[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4525-S4544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.
       Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No. 
     358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
       Kennedy (for Mikulski/Kennedy) amendment No. 379 (to 
     amendment No. 358), to provide for the establishment of 
     community technology centers.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       McConnell amendment No. 384 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     provide for teacher liability protection.
       Cleland amendment No. 376 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     provide for school safety enhancement, including the 
     establishment of the National Center for School and Youth 
     Safety.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Specter modified amendment No. 388 (to amendment No. 378), 
     to provide for class size reduction.
       Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     modify provisions relating to State applications and plans 
     and school improvement to provide for the input of the 
     Governor of the State involved.
       Carnahan amendment No. 374 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     improve the quality of education in our Nation's classrooms.


                           Amendment No. 379

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We have 5 minutes equally divided 
on the Mikulski amendment.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the support of my 
colleagues for my amendment to create 1,000 community tech-based 
centers around the country.

[[Page S4526]]

  The BEST Act creates a national goal to ensure that every child is 
computer literate by the 8th grade regardless of race, ethnicity, 
income, gender, geography, or disability.
  My amendment will help make this goal a reality.
  What does this amendment do? My amendment builds on the excellent 
work of Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Gregg. It 
expands 21st Century Learning Centers by authorizing $100 million to 
create 1,000 community based technology centers around the country. The 
Department of Education would provide competitive grants to community 
based organizations such as a YMCA, the Urban League, or a public 
library.
  Up to half the funds for these centers must come from the private 
sector, so we'll be helping to build public/private partnerships around 
the country.
  What does this mean for local communities? It means a safe haven for 
children where they could learn how to use computers and use them to do 
homework or surf the web. It means job training for adults who could 
use the technology centers to sharpen their job skills or write their 
resumes.
  Why is this amendment necessary? Because even with dot coms becoming 
dot bombs, we badly need high tech workers. In fact, we have a skill 
shortage, not a worker shortage.
  Senators Specter and Harkin have provided funds for Community 
Technology Centers in Appropriations but the program has never been 
authorized, so it has been skimpy. Only 90 centers were created last 
year, although over 700 applied.
  We need to bring technology to where kids learn, not just where we 
want them to learn. They don't just learn in school, they learn in 
their communities.
  Not every family has a computer in their home, but every American 
should have access to computers in their community.
  My amendment is endorsed by: the NAACP, the American Library 
Association, the National Council of La Raza, the YMCA, the American 
Association of Community Colleges, and the Computer and Communications 
Industry Association.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring that no child is left out 
or left behind in the technology revolution.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I regretfully rise to oppose the 
amendment of my colleague, although I agree with the program she is 
talking about, the community technology centers. On the other hand, 
this belongs with other programs such as the community block grants, 
not on the educational side.
  I must say I admire what the Senator is doing. The programs 
themselves can be very useful, but I don't believe it belongs in this 
bill; rather, it belongs in other bills. For instance, the 21st century 
schools can provide similar programs. In a sense, it is duplication.
  Regretfully, I must oppose the amendment, although I think it is only 
once or twice a century that I do that.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the cosponsors of my amendment are 
Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Reid.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back the remaining time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment 
numbered 379 to amendment No. 358.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 379) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair inform the Senate how long 
it took for that vote to be completed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-one minutes.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                 Amendment No. 403 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 403 to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. Wellstone. 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 modify provisions relating to State assessments)

       On page 46, strike line 19 and replace with the following:
     ``sessments developed and used by national experts on 
     educational testing.
       ``(D) be used only if the State provides to the Secretary 
     evidence from the test publisher or other relevant sources 
     that the assessment used is of adequate technical quality for 
     each purpose for which the assessment is used, such evidence 
     to be made public by the Secretary upon request;''.
       On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(K) enable itemized score analyses to be reported to 
     schools and local educational agencies in a way that parents, 
     teachers, schools, and local educational agencies can 
     interpret and address the specific academic needs of 
     individual students as indicated by the students' performance 
     on assessment items.''
       On page 125, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 118A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.

       Part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 1117 (20 U.S.C. 6318) the following:

     ``SEC. 1117A. GRANTS FOR ENHANCED ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to--
       ``(1) enable States (or consortia or States) and local 
     educational agencies (or consortia of local educational 
     agencies) to collaborate with institutions of higher 
     education, other research institutions, and other 
     organizations to improve the quality and fairness of State 
     assessment systems beyond the basic requirements for 
     assessment systems described in section 1111(b)(3);
       ``(2) characterize student achievement in terms of multiple 
     aspects of proficiency;
       ``(3) chart student progress over time;
       ``(4) closely track curriculum and instruction; and
       ``(5) monitor and improve judgments based on informed 
     evaluations of student performance.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(c) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     award grants to States and local educational agencies to 
     enable the States and local educational agencies to carry out 
     the purpose described in subsection (a).
       ``(d) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section for any fiscal year, a State or local educational 
     agency shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require.
       ``(e) Authorized Use of Funds.--A State or local 
     educational agency having an application approved under 
     subsection (d) shall use the grant funds received under this 
     section to collaborate with institutions of higher education 
     or other research institutions,

[[Page S4527]]

     experts on curriculum, teachers, administrators, parents, and 
     assessment developers for the purpose of developing enhanced 
     assessments that are aligned with standards and curriculum, 
     are valid and reliable for the purposes for which the 
     assessments are to be used, are grade-appropriate, include 
     multiple measures of student achievement from multiple 
     sources, and otherwise meet the requirements of section 
     1111(b)(3). Such assessments shall strive to better measure 
     higher order thinking skills, understanding, analytical 
     ability, and learning over time through the development of 
     assessment tools that include techniques such as performance, 
     curriculum-, and technology-based assessments.
       ``(f) Annual Reports.--Each State or local educational 
     agency receiving a grant under this section shall report to 
     the Secretary at the end of the fiscal year for which the 
     State or local educational agency received the grant on the 
     progress of the State or local educational agency in 
     improving the quality and fairness of assessments with 
     respect to the purpose described in subsection (a).''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment greatly strengthens this 
legislation. It focuses on an issue that we haven't really spent a lot 
of time on yet. This has to do with how we make sure we have the very 
highest quality of testing and how we make sure we give our States and 
school districts the flexibility to do the very best job.
  There has been a rush to expand testing without stepping back to 
determine whether the testing system we have is working. It is only 
common sense--I believe we have worked hard on this amendment, and 
there will be strong support for it--to assume that if you want the 
tests to be effective, they have to be of high quality.
  This goes back to why we are measuring student achievement in the 
first place and what our goals are if we are going to set up these 
accountability systems. Are we measuring for the sake of measuring only 
or are we measuring to get the best picture of how our children are 
doing? That is what we are all about or should be all about.
  If we want to get the best picture of how our students are doing and 
how effective the schools are in teaching, we need to have the best 
possible assessments. That is what this amendment seeks. These 
assessments need to be aligned with standards, local curriculum, and 
classroom instruction. These assessments need to be free from bias. 
They need to reflect both the range and depth of student knowledge, and 
they need to assess not just memorized responses but student reasoning 
and understanding. They need to be used only for the purposes for which 
they are valid and reliable. This is important.
  Holding States and school districts and teachers accountable to the 
wrong test can, in fact, be more harmful than helpful. Using low-level 
national tests to measure performance within a State shows us little of 
how the States, the school districts, the schools, and the students are 
doing in achieving their State and local educational goals.
  This amendment seeks to allow States to develop tests that are of 
higher quality and better meet the localized needs of their students, 
their parents, and their teachers.
  I will repeat these words again. They should be important to Senators 
and staff. This amendment allows States to develop tests that are of 
higher quality and better meet the localized needs of their students, 
teachers, and parents.
  To ensure that the assessments are of high quality, this amendment 
says the assessments under title I have to meet relevant national 
standards developed by the American Educational Research Association, 
the American Psychological Association and the National Council of 
Measurement in Education. These standards are the standards from 
everyone in the testing field--I say to the Senator from Vermont and 
the Senator from Massachusetts, these are the standards that have been 
used as guides for testmakers and test users for decades, and they are 
implied but they are not specifically referenced in the current law.
  Secondly, it says that States have to provide evidence to the 
Secretary that the tests they use are of adequate technical quality for 
each purpose for which they are used.
  Third, it says that itemized score analyses should be provided to 
districts and schools so the tests can meet their intended purpose, 
which is to help the people on the ground, the teachers and the 
parents, to know specifically what their children are struggling with 
and how they can help them do better.

  Finally, the amendment provides grants to States to enter into 
partnerships to research and develop the highest quality assessments 
possible so they can most accurately and fairly measure student 
achievement.
  I will go into this later on, but I say to the Senate: My background 
is education. I was a teacher for 20 years. I don't want to give any 
ground on rigor or accountability, but I don't want us to do this the 
wrong way. I want to make sure our States and school districts can 
design the kinds of tests that are comprehensive, that have multiple 
measures, that are coherent, that we are actually measuring what is 
being taught, and also to make sure they assess progress over time.
  This is so important because we don't want to put our teachers and 
school districts in a position of having to teach to tests. We don't 
want to drive out our best teachers. We want to have the best teachers 
in our schools. We don't want teachers to be drill sergeants. There is 
a distinction between training and education.
  The need for this amendment is clear. The Independent Review Panel on 
title I, which was mandated in the 1994 reauthorization, issued its 
report ``Improving the Odds'' this January. The report concluded:

       Many States use assessment results from a single test--
     often traditional multiple choice tests. Although the tests 
     may have an important place in state assessment systems, they 
     rarely capture the depth and breadth of knowledge reflected 
     in State content standards.

  The panel went on to make a strong recommendation. It said:

       Better assessments for instructional and accountability 
     purposes are urgently needed.

