
in fact some schools and districts may be doing a good job and others 
are not.
  S.1 targets sanctions to where the problem exists.
  In other words, if one school in a district is doing well and another 
is not, we have focused our school improvement activities on the school 
that is not doing its job to improve achievement.
  Similarly, if one district in a State is excelling and another is 
not, raising the achievement of all its students, then under our bill, 
the poor performing district would be sanctioned.
  Under this scenario, with these school and district level 
accountability provisions in place, it would not make sense to reduce 
the funding of all the schools and districts by reducing the grant to 
the State.
  Instead, as I mentioned earlier, under S.1, a State not making its 
performance goals would only be sanctioned based on the funds it is 
allowed to keep at the State level, not to hurt the individual 
district.
  I can assure the Senate that these funds are very important and 
valuable to States, and their loss will certainly be something that 
States will work hard to avoid.
  The Craig amendment would dramatically expand the sanctions already 
spelled out in the bill and would result in a disproportionate penalty, 
in my view.
  My colleagues should not be under any illusion that only a few States 
will fail to make adequate yearly progress. Of the 18 or 19 States we 
have looked at in an informal survey, nearly three quarters would have 
failed last year, and the handful that did not fail outright might do 
so with disaggregated data.
  I appreciate my colleague's interest in driving change at the State 
and local levels, but I think the President's proposals, incorporated 
in the BEST Act, offer a more precise means of doing so in the years 
ahead.
  Adoption of the Craig amendment, by contrast would stop dead in their 
tracks the President's testing and reading initiatives. I hope the 
Senate will resist the Craig amendment.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 382 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Mr. Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. Dodd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 382 to amendment No. 358.

  The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: To remove the 21st century community learning center program 
      from the list of programs covered by performance agreements)

       On page 752, line 7, strike ``F or''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________