  The link between better assessments and better accountability was 
made by Robert Schwartz, president of Achieve, Inc., the nonprofit arm 
of the standards-based reform movement. He recently said:

       You simply can't accomplish the goals of this movement if 
     you're using off-the-shelf, relatively low-level tests . . . 
     Tests have taken on too prominent of a role in these reforms 
     and that's in part because of people rushing to attach 
     consequences to them before, in a lot of places, we have 
     really gotten the tests right.

  This amendment is about making sure we get the tests right. That is 
what this amendment is about.

  This is exactly my point. We need to get the tests right. Research 
shows that low-quality assessments can actually do more harm than good. 
The Standards on Educational and Psychological Testing clearly indicate 
this. The standards state:

       The proper use of tests can result in wiser decisions about 
     individuals and programs than would be the case without their 
     use and also can provide a route to broader and more 
     equitable access to education and employment.

  That is if it is done the right way.

       The improper use of tests, however, can cause considerable 
     harm to test takers and other parties affected by test-based 
     decisions.

  It is our obligation to help States and districts ensure that tests 
are done right so they can achieve the best effect.
  The standards go on to say:

       Beyond any intended policy goals, it is important to 
     consider any potential unintended effects that may result 
     from large scale testing programs. Concerns have been raised, 
     for instance, about narrowing the curriculum to focus only on 
     the objectives tested, restricting the range of instructional 
     approaches to correspond to testing format, increasing the 
     number of drop-outs among students who do not pass the test, 
     and encouraging other instructional or administrative 
     practices that may raise test scores without affecting the 
     quality of education. It is important for those who mandate 
     tests to consider and monitor their consequences and to 
     identify and minimize the potential of negative consequences.

  With my colleagues' support, we want to make sure the testing is done 
the right way, and that is what we will do if we adopt this amendment.
  One of the key problems with low-quality tests and accountability 
systems that rely too heavily on a single measure of student progress 
is in producing very counterproductive educational effects. There is 
too much teaching to the test, leading to drill instruction which does 
not reflect real learning and which excludes key components of 
education that are not covered by the tests. Further, the over-reliance 
on tests could cause teachers to leave the profession at a time when

[[Page S4528]]

good teachers are what our country needs the most.
  Again, I am going to talk about this more, but if we do not get this 
right, we will rue the day that we have set up a system that basically 
creates a situation where your very best teachers are going to leave 
the profession, and we are not going to attract the best teachers.
  The first concern has to do with teaching to the test. Let me cite 
for my colleagues the Committee for Economic Development, which is a 
strongly pro-testing coalition of business leaders which warns against 
test-based accountability systems that ``lead to narrow test based 
coaching rather than rich instruction.''
  Test preparation is not necessarily bad, but if it comes at the 
expense of real learning, it becomes a major problem. Many will say 
that teaching to tests can be good, but if the tests are of low 
quality, which too many are, then it most certainly is not for the 
good.
  The recent Education Week/Pew Charitable Trust study, ``Quality 
Counts,'' found that nearly 70 percent of the teachers said that 
instruction stresses tests ``far'' or ``somewhat'' too much. Sixty-six 
percent of the teachers also said that State assessments were forcing 
them to concentrate too much on what is tested to the detriment of 
other report topics.

  I will tell you what topics are neglected: social studies, arts, 
science, technology, all of which are integral to good education.
  For example, in Washington State, a recent analysis by the Rand 
Corporation showed that fourth grade teachers shifted significant time 
away from the arts, science, health and fitness, social studies, and 
communication and listening skills because none of these areas were 
measured by the tests. Is that what we want to do? We do not want to 
end up undercutting the quality of education of children in this 
country.
  ``Quality Counts'' goes on to say:

       Any one test samples only a narrow range of what students 
     should be learning. If teachers concentrate on the test--
     rather than the broader content undergirding the exams--it 
     could lead to a bump in test results that does not lead or 
     does not reflect real learning gains.

  In fact, 45 percent of the teachers surveyed said they spent a great 
deal of time teaching students how to take tests, doing activities such 
as learning to fill in bubbles correctly.
  Another recent survey of Texas teachers indicated that only 27 
percent of the teachers believe that increases in the TAAS scores 
reflect an increase in the quality of learning and teaching, rather 
than teaching to the test.
  A 1998 study of the Chicago public schools concluded that the demand 
for high test scores had actually slowed down instruction as teachers 
stopped introducing new material to review and practice for upcoming 
exams.
  The most egregious examples of teaching to the test are schools such 
as the Stevenson Elementary School in Houston that pays as much as 
$10,000 per year to hire the Stanley Kaplan Test Preparation Company to 
teach teachers how to teach kids to take tests.
  According to the San Jose Mercury News, schools in East Palo Alto, 
which is one of the poorest districts in California, also paid Stanley 
Kaplan $10,000 each to consult with them on test-taking strategies.
  According to the same article:

       Schools across California are spending thousands to buy 
     computer programs, hire consultants, and purchase workbooks 
     and materials. They're redesigning spelling tests and math 
     lessons, all in an effort to help students become better test 
     takers.

  Sadly, it is the low-income schools that are affected the most. The 
National Science Foundation found that teachers with more than 60 
percent minority students in their classes reported more test 
preparation and more test-altered instruction than those with fewer 
minority students in their class. This research is confirmed by the 
Harvard Civil Rights Project and several other studies.
  The reason I believe the vote on this amendment will be one of the 
most important votes on this bill is that this amendment speaks 
directly to whether or not we are going to have the best teachers. I am 
very concerned that drill education and an increasing emphasis on 
scores is going to cause the best teachers to leave the profession, to 
leave the schools where they are needed the most. This is tragic at the 
very time we face an acute teacher shortage. We know that the single 
most important factor in closing the achievement gap between students 
is the quality of the teachers the students have. We will see teachers 
leaving the profession.
  Linda Darling Hammond, who is a renowned educator at Stanford 
University, and Jonathan Kozol, who has written some of the most 
powerful books about poor children and education in America, have both 
addressed this issue. Jonathan Kozol said:

       Hundreds of the most exciting and beautifully educated 
     teachers are already fleeing from inner city schools in order 
     to escape what one brilliant young teacher calls 
     ``examination hell.''

  It is ironic because in our quest to close the achievement gap, Kozol 
finds that what we are actually doing is ``robbing urban and poor rural 
children of the opportunities Senators give their own kids.''
  What is going on? We already know where all the pressure is. We 
already know where all the focus is on the drill education, the 
teaching to the tests. It is in inner-city, rural, small towns. What 
you are going to have, or what you have right now, is the teachers who 
know how to teach and are not involved in worksheet education are the 
very teachers who are going to leave. It is the teachers who are more 
robotic and are intent to do worksheet teaching and learning, which is 
educationally deadening--they are going to be the teachers who stay. We 
will be making a huge mistake if we don't make sure the testing is done 
in a comprehensive and coherent way.
  There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times. It was written by a 
fifth-grade teacher who obviously had great passion for his work. 
Listen to his words:

       But as I teach from day to day . . . I no longer see the 
     students in the way I once did--certainly not in the same 
     exuberant light as when I first started teaching five years 
     ago. Where once they were ``challenging'' or ``marginal'' 
     students, I am now beginning to see ``liabilities.'' Where 
     once there was a student of ``limited promise,'' there is now 
     an inescapable deficit that all available efforts will only 
     nominally affect.

  One way to avoid such negative outcomes and ensure that tests do not 
inhibit real learning is to design higher quality tests that measure 
how children think rather than just what they can remember. The 
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing asserts, for 
example, that:

       If a test is intended to measure mathematical reasoning, it 
     becomes important to determine whether examinees are in fact 
     reasoning about the material given instead of following just 
     a standard algorithm.

  Too often, today's tests are failing their mission. The Center for 
Education Policy's recent study on the state of education reform 
concludes:

       The tests commonly used for accountability purposes don't 
     tell us how students reached an answer, why they are having 
     difficulty, or how we can help them.

  We therefore need to design assessments that are more closely linked 
to classroom instruction. That is what our school districts, schools, 
teachers, principals, school boards, and our PTAs at the local level 
are telling us. We need to reflect student learning over time so that 
schools are not judged in a single shot but, rather, are judged more 
deeply and comprehensively through multiple measures of achievement.
  Such an approach would reward teachers who, as the Center for School 
Change in Minnesota recommends, are able to actually effect and improve 
children's analytic abilities and communications skills rather than 
teachers who drill the best. It would reward schools and teachers who 
ensure that day-to-day classroom instruction is high quality, not just 
those who have learned how best to game assessments. That is what this 
amendment seeks to do.
  The Committee for Economic Development report urges this approach. It 
says:

       There is more work to do in designing assessment 
     instruments that can measure a rich array of knowledge and 
     skills embedded in rigorous and substantive standards.

  Before we rush ahead, let's meet that challenge.
  Beyond the effects in the classroom, higher quality tests and fairer 
use of tests are needed because low-quality

[[Page S4529]]

tests can lead to inaccurate assessments, which do not serve but, 
rather, subvert the efforts at true educational accountability. Nobody 
put it better than the strongly protesting Committee for Economic 
Development. These business leaders concluded in their report--there 
should be almost unanimous support for this amendment--entitled 
``Measuring What Matters'' that:

       Tests that are not valid, reliable, and fair will obviously 
     be inaccurate indicators of the academic achievement of 
     students and can lead to wrong decisions being made about 
     students and the schools.

  We want to make sure these tests are accurate, reliable, and fair. I 
know the language I speak is technical, but the issue is of great 
import.
  Let me just simply summarize my position. There is more to say, and 
perhaps we will listen to other colleagues as well, because there is 
much more than I can cite as evidence.
  One of the things we have to make sure of is that we have 
comprehensive multiple measures that will measure schools and students. 
You have to do that; otherwise, you are abusing the tests. It is very 
dangerous to use a single measure to determine how well schools and 
students are doing. But beyond pure error, it is important to realize 
that even without technical error, tests tell only a part of the 
education story. They should be accompanied by other measures to ensure 
that we are getting the best picture possible of how these students and 
schools are doing. That is the way we can hold the schools truly and 
fairly accountable.
  In his testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee, 
Kurt M. Landgraf, president and CEO of the Educational Testing Service, 
which is one of the largest providers of K-12 testing services in the 
country, said:

       Scores from large scale assessments should not be 
     used alone if other information will increase the validity 
     of the decisions being made.

  Riverside Publishing, another of the major test publishers in the 
country, in their Interpretive Guide For School Administrators for the 
Iowa Test of Basic Skills, said:

       Many of the common misuses (of standardized tests) stem 
     from depending on a single test score to make a decision 
     about a student or class of students.

  The National Association of State Boards of Education also did a 
comprehensive study which indicated the same thing.
  The study I mentioned before, ``Quality Counts,'' shows that we need 
to have multiple measures. In no area is this phenomenon more evident 
than in the use of a single standardized test to make a high-stakes 
decision about a student, as whether or not that student will be 
promoted from one grade to another or in what reading group that 
student will be placed.
  Nearly everybody involved in the testing field, whether it is the 
groups that write the professional standards, the National Research 
Council, test publishers, the business community that invested so much 
in the testing movement--all agree that a single test should never be 
the sole determinant in making high-stakes educational decisions about 
individual students or, for that matter, about individual schools.
  The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing asserts that 
in educational settings, a decision or characterization that will have 
a major impact on a student should not be made on the basis of a single 
test score. The National Research Council--we commissioned this 
report--in 1999 concludes that:

       No single test score can be considered a definitive measure 
     of a student's knowledge, and an educational decision that 
     will have a major impact on a test taker should not be made 
     solely or automatically on the basis of a single test score.

  So we need multiple measures. Second, right now, too many of the 
tests are not aligned with the curriculum and standards. So another 
condition that has to be met, another problem that has to be met, is 
that current assessments all too often are not aligned with standards, 
curriculum, and instruction. That is what it has to be.
  I am putting into the language what we have implied. Alignment is the 
cornerstone of accountability. If we don't have tests that are aligned 
with the standards and curriculum and the instruction, then we are not 
going to have real accountability.
  Now, the Committee for Economic Development in their report makes the 
point that barriers to alignment are more serious when States use so-
called off-the-shelf commercial tests rather than developing their own. 
The National Association of State Boards of Education confirms in their 
study and makes the point that norm reference tests are unable to 
measure the attainment of content and performance standards.
  This amendment provides grants to States to better align their 
assessments, as well as to ensure that the tests validly assess the 
domain they are intended to measure. This is common sense, but it is so 
important.
  This amendment seeks not to stop using tests but to ensure fairness 
and accuracy in the large-scale assessments that are used under title 
I. This amendment seeks not to stop using tests. I want to make sure 
this is done the right way. I want to make sure it is fair. I want to 
make sure the tests are accurate. I want to make sure we have real 
accountability. I want to make sure we are respectful of teachers. I 
want to make sure we are respectful of school boards. I want to make 
sure we are respectful of what goes on in our schools.
  This call for fairness and accuracy is a call that has been made by 
business leaders, by educators, by government leaders, and by the most 
respected research institutes in the country. I rarely read text when I 
speak on the floor of the Senate. However, there are so many 
authorities and studies to cite, the evidence is irrefutable. We want 
to make sure we do this the right way and we must do it the right way.
  This research and this call for accurate, fair testing has crossed 
party lines. I hope it will have bipartisan support in the Senate.
  The most recent National Research Council report on testing, 
``Knowing What Students Know,'' outlines the direction in which I think 
we as policymakers need to move to make sure the testing is done fairly 
and correctly. The report concludes that:

       . . . policymakers are urged to recognize the limits of 
     current assessments and to support the development of new 
     systems of multiple assessments that would improve their 
     ability to make decisions about educational programs and 
     allocation of resources.

  It says:

       . . . needed are classroom and large-scale assessments that 
     help all students succeed in school by making as clearly as 
     possible to them, their teachers and other educational 
     stakeholders the nature of their accomplishments and the 
     progress of their learning.

  We surely ought to be able to meet that condition.
  Right now, the authors report:

       Assessment practices need to move beyond a focus on 
     component skills and discrete bits of knowledge to encompass 
     more complex aspects of student achievement.

  The authors recommended that:

       Funding should be provided for a major program of research, 
     guided by a synthesis of cognitive and measurement 
     principles, that focus on the design of assessments that 
     yield more valid and fair inferences about student 
     achievement.

  And key components are what? Multiple measures of student achievement 
and a move to more performance-based, curriculum-embedded assessment.
  Doesn't that make sense, to have multiple measures, and to make sure 
what you are testing is aligned with the curriculum? The three 
principles of good assessment are laid out.
  I conclude on the principles: Comprehensiveness, meaning you have a 
range of measurement approaches so that you have a variety of evidence 
to support educational decisionmaking; coherence, meaning that the 
assessment should be closely linked to curriculum and instruction; and 
continuity, meaning that the assessment should measure student progress 
over time.
  I emphasize, this legislation, S. 1. is a major departure in public 
policy in the sense we are now calling on all of the school districts 
in all of the States in all of the schools in all of our States to test 
children as young as age 8 to age 13 every single year. There can be a 
philosophical discussion about whether we should be doing that. The 
only thing I am saying is, let's do it the right way.

  I have been working on this amendment, using the best studies we 
have. I have been in touch with people all over

[[Page S4530]]

the country. Basically, I am saying, let's make sure there is 
comprehensiveness, which means multiple measures. Make sure there is 
coherence; that we actually measure the curriculum and instruction. 
Otherwise the teachers teach to the tests. We don't want that. We don't 
want drill education.
  Finally, let's have continuity, which means that the assessment 
should measure student progress over time.
  Jonathan Kozol is someone I think we all respect. He writes that it 
is the best teachers that hate testing agenda the most. They will not 
remain in public schools if they are forced to be drill sergeants for 
exams instead of being educators. Hundreds of the most exciting and 
beautifully educated teachers are already fleeing from inner-city 
schools in order to escape what one teacher, a graduate of Swarthmore 
calls ``examination hell.'' I don't know that we have been in the 
inner-city neighborhoods; I don't think we visit the inner-city 
neighborhoods that Jonathan Kozol does.

       The dreariest and most robotic teachers will remain, the 
     flowing and passionate teachers will get out as fast as they 
     can. They will be hired in exclusive prep schools to teach 
     the children of the rich under ideal circumstances.

  He goes on to say: Who will you find to replace these beautiful young 
teachers? This is another way of robbing the urban poor and rural 
children of the opportunities that we give to our own children.
  I think he is right. I have been a college teacher for 20 years. I 
have been in a school almost all the time in Minnesota, about every 2 
weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. I desperately believe in the value of 
equal opportunity for every child. I absolutely believe education is 
the foundation of opportunity. I know from my 20 years as a college 
teacher that you can take a spark of learning in a child and if you 
ignite that spark of learning and you can take a child from any 
background to a lifetime of creativity and accomplishment. That is the 
best thing about the United States of America. I also know you can pour 
cold water on that spark of learning.
  I have raised two objections to this piece of legislation, but I 
think this legislation can be improved upon and can end up being a 
good, strong, bipartisan effort. Maybe. One of those concerns is, for 
God's sake, if you are going to do the testing, you better give the 
children and the teachers and the schools the tools so they can do 
well. That is the Federal Government living up to our commitment by way 
of resources. That is holding us accountable.
  The other issue I raise, which is what this amendment speaks to, is 
let's just do the testing the right way. There is a reaction all over 
the country about too much of a reliance on one single standardized 
test. You have to have multiple measures. Let's make sure the tests 
actually are connected to the curriculum and to the instruction that is 
taking place, that is respectful of our teachers and our local school 
districts. Let's make sure the tests assess the progress of a child 
over a period of time.
  I have been taking all of the best research and all of what we have 
implied in this bill, language we already have in this bill, making it 
explicit that we are going to do this the right way; that we are going 
to make sure that States and school districts can do this the right 
way.
  There could not be a more important amendment. I am sorry that some 
of my presentation was so technical and seemed so cut-and-dried. But if 
we do this the wrong way, we will have worksheet teaching and worksheet 
education. We will have drill education. It is going to be training, 
but it is not really going to be education. It is not going to fire the 
imagination. Then arts gets dropped and music gets dropped and social 
studies gets dropped and drama gets dropped--because none of it is 
tested in this drill education. My God, we do not want to do that. We 
do not want to channel schools down that direction. We do not want to 
force them to go in that direction.

  This amendment makes sure that this testing--if this is the path we 
are going down, using this definition of accountability--is done the 
right way.
  If my colleagues think about their own States, they will see what is 
happening. A lot of the teachers and kids around the country, actually 
mainly in the suburbs, are now rebelling against these standardized 
tests. They hate them. Some are refusing to take them, because the 
parents in the suburbs are saying we don't want one-third of the time 
of the teachers who could be involved in great education wasted just 
teaching to these tests. It is interesting from where the rebellion is 
coming.
  Again, one more time: The very school districts which are the most 
underserved are the ones where you want to get the best teachers. I 
have two children in public education. One is in an inner-city school, 
the other isn't, but both hate this reliance on single standardized 
tests. You are not going to get the teachers. I would not teach under 
this kind of situation, and you would not.
  If the Federal Government is going to have this mandate, for God's 
sake, let's do it the right way.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. There is no 
time limit, I gather, on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased today to discuss the Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act, the BEST Act. We can never 
have too much debate on education. It is the future of our country.
  This legislation achieves the simple yet powerful goal of ensuring no 
child is left behind. It does this by strengthening accountability for 
how Federal dollars are spent, by increasing students' access to 
technology, by improving teacher quality, and by making the schools 
safer for all students. It also fulfills an important commitment to 
States such as Wyoming that are already heavily invested in improving 
student achievement by allowing them the flexibility they need to 
continue to innovate.
  I want to address a series of amendments we have and will be 
offering. I will be concentrating on quality of teachers, but I want to 
mention that yesterday we had two sense-of-the-Senate amendments. I am 
not going to go into what those amendments were about, but I do want to 
mention that I voted against both of them. It had nothing to do with 
the content of each of the sense-of-the-Senate amendments. It was 
because it was a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  Sense-of-the-Senate amendments take a great deal of time, including 
if there are requested rollcall votes, which we know take 30 to 45 
minutes. When we are done, they get discarded because the sense of the 
Senate doesn't have anything to do with the House. So they are just 
making a statement, and we have a lot of different ways we can make a 
statement. Since I have not seen any value to a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment since I arrived in the Senate some 5 years ago, I will be 
voting against sense-of-the-Senate amendments.

  Sense-of-the-Senate amendments are often agreed to. It is because of 
a mixture of approaches to sense-of-the-Senate amendments. A number of 
my colleagues say: They never go anywhere, they don't mean anything, so 
I'll vote for them. Then I will have a good recorded vote.
  Some people turn in sense-of-the-Senate amendments so they can have a 
good recorded vote. I prefer to concentrate my efforts on those things 
that will wind up in a final bill, in final legislation that will 
affect the country, if we are going to have votes.
  Today we had a technology amendment. It passed on a 50-49 vote. 
Something people might not be aware of is that technology is built into 
the bill, but it is built in with a great deal of flexibility. The $100 
million to which we agreed pulled out money from the big technology 
pool and put it into a very specific area.
  Let me tell you what happens when that gets down to Wyoming. We don't 
have enough money to do a project. But if it is left in the big pool 
and we can utilize the technology as the school districts see fit, with 
a bigger pool of money, it can make a difference to every kid in 
Wyoming.
  We have to be very careful in this legislation that we do not put in 
little protections, because we were asked to, that destroy the 
flexibility of the bill. Flexibility is the key philosophy of this bill 
that allows the decisions to be made closest to the child and involve

[[Page S4531]]

the parent, the teacher, the school board, and the community. That is 
where education works best.
  The amendment before us now is on testing. I am not sure what all the 
fuss is about having some testing required. When I was in grade school, 
we had annual testing. I know the kinds of tests we had were called 
into question because they were multiple choice, which doesn't allow 
people their full expression. It puts some limitation on the value of 
the test as it comes out. But let me tell you, my parents looked at 
those results. They expected to see my results. They expected to see 
how it fit in with the rest of the class and the other students in the 
district who were in my grade. They used that as a comparison. I can 
tell you, if everybody had been off the chart, they would not have been 
pleased. They wanted to know how I was doing. That resulted in parent 
involvement, which we have said is one of the big keys to education.
  When I was in the Wyoming Legislature, I headed up an education task 
force at one point. It was interesting to hear teacher after teacher 
essentially say that the biggest problem they had in the classroom was 
getting kids to show up, do their work, and behave. That is basic 
education. The way it was handled when I was growing up was it was, 
again, parent involvement, discipline at home. If my teacher would have 
told my parents I did something wrong, the discipline would have 
happened first and then the explanation of why I felt justified. The 
teacher was right. I had an opportunity to appeal after the punishment 
because discipline in the classroom was important.
  When I was in fourth grade, I had the unique experience of being in a 
class that was half fourth graders and half fifth graders. We do not 
have a lot of class size problems in Wyoming. We definitely did not at 
that time. To have about 15 students in the class, they combined the 2 
classes. It gave those of us in the fourth grade a little added 
advantage because we were always hearing the things that the 
fifth graders were being taught at the point that their particular 
lessons were being taught.

  But I also had the unfortunate situation of living about a half block 
from the school. I had this delightful teacher who said: As soon as you 
finish your work, you can go out to recess. My dad happened to notice I 
was out at recess a lot. I was a fast worker. So he asked to see some 
of my work. When he checked it, he found out it was not correct. So we 
did a little discipline at that point, too.
  He found out I was writing extremely small and that made it difficult 
for the teacher to check my work. I do remember him saying I would 
never write small again. It embarrassed him. He could afford the paper, 
and it looked as if he could not, and he was not going to put up with 
that. And we moved. We moved to another school so I would not have the 
same opportunity for recess.
  My parents always said ``when you go to college.'' They didn't say 
``if you go to college.'' Parents make a huge impact on students by 
their faith in their child and their encouragement for their child.
  My dad was a traveling shoe salesman most of his life, and I got to 
travel with him in the summer. When we were making those trips, people 
would say: Are you going to grow up and be a salesman like your dad? 
Before I could answer, my dad would always jump into the conversation 
and say: I don't care whether he is a doctor or a lawyer or a shoe 
salesman or a ditch digger. But what I always tell him is, if he is a 
ditch digger, I want that ditch to be so distinctive that anybody can 
look at it and say, ``That is a Mike Enzi ditch.''

  Parental encouragement, parental faith--one of the unfortunate things 
for us around here is we can't legislate that. There are just some 
things that should not be legislated and can't be legislated. But they 
can be encouraged. Today we are talking about one of these things. We 
are talking about the subject of teachers, which we can do something 
about, and we are doing something about that in this bill.
  Some of the most important provisions in this bill concern our 
Nation's teachers. As we all know, one of our Nation's greatest 
educational resources is our teachers. Quite often our teachers spend 
more time with our kids than we do. I say this not only because my 
daughter is a teacher but because research has found that with the 
exception of the involved parent, no other factor affects a child's 
academic achievement more than having knowledgeable, skillful teachers.
  While I have been very interested in ongoing negotiations over some 
of the provisions in this bill, there is one area that is not 
negotiable, and that is ensuring that our children have high-quality 
teachers, especially when it comes to reading and math.
  I would like everybody to think back through their past to people who 
influenced them the most. I suspect as you go through that little 
exercise--I hope you will spend some time doing that--that many of the 
people who will be on your list will be former teachers, ones who had 
some kind of an influence on your life. I hope you will not only list 
them, but I hope if there are any who are living, you will write them a 
little note and mention the effect they had on your life.
  At this point I have to mention a couple that were my teachers.
  When I was in eighth grade I had a home room teacher who made us 
concentrate on where we were going to go to college and what we would 
take, and even had us follow a curriculum and write to colleges, get 
their course book, and outline the exact courses we would take through 
a 4-year college education in the field of our choice. I learned a 
great deal about how to plan for college.
  She also involved us in a lot of interesting discussions and later 
served in the State legislature with me. I have to mention that she 
quit teaching and became an administrator. After she retired, she ran 
for the State legislature. It was a great deal of fun to be in the 
State legislature with a former teacher, particularly one with a voice 
that attracts people's attention, gets their attention, and drives home 
a point. I always did like the way she started a speech just after I 
had spoken where she said: Mike Enzi was a student of mine, and he 
knows what he is talking about. Do what he says.
  You just can't have that kind of backing in legislation you are doing 
and with quite as much effect as she had.
  I had a math teacher in eighth grade, Mr. Shovelin. He introduced us 
to slide rules. Kids today don't know what slide rules are. He helped 
us form a future engineers club so we would be able to compete in math. 
He did anything he could do to get us excited about math. Teachers do 
that.
  Later I had Mr. Popovich in high school, another math teacher, who 
was probably the most enthusiastic teacher I ever had. He made sure 
that everybody in our math class understood each principle we covered, 
and he did that by asking questions. If you got it right, he was 
enthusiastic and jumped in the air. If we got it wrong, he was 
enthusiastic, and he would literally climb onto the chalk tray saying, 
No, that is not it, and giving another version of how it could be.

  I also liked his explanation of geometry. He said that is really the 
only course that you get in high school that is logic. Today, I think 
there are some courses that are actually logic courses. But he pointed 
out how geometry is logic, and approached it as the old Greeks did, 
trying to prove verbally and through pictures very basic concepts by 
starting out with the most basic and building on it.
  Mrs. Embry is a lady who is about 4-foot-nothing with bright red 
hair. She taught international affairs. I needed an elective, and I 
didn't think I would have any interest in it. Before I left high 
school, I applied for college at George Washington University and was 
planning to go into international affairs. She had a tremendous effect 
on my life. She also happened to be the lady who was part of the team 
that decoded the messages when Pearl Harbor was being bombed.
  Mrs. Sprague, an English teacher, had an impact on me. She said, 
``Why don't you use more humor in what you write? You do very well with 
humor.''
  One little sentence such as that changes a student's perspective on 
themselves and their future.
  There are thousands and thousands of teachers out there who are doing 
that every day.
  I am pleased that title II of S. 1 addresses the issue of teacher 
quality. Unlike more restrictive proposals that

[[Page S4532]]

require States and local school districts to use Federal funds 
exclusively for the purpose of hiring new teachers, this legislation 
provides maximum flexibility to States. It will allow them to develop 
high-quality, professional development programs, provide incentives to 
retain quality teachers, fund innovative teacher programs such as 
teacher testing, merit-based teacher performance systems, or 
alternative routes of certification, or hire additional teachers if 
that is what they believe is necessary.
  It would authorize a separate program to support math and science 
partnerships between State education agencies, higher education math 
and science departments and local school districts, and activities for 
these partnerships through the development of rigorous math and science 
curriculum; professional development activities specifically geared 
toward math and science teachers; recruitment efforts to encourage more 
college students majoring in math and science to enter the teaching 
profession and summer workshops; and follow-up training in the fields 
of math and science.
  When I was in junior high, Russia set off Sputnik. It launched a 
whole new interest in science in the United States. A group of boys, 
who were my friends, and I formed a rocket explorer post. It was the 
flexibility in the Boy Scout Program that allowed us to do career 
investigation.
  The reason I mention this is because I personally had a teacher named 
Tom Allen who was the biology teacher at the high school who worked 
with me on my special project. Many of us have seen the October Skies 
movie of young men who were encouraged by this great Russian event, and 
then the American challenge that was issued at that point. That is the 
group of people with whom I worked.
  This biology teacher worked with me to design a nose cone for our 
rocket that would take a mouse up and safely return it. We never put a 
mouse in the nose cone, but I designed space capsules for them, put 
mice in the capsule, spun them on a centrifuge, and then had to 
evaluate the way they came out of it.
  I learned a lot of math. I learned a lot of science. I learned a lot 
of biology. He was a special teacher.
  There are two teachers in Gillette, who are retiring now--Nello and 
Rollo Williams. They are brothers. One runs the planetarium. One of 
them runs the adventurium. The adventurium is a science lab that 
invites kids from all over northern Wyoming to do actual experiments 
and special projects. They can see a series of events that give them a 
better understanding of science. Each of them taught during the summers 
for science camps, kids doing extra school work, learning through extra 
special teachers.

  It isn't just limited to the generation that is retiring. My daughter 
is a teacher. She is part of the new generation. While she has been 
teaching, she has been working on two master's degrees so that she can 
be a better teacher, although one of those gets her a certificate in 
administration.
  I mentioned Mrs. Wright, who went to administration, Mr. Shovelin, 
who went to administration, and Mr. Popovich, who went to 
administration. My daughter is looking to go to administration. Part of 
the reason is that that is where the money is. All of those people 
liked their classroom work better and believed they made more of an 
impact on the kids as a teacher.
  My daughter emphasizes school-to-career. She does some of that summer 
teaching. When she finishes a major assignment, she calls the parents 
of the kids who did not turn in the assignment. That sounds fairly 
simple. Check and see how many teachers do that. If they don't, let me 
suggest to you the reason they don't. Her biggest discouragement was 
the first time she did it, and then she called us in tears. She called 
the parents, told them the assignment had not been turned in, and the 
parents said: So, what are you going to do about it?
  Not a very good parental involvement activity. But she persists in 
it.
  She also catches them doing things right, writes a note to their 
parents, and slips it in their book or their backpack, where sooner or 
later the child discovers it, and rather than delivering this missive 
to their parents, they open it first to see what it is, and find out 
that it is something good, and it does get delivered to the parents. 
But whatever she notes that they are doing well--better than anyone--
they do the rest of the year, perhaps the rest of their life.
  Teachers do have an impact. This bill will affect teachers. This bill 
does allow States to pursue alternative routes of certification, to 
encourage talented individuals from other fields to enter the teaching 
profession. There are many qualified individuals who might be willing 
to teach if it were easier to become certified.
  Although the Federal Government should never dictate certification 
standards to individual States, we should make it as easy as possible 
for interested States to recruit midcareer professionals, and perhaps 
retired members of the military, into the teaching profession. Title II 
of S. 1 goes a long way toward achieving that goal.
  Of course, it has some very good rural possibilities, too. I know of 
one very small community in Wyoming where there was a lady who grew up 
in France who had a good command of the French language. She wanted to 
teach French to the very few students--fewer than 15--who were in the 
school district. Sometimes certification can get in the way of that.
  I think we also need to bring professionals from all careers into the 
schools to help the kids understand that what they are learning will be 
valuable later in their life. I do not think I have ever learned 
anything that did not turn out to be valuable sometime later. Good 
teachers encourage that kind of participation.
  Despite all these efforts to improve teacher quality, there are some 
who say: All we really need to do to improve student achievement is to 
hire more teachers. I have to tell you, for small rural States such as 
Wyoming, that is not the answer. While I certainly recognize that our 
Nation is facing a teacher shortage in the coming years, Wyoming 
currently has a declining student enrollment which is forcing some 
districts to eliminate teaching positions. More money specifically 
earmarked for hiring new teachers will be of little help to the schools 
in those areas with declining enrollment.

  In addition, rural States such as Wyoming often have difficulty 
recruiting and retaining teachers, especially highly qualified 
teachers. Money that is earmarked for hiring new teachers will not help 
Wyoming keep our best teachers from leaving the State.
  Congress must provide States and local school districts the 
flexibility to pay good teachers more money or to provide them with 
other incentives in order to get them to continue teaching. This bill 
provides flexibility.
  I think it may be helpful to provide my colleagues with some hard 
data on Wyoming to illustrate that this is not simply lip service to a 
particular philosophy on education. The variations in education 
staffing needs across the country are real, and they are very dramatic.
  For example, Wyoming has 48 school districts, with a total of 378 
elementary and secondary schools. Here is the important part: Of those 
schools, 79 have an enrollment of fewer than 50 students. I am not 
talking of a classroom size of 50 students, I am talking of a total 
enrollment in the school of 50 students. I am not kidding when I say, 
in Wyoming 79 schools are defined as ``rural.''
  Then we have what we call the ``small schools.'' Those are the 
schools with an enrollment of 50 to 199 kids. There are 122 such 
schools in Wyoming. There are 143 ``medium-sized'' schools, with an 
enrollment ranging from 200 to 599 students. And we have a whopping 34 
schools with an enrollment exceeding 500 kids for grade school and 600 
kids for high school.
  Districts often have to incorporate several grade schools to form a 
big high school. Let me tell you, nothing gets the good people of 
Wyoming more agitated than suggestions that they ought to consolidate 
those small or rural schools into a medium-sized or big school. It 
takes away the community. It takes away the emphasis. It takes away the 
way we have done things in Wyoming.
  Now let me put this in context. The total enrollment in Wyoming's 378 
public schools was 91,883. That is 1999 data. In New York State, 2.8 
million children were enrolled in public school. That is

[[Page S4533]]

1997 data. So both of those would have changed a little.
  As for teachers in Wyoming, they are our heroes. There are 6,887 of 
them. Based on aggregate teacher salary expenditures reported for the 
State last year, the average salary of a teacher in Wyoming is just 
under $29,000. Those teachers are underpaid.
  This bill can do something about that. If we adopt the flexibility in 
title II of this bill, the teacher quality provision, then schools in 
Wyoming can use funds to give teachers a raise or reward outstanding 
teachers or provide incentives to recruit highly qualified teachers to 
our great State.
  When educators from Wyoming visit me, the resounding message is 
usually not: Make our schools and class sizes even smaller; it is: Help 
us recruit good teachers and keep good teachers--with a lot of emphasis 
on the ``keep good teachers,'' and the need for higher pay and 
flexibility.
  If you can believe it, there have been teachers hired in Wyoming 
under the Class Size Reduction Initiative that was appropriated but 
never authorized for the past 2 years. If they so choose, the schools 
that hired those teachers can retain them under this bill. However, the 
question I ask, on behalf of all the schools that were not eligible for 
that money because they already had small school size, is: Are the 
struggles they face in recruiting and retaining quality teachers any 
less important in ensuring that every child receives a quality 
education?

  Do not forget the variations in this country, the fact that we cannot 
have one-size-fits-all Government. When it comes from Washington, it is 
too little, with too many regulations. We are not suggesting it ought 
to be more, with more regulations.
  The research shows that while a small class size may have an effect 
on student performance and achievement, having a highly qualified 
teacher has an even greater impact. That was shown in a study by 
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain in 1998. And, according to the Department of 
Education's National Center for Education Statistics, we still need to 
invest in figuring out how to best help current and new teachers to be 
highly qualified. Massachusetts provided the perfect example of that, 
that assisting schools in having great teachers is as important, if not 
more so, than meeting federally targeted class size goals.
  I hope this background about Wyoming's uniquely rural public 
education system, juxtaposed on that of ``big'' States, can help my 
colleagues to appreciate why the flexibility in this bill is so 
important to meeting the needs of all our children.
  I will not see a bill enacted that doesn't provide as much support 
for Wyoming students' success as it does for the students in big 
cities. Our children are our most valuable resource, and we must 
prepare them to face the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot do 
this by allowing Washington politicians to implement a one-size-fits-
all approach to education.
  The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act allows States to 
decide how to best serve their students and teachers. I strongly 
support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same, 
and to maintain the flexibility that it has.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Wyoming for sharing his good judgment and observation about education 
in rural areas, States with smaller populations, and about their 
particular needs and the challenges they are facing in terms of 
strengthening teacher quality in those communities. We are grateful for 
his comments.
  I add my strong support to the amendment offered by my good friend 
Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, making sure the tests that are 
developed under this legislation are going to be the kinds of tests 
that are going to be helpful and useful in terms of advancing the 
academic achievement of the children in this country.
  We know tests in and of themselves are not reform. Tests don't 
provide a well-qualified teacher. Tests don't provide smaller class 
sizes. Tests don't provide afterschool programs. Tests, in and of 
themselves, are a device and only a device.
  In Lancaster, PA, we have seen tests used as frequently as every 9 
weeks by teachers. The purpose of those tests is to find out how the 
children are making progress in different courses. They have had a 
remarkable amount of success because they are broad dimensioned. They 
are challenging the thinking process of the children. It demonstrates 
that when the tests are done well, not just in the kinds of tests, the 
multiple choice tests, but ones that really evaluate the children's 
progress and look at the thinking process of the child, and then takes 
action, it is going to be supplementary services for those children in 
order to enhance their academic achievement, then there is legitimacy 
in terms of these kinds of evaluations.

  I commend the Senator from Minnesota for bringing this measure to the 
floor. This has been a matter, among others, that he has been 
absolutely passionate about. It is well deserved.
  What we don't want to do is pass legislation that claims we are doing 
something about accountability and are relying on the slick, simple, 
easy multiple choice tests which are being taught by teachers in 
different communities and then think we are doing something for 
children. We are not. That is something the Senator wants to address.
  There are some wonderful studies that have been done in evaluating 
what is working and what is not working in the States and local 
communities. The statement of the Research and Policy Committee of the 
Committee for Economic Development is a very interesting evaluation of 
the effectiveness of evaluating students, measuring student 
achievement. It reviews in great detail what is being done. They start 
off by saying that tests are a means, not an end, in school reform.

       Real educational improvement requires changing what goes on 
     in classrooms.

  It continues from there.
  Perhaps one of the more interesting comments came from Education 
Week, which also has been doing evaluations of the testing process. I 
will mention a paragraph here:

       Districts must draft policies that rely on multiple 
     criteria, including test scores, student's academic 
     performance, and teacher recommendations.

  That is how they think you can do the best kinds of evaluation of a 
child.
  ``Initially I was resistant to the use of multiple criteria,'' 
acknowledges Gary Cook, director of the Office of Education 
Accountability in the State education department. This is in the State 
of Wisconsin.

       I have changed my opinion. I think it really forces 
     districts to consider all the pieces of evidence in a 
     student's performance to determine whether they should 
     advance to the next grade or graduate. We need something more 
     than just whether the child is going to be able to get the 
     right answer or guess at the right answer. We need to 
     evaluate how the children get to the answer.

  That is the essence of the Wellstone amendment. He has explained it 
very well.
  I know there are other colleagues who want to address the issue. I 
commend him.
  We have enough experience now to know what doesn't work and what is 
an abuse of the whole testing process and what does work and can be 
used in evaluating children's progress so that well-trained teachers in 
classrooms that are small enough so they can teach and can use these 
tests in ways to help children make progress during the year, 
understanding what the needs are of those children, and so they can 
continue to make progress.
  That is the essence of the Senator's amendment. He is right on 
target. It is one of the most important aspects of this legislation. 
This is one of the most important amendments we have. Many of us have 
been thinking about how to try to address it. The Senator from 
Minnesota has, in his typical way, found a pathway to do it.
  I commend him and thank him. This is an extraordinary addition to 
what we are attempting to do with the legislation. I am grateful to him 
for his bringing this to our attention. I am hopeful we will be able to 
achieve it.

  Let me mention one other evaluation. This is using these portfolio 
assessments. Here students collect what they have done over a period of 
time, not just because it is helpful to have all that material in one 
place but because the process of choosing what to

[[Page S4534]]

include and deciding how long to evaluate becomes an opportunity for 
them to reflect on their past learning as well as to set new goals.
  As in other forms of performance assessment, they provide data far 
more meaningful than what would be learned from a conventional test, 
standardized or otherwise, about what the student can do and where they 
still need help. This is the conclusion of an evaluation of a number of 
the existing tests. It really captures in a few short words what is 
being sought by the Senator from Minnesota. I again thank him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be brief. I thank the Senator 
from Massachusetts for his very gracious remarks.
  To summarize: What this amendment says is there is three critical 
ingredients about this testing to make sure that it is reliable, to 
make sure it is fair, and that it is accurate. One of those ingredients 
is that it is comprehensive. You want to use multiple measures. You do 
not want to use one single standardized test to evaluate how students 
are doing or how schools are doing or how a school district is doing.
  The second thing is, you want it to be coherent. You want the testing 
to actually measure the curriculum, the subject matter that is being 
taught. You want there to be a connection. You don't want, in turn, 
teachers to have to teach to standardized tests that have no relation 
to the subject matter.
  It is critically important. This is what the Committee on Economic 
Development was trying to say in their report. The final thing is that 
it should be continuous and it should measure the progress of a child 
over a period of time. That is terribly important to do.
  I want to, one more time, say to colleagues that I guarantee you that 
if we don't have this language that just makes explicit what I think 
all of us are in agreement on, which is that this testing should be 
based upon the very best professional standards, then what you are 
going to have is teachers all over the country having to teach to 
standardized tests. It is going to be drill education, educationally 
deadening. It is going to be horrible for kids. It is not going to fire 
their imagination. It is going to be at cross-purposes to getting 
people to go into education.
  A great deal is at stake. I hope to have support and I appreciate the 
support of the Senator from Massachusetts. I hope I will have support 
from the other side of the aisle and that we will pass this amendment. 
The two concerns I have had about the legislation when we went through 
committee--I say to the Senator, when we marked up the bill, this was 
one question. The other is the resource question.
  At the very minimum, I think it is terribly important to do this the 
right way. If I could, I am speaking from this desk, and I will move to 
my desk. If I may have the floor for one more second, let me just also 
list a number of the organizations that are supporting this. They 
are: the American Association of School Administrators, Hispanic 
Education Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, National 
Parent Teacher Association, National Hispanic Leadership Agency 
Scorecard, and the American Psychological Association.

  There are a variety of organizations around the country that support 
it. So I hope this amendment will engender widespread support and that 
the Senate will pass this amendment. I think it will make it a much 
better bill. I don't think it is the whole answer. It deals with part 
of the testing legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am a big believer in the importance of 
testing students. I think that testing has an essential and appropriate 
role in the curriculum of any educational system. I think there is no 
doubt that we have to test in order to determine whether or not 
students are meeting high academic standards. It would be a delight, I 
suppose, to most students who think that we are not going to test them 
but, indeed, we are.
  I think this debate and what the Senator from Minnesota is attempting 
to bring our attention to is that there are ``tests'' and there are 
``tests.'' Making sure that the tests are used for the purpose of 
measuring student performance, determining what kind of additional help 
a student might need, is really what we are focused on through the 
Senator's amendment.
  I appreciated very much Chairman Jeffords' important amendment that 
we voted on last week to make sure we have Federal support, financial 
support, behind the design and implementation of these tests because we 
want to send a clear message to States and local districts that we 
believe in accountability, but we want to put some dollars behind that 
belief by saying we want you to design and implement tests that are 
going to really measure what students learn.
  Right now, many teachers who contact my office, or the ones I see 
when I visit schools, as I did on Monday in New York City, are terribly 
concerned that what might very well happen is that more and more 
testing will be piled on without there being any requirement that they 
be worthwhile tests and without the resources to assist the teachers--
who, after all, are on the front lines in the classrooms--in knowing 
how best to address the needs of their students that are revealed by 
the tests.
  I was very impressed by this document put out by the Committee for 
Economic Development. My colleagues know that the Committee for 
Economic Development is a group of business people in our country. They 
are very committed to creating the conditions that will further 
economic development, and they know that one of the key conditions, if 
not the most important one, is the quality of our education. Looking at 
the board of trustees and the Committee for Economic Development, we 
have people from the leading corporations in America who see firsthand 
what their employees need when they come into the workplace, who are on 
the front lines of hiring people for a job. They have put out a 
publication that I really commend to my colleagues, to the 
administration, and to all of us who are concerned about using testing 
to improve student learning. It is called ``Measuring What Matters.'' 
It makes many of the same points that Senator Wellstone makes.
  It might be somewhat surprising for some of the people who serve on 
the board of trustees for the Committee for Economic Development to 
know that they agree with Senator Wellstone, but they do. They agree 
that what we need are tests that will actually improve student 
learning. That certainly is what the intent of the bill that we 
reported out of the Health Committee under Chairman Jeffords' 
leadership was aimed at doing. How do we make it clear that tests are a 
means, they are not an end, in school reform. We don't just give the 
tests and pick out winners and losers. We have never done that in the 
United States--one of the reasons our educational system is both unique 
and successful and has been for decades despite our problems, which we 
talk about endlessly. We should look at some of the reasons why we have 
been successful.

  I would rank near the top of that the flexibility of our educational 
system. We don't give a test when a child is 11 years old and say, all 
right, this group of children, you are consigned to a certain set of 
occupations; this other group, you did well on the 11-year-old test, so 
we are going to send you to different schools and put you on a 
different path.
  We don't test when children are 14 and make that conclusion. We don't 
say that there are some children who can only attend certain kinds of 
courses in certain schools and others are barred because of tests. We 
don't have the kind of one-test determination that opens the doors or 
shuts them in colleges in other parts of the world. I think that has 
served us well in our country.
  There are a lot of people who don't take school seriously until they 
are in high school. Sometimes they graduate and maybe then find their 
way to a community college. Then they really get energized; they know 
what they want to learn. So we have always viewed tests not as a stop 
sign for a child the system holds up and says: You are a loser; you 
don't know anything. We use them to say: Look, we

[[Page S4535]]

need to help. How can we provide more support for you to be able to get 
the most out of your education?
  I think it is important for us to remember that tests are not an end; 
they are a means. They should be a means toward lifelong learning or 
improving the climate for learning or for giving individuals the tools 
they need to be successful, not just in the classroom but in life.
  It is also important, as the Committee for Economic Development 
points out, that tests need to be valid and reliable and equitable. 
There should not be any doubt that I think any good test would meet 
those three criteria. First of all, validity: Are we measuring what we 
intend to measure? If we spend the whole year teaching children one set 
of facts or studying one set of subjects and we test on something else, 
that is not a valid test. So we need to make sure that what we measure 
is what we are teaching, and what we are teaching is in some way 
reflective of the standards of what we expect from our educational 
system.
  Reliability is also a given. How consistent and dependable are the 
assessment results? Are these tests that teachers and parents and 
students and community leaders can depend on because they really 
reflect what we want our children to know?
  Finally, are they equitable tests? That doesn't mean there are two 
standards, one for certain children who live in affluent suburbs and 
one for children who live in our poorest neighborhoods. No, if we are 
doing anything with this effort, it is to try to make sure we combine 
both excellence and equity and we do everything possible to give the 
opportunities where they are most needed.
  We know we have to be very careful that our tests are fair, that they 
have no sign of bias toward any group of students. We need the help the 
Federal Government should provide if they are going to stand behind the 
regimen of testing we are considering in this bill.
  We also need to be sure, if we are going to be using tests, that we 
get timely results. I offered an amendment in the committee. If tests 
are going to be given, the results ought to be available in 30 days and 
no more. What is the point of giving a test in April and you get the 
results in June or July when the children have gone home or may not get 
them until the following year?
  We should have a sensible testing schedule, and we should require 
that the results be provided in a timely manner to parents, students, 
and especially our teachers if they are going to be used for diagnostic 
purposes and to measure and grade the curriculum as well as the 
children.
  There are a lot of tests that are currently being administered. We 
give tests for everything now. We give tests for graduation. We give 
tests for promotion. We ought to be sensible about this. If the Federal 
Government, through our actions in the Congress and the administration, 
are going to say we want a test every year from third to eighth grade 
to determine how effective our children are learning reading and 
mathematics, then States have to take a hard look at what else they are 
testing because it is getting so that many of our schools feel they are 
spending all their time preparing for tests, administering tests, and 
grading tests. We have to be sure the tests are appropriate in number 
as well as content.
  I also hope as we move forward on this important education debate 
that we recognize that accountability for students and teachers is best 
tied to school performance. I go into schools all the time that are 
literally within blocks of each other. Some are very successful and 
some are not. A lot of it has to do with how the school is organized 
and what their priorities are. I hope the testing we are discussing to 
be implemented in this bill will help us move entire schools toward 
better outcomes so that we lift up the performance of a school and 
create the atmosphere that will be conducive to learning and teaching.
  One thing that bothers me, though, is that in our rush for tests and 
in our implementation of so many tests, a lot of schools are finding it 
impossible to keep the more well-rounded curriculum that has been the 
hallmark of American education.
  I believe music, art, physical education, extracurricular activities, 
even field trips, are a part of the educational process. What I hear 
from so many schools in my State is that the tests take up so much 
time. The costs of the tests and all that goes with the tests mean that 
a lot of other important educational objectives are being eliminated.
  I hope we take a view of testing that puts it into the context of 
American education generally. I take a back seat to no one in saying 
education has to be a local responsibility and a national priority. I 
have had experience in advocating for testing.
  I believe I was the first person in the country who advocated testing 
teachers, using high-stakes tests. I even recommended schools be based 
on their performance in how many students they could bring up to grade 
level. But I am very cautious--and I guess I am putting up a caution 
light--that we not go so much toward testing as the definition of 
education that we forget what the learning process is and how 
unique the American education system is where people can literally wake 
up in 10th grade or 12th grade or a child can be exposed to art or 
music or some other part of the curriculum, such as a good science lab 
in the eighth grade, and all of a sudden learning becomes real and they 
are not consigned to a second-class citizenship because they did not 
get into gear before that time.

  We are starting to see, with our high-stakes testing in New York, a 
lot of dropouts. We are worried we are beginning to see an increase in 
dropouts. We have to take that seriously. Our goal is not to test 
children for the sake of testing, then telling them they do not measure 
up, and then holding them back for the sake of holding them back until 
they become so frustrated and discouraged they leave the educational 
system. I do not think that is the goal of any of us in this Chamber.
  Our goal is to have an accountability system so that we actually know 
what is being taught and what our children are learning, and use it for 
diagnostic purposes to make every child a success.
  Raising the caution lights that the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota raises is important for us to think about. I will add one 
additional caution light. I guess that is the biggest issue of all for 
me, and that is the resources. I am very concerned, as I will state 
when we come to this in the days ahead, about the budget. We have been 
promised it will leave no child behind and will provide the resources 
for extra testing, to deal with special ed, to deal with more resources 
for our poorest children, to add teachers so we have lower class sizes, 
to modernize classrooms. I am worried that none of that will be in the 
budget.
  That puts many of us in a very difficult position because we know 
that accountability is necessary, but we also know that resources in 
our poorest schools are an absolute necessary condition for a lot of 
our kids to be successful.
  I enjoyed listening to the Senator from Wyoming talk about the very 
small school districts of fewer than 50 children. I have some very fond 
memories of districts that small in Arkansas. I remember going to 
graduating classes of three and four children. That is a very different 
and wonderful educational experience. I hope we never get away from 
that in our country; that we do have schools that are that small in 
States from Wyoming to upstate New York.
  I come from a State that has some different kinds of problems. I have 
a school system with a million children. I have school systems, such as 
that of Buffalo, where the school stock is so old they cannot wire them 
for computers because the buildings were built like forts.
  I visited a school called the Black Rock Academy that was built in 
1898, last renovated in 1920. They are bewildered about what to do. 
They cannot figure out how to get those computers set up. They have 
wires coming up, going in a window, into a little room. They have about 
30 computers, only 10 of which can be connected to the Internet. That 
is the best they can do under the circumstances. Buffalo has 
undertaken, using State dollars and local dollars, a tremendous school 
renovation and modernization program.
  Our needs in New York are different than the needs of the small 
districts in Wyoming. I hope we are going to look

[[Page S4536]]

at all of our children from coast to coast and all of our local school 
districts to figure out what we can do to make everybody successful. 
Resources are key. It is more difficult to provide education in remote 
rural areas and in very concentrated poor areas in our inner cities. We 
need a bill and we need the resources in the bill that empower local 
communities to make the decisions that are best for them.

  There is a wonderful menu of opportunities in the bill where people 
can choose professional development or technology, but we would really 
be selling our children short if we do not also include lower class 
size and school modernization because in the absence of some Federal 
help on those two issues, much of what we want to achieve is going to 
be very difficult and beyond the reach of many of our districts, even 
those that are making a good-faith effort, such as Buffalo, to deal 
with a very old stock of schools.
  I kid some of my colleagues. We were educating people in some 
communities in New York before some of the States represented in this 
body were States. We were building schools before a lot of people had 
to build schools because of the centuries of history in New York. We 
have some of those schools that have been around a very long time.

  Good education can and does occur in those schools. But the 
conditions are worsening to the point where, as I said the other day, 
we have concrete falling out of a ceiling, hitting a teacher on the 
head. We have overcrowded classrooms. If we are going to be seeking 
both excellence and equity, we have to do more to provide the resources 
all districts need to do the job they want to do for their children.
  This is a very important issue that goes right to the heart of this 
budget. I, along with many of my colleagues, was very disturbed to 
learn there was no increase for education in the budget coming back 
from the House. This body voted in a bipartisan way for important 
measures that were attached to the budget. This was not just about 
numbers; it was about values, the value of making sure we put the 
dollars into our education system and many other important priorities, 
from defense to food safety.
  The budget coming back does not reflect that. It does not reflect the 
flexibility for the dollars that will be needed to do what we have 
already voted for in the Senate.
  I was very proud of the vote that said we need to fund special 
education. It is about as close as we can get to a mandate. A lot of 
school districts are under tremendous pressure because they cannot 
afford to do what they need to do. I was proud of this body for voting 
to fully fund title I. That was a values statement. It said our values 
are that we will invest in our poorest children. I was proud of our 
chairman's amendment that if the Federal Government puts this 
requirement of testing on our districts, the Federal Government should 
help to pay for the development and implementation of those tests.
  This body, in a bipartisan way, made some very important values 
statements about education--not that we were just going to pass a bill 
that sounded good but one that could actually produce results. I am 
very pleased that at least in the Senate we are crafting a bill that I 
think will make a difference in the lives of our children. If we 
continue on this path, it could revolutionize education across our 
country. But it cannot be seen in isolation from the budget which, 
after all, carries the resources that will determine whether we have 
anything other than an empty promise.
  I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to what we are trying to 
do in this Chamber and to look for ways to work with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to make sure it is real.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate the comments and excellent statement.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 384

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority 
wants to go to the McConnell amendment, so I call up the McConnell 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Kentucky is 
offering an amendment that has merit. I do believe, however, that it 
needs some improvement. I believe the amendment of the Senator from 
Kentucky leaves a big void. It doesn't do anything to protect teachers. 
And, most importantly, it doesn't do anything to protect students and 
parents who have corporal punishment administered to them either 
legally or illegally.
  For example, the National Education Association, which represents 
almost 3 million teachers and other educational employees, has grave 
concerns about the McConnell amendment. Specifically, the National 
Education Association is concerned the amendment will lead to increased 
incidents of corporal punishment.
  There are many instances where we have to take a look at corporal 
punishment which is administered legally in many States. Take, for 
example, a situation in Zwolle, LA. A story out of the New York Times a 
few days ago indicates a young girl was brutally beaten--legally, 
supposedly--in the school. In fact, the story states:

       Laid out on the kitchen table, the snapshots of 10-year-old 
     Megan make a grim collage. They are not of her sweet face, 
     but of her bare behind. There are 12 in all, taken, her 
     mother says, day by day, as the doughnut-shaped bruises on 
     each cheek faded from a mottled purple to a dirty gray.

  Megan's father, Robert, recalls that when he first saw the bruises 
hours after she was paddled by her school principal for elbowing a 
friend in the cafeteria, he collapsed on the floor, crying. ``It hurt 
me more than it hurt Megan,'' Robert said. ``You don't hit on my 
baby.''
  Megan, a fourth grader, whose name appears more often on the honor 
roll than on a referral slip at the principal's office, is one of 
millions of public school students still subject to corporal 
punishment. In March, her family joined a small but apparently growing 
number to stop Megan's beating.
  One of her classmates, a boy by the name of DeWayne Ebarb, is a 
hyperactive child who has been paddled regularly throughout his time at 
this elementary school. In the last 8 weeks, he has been paddled 17 
times. This is a small town of some 2,000. People are wondering what is 
going on.
  I think we should be concerned in Washington what we perhaps are 
laying a stamp of approval on if we allow this amendment to pass as it 
is written.
  Mr. President, 27 States have banned corporal punishment. The first 
was New Jersey back in 1887. Then came Massachusetts, a century later, 
in 1971. There was a crusade in effect started by a man name Robert 
Fathman from Ohio, president of the National Coalition to Abolish 
Corporal Punishment. You can't whack a prisoner, but you can whack a 
kindergarten child. The state of the law by the U.S. Supreme Court 
allows people who teach and train children in schools to beat them, but 
prisoners cannot be touched. It seems a strange little quirk in the 
law.
  In some communities, the activities to allow a student to be whipped 
or spanked is approved in the law.
  Since Mr. Fathman started his crusade in 1984 after his own daughter 
landed on the painful end of a paddle, five States have adopted bans. 
One of those States is the State of Nevada which banned corporal 
punishment in 1993. West Virginia acted in 1994. The number of 
paddlings around the country is in the millions. In 1980, it was 1.4 
million; it is now down to half a million students beaten each year. We 
have to look at those children who are beaten. It seems it is quite 
clear that black students are 2.5 times as likely to be struck as white 
students, a reflection of what researchers have long found to be more 
frequent and harsher discipline for members of minorities.
  Court challenges have been largely unsuccessful, including a 1977 
decision by the Supreme Court rejecting the notion that paddling is 
cruel and unusual punishment. A decade later, an appeals court ruled 
that a New Mexico girl held upside down and beaten had been denied due 
process, signifying school officials could be held liable for severe 
beatings. But this has been rare.
  The vast preponderance of lawsuits challenging the use of corporal 
punishment are unsuccessful, says Charles Vergone, a professor at 
Youngstown State University, who has been studying this issue for 15 
years.
  I hope that my friend from Kentucky, the distinguished senior 
Senator, will accept an amendment I will

[[Page S4537]]

offer which, in effect, basically would have corporal punishment not 
apply to this amendment. This, in effect, would not give a stamp of 
approval to corporal punishment.
  I think the instances pointed out during the discussion I heard from 
the Senator from Kentucky raise some interesting points: one case about 
the cheerleader who was asked to run a lap. I don't know all the facts 
of that case. From what the Senator from Kentucky outlined, it does not 
seem fair that she was still allowed to cheer on the night that she was 
supposed to have been reprimanded for not following the instructions of 
her coach. I don't know all the facts, but from what I heard it appears 
there is some validity to that.
  Also, the long narrative with which the Senator from Kentucky led his 
discussion, dealing with the student who actually tried to do physical 
harm, maybe even kill one of his teachers, wound up going to court. I 
think there is some merit to what the Senator from Kentucky outlined. 
That is what I think would still be available if the amendment I will 
offer in a short time were accepted.
  We have teachers who talk about having been in areas where they 
didn't have the right to paddle and they didn't paddle, but they say if 
you have the right to paddle it becomes the punishment of choice. It 
makes it easier. Emily Williams, in rural Mississippi, said when she 
arrived from Williams College last year, one of the fine universities 
in America, she was horrified to hear teachers striking students in the 
hallways, classrooms, and cafeteria. But soon she was doing it herself. 
We are told that a number of teachers, in effect, brag about the fact 
that they can beat their students.
  I started this discussion about 10-year-old Megan who was beaten. If 
she had gone to law enforcement authorities and showed them her rear 
end with all the bruises and contusions on it and said, ``This was done 
by my mother or father,'' very likely the juvenile authorities would 
have stepped in and been involved in the care and custody of Megan. But 
because it was done by a teacher and that is legal, nothing has been 
done or will be done.
  If you look at corporal punishment, which a few years ago numbered 
1.2 million and is now over 600,000, we recognize there is a real 
problem. We need not get into Biblical references. ``Spare the rod and 
spoil the child,'' that is one saying to which people always refer. One 
police chief said, ``The Lord said, `Spare the rod and spoil the 
child,' and I think he knows a lot more than those bleeding heart 
liberals.'' I am sure that is probably true, that he does, but there is 
a time and place for everything. We have to be very careful to make 
sure anything we do here does not, in effect, support something that is 
not good for children.
  As I have indicated, the National Education Association policy 
opposes the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining 
students. There are no studies that have found that paddling, the most 
prevalent form of corporal punishment, improves school discipline. To 
the contrary, Dr. Irving Heiman of Temple University has found it is a 
detriment to children learning.
  The National Education Association believes there are better ways to 
establish and maintain control, including reducing class sizes. Of 
course, we are going to debate that, as we have. The debate has not 
been completed.
  There is an amendment pending by Senator Murray to deal with reducing 
class size. I think everyone acknowledges that would be a sensible 
thing to do, to make discipline better. Smaller classes enable teachers 
to give students more individualized attention and to better control 
classroom activities. Recent studies have documented reductions in 
classroom disruptions as a result of class size reduction. I don't 
think we need a study to show us that if we have smaller classes, there 
are going to be fewer disruptions.

  I hope we will take a positive look at the amendment I will offer 
shortly. The Teacher Liability Protection Act which is the name of the 
act, which now, to my understanding, is in the form of an amendment, 
would immunize negligent teachers, principals, and administrators when 
their misconduct injures students. Not only would this measure make 
teachers unaccountable to parents, it would preempt the laws of all 50 
States with little or no justification for such a sweeping exercise of 
Federal control.
  I do not think there is any need to create a special Washington-
knows-best immunity for principals, teachers, and administrators. The 
States, which for more than two centuries have had dominion over tort 
law, already have ample protections in place for teachers and 
administrators. Washington should not dictate policy to State courts 
and administrators, and it should not dictate policy to the local 
school boards.
  As I said, I don't know all the facts dealing with the cheerleader 
case that was mentioned by the Senator from Kentucky, but even though I 
may disagree with the decision made by the court--I would still like to 
know the facts--I also say the court had the right to make that 
judgment.
  In the State of Nevada, judges are looked at very closely, the reason 
being judges in Nevada run for election. They cannot, in effect, thumb 
their nose at public opinion. As a result of that, I think judges in 
Nevada generally do an excellent job of determining what the law should 
be. But they are totally aware of what is going on in the public, and I 
would say the same applies to the cheerleader case where she refused to 
run laps. We need to know all those facts.
  The American Federation of Teachers indicates there is no crisis. In 
effect, the American Federation of Teachers challenges whether legal 
immunity is really needed. I don't think the fear of lawsuits is 
keeping teachers from doing their jobs.
  As I said, I think there is some merit to the amendment of the 
Senator from Kentucky. That is why I think the best thing to do is 
offer a second-degree amendment to that, to take away from that, in 
effect, the approval of corporal punishment, which is in keeping with 
many States in the United States.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right 
to the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I do not seek to have the Senator lose his right to 
the floor, but just to make certain the Senator understands my 
amendment neither promotes nor condones corporal punishment. I don't 
know what second-degree amendment the Senator plans to offer. If he 
would be willing to discuss it prior to sending it forward, it may be 
we could agree to it. As I will make clear when I regain the floor 
after the Senator finishes speaking, my amendment has nothing to do 
with corporal punishment. I am sorry the Senator from Nevada may have 
interpreted it otherwise. I think I can make it clear to his 
satisfaction that it is wholly unrelated to that subject. And I might 
well be interested in supporting the second-degree if I can take a look 
at it.
  The purpose of this amendment is to leave that matter strictly up to 
the States. The Federal Government would not either support or oppose 
corporal punishment.
  Mr. REID. The problem with that--I will be happy to share the 
amendment with the Senator, and I am confident and hopeful he will 
approve it--is the fact that the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kentucky, as I understand it, said basically that teachers and 
administrators will not be sued for basic, simple negligence, but they 
can be sued for gross negligence.
  Is that the underlying import of the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think pursuant to State law. What we are seeking not 
to do is to replace State law on this subject.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate that. That is my point and my problem. If a 
teacher spanks, beats--whatever the term we want to use--a student, he 
is doing that under the confines, and under the direction of the State 
law, in effect. What we want to say is that any acts of teachers that 
are negligent that do not apply to their administering corporal 
punishment, we agree with the Senator from Kentucky. I don't think 
there is any hindrance on our part of State law. If the State has 
corporal punishment, fine. The State of Nevada outlawed corporal 
punishment in 1993. But that was up to the State legislature. I didn't 
do that.


                 Amendment No. 421 To Amendment No. 384

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

[[Page S4538]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 421 to amendment No. 384.

  Mr. REID. 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 limit the teacher liability protections in this bill for 
teachers who strike a child to those situations in which such action is 
   necessary to maintain order and in which a parent or guardian has 
            provided recent written consent to such actions)

       On page 4, line 23, insert a comma after (b), strike 
     ``and'' and insert ``and (d)'' after (c).
       On page 6, line 6, insert a new subsection (c), as follows, 
     and renumber accordingly:
       ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply 
     to any action of a teacher that involves the striking of a 
     child, including, but not limited to paddling, whipping, 
     spanking, slapping, kicking, hitting, or punching of a child, 
     unless such action is necessary to control discipline or 
     maintain order in the classroom or school and unless a parent 
     or legal guardian of that child has given written consent to 
     the teacher prior to the striking of the child and during the 
     school year in which the striking incident occurs.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. To move the process along, will the Senator object if we 
are able to dispose of the Wellstone amendment while the Senators are 
talking, with the recognition that the Senator from Kentucky would be 
next on the matter after the conclusion of the Wellstone amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would appreciate it if we would withhold on that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. There has been a special reservation of that proceeding.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friends from Massachusetts and Kentucky that I 
would be happy to do that. We want to move to another amendment. I 
wanted to confer with the Senator from Kentucky, but we were told that 
is what the majority wanted. That is why I called up the amendment 
without the opportunity of giving it to the Senator. I submitted the 
amendment. I have other things to say. I could do that at a later time. 
I simply ask my friend from Kentucky and the majority manager of the 
bill to take a look at this amendment. If there are problems with it, 
tell us. We will talk some more about it on both sides.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I guess the understanding is that we 
would move forward on Wellstone, and then come back to the McConnell 
amendment in the second degree by agreement. Is that what we are 
talking about?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that earlier there 
was an agreement that the Wellstone amendment would be accepted. I 
guess that is no longer the case. We are now on the amendment of the 
Senator from Kentucky. I ask if the Senator would consider a quorum 
call for a few minutes. The McConnell amendment is the business before 
the Senate now. We can go to anything else without unanimous consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it would be my preference that we stay 
on the McConnell amendment in the second degree by Senator Reid, and, 
if it is all right with the manager, go into a quorum call to be able 
to work this out and go forward. Therefore, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has offered an 
alternative that I think is in keeping with what we have tried to 
accomplish. I think it is something that would make his amendment 
better. It is something named after Senator Coverdell; something 
Senator Coverdell would appreciate, especially in the fashion that it 
was done.
  Paul Coverdell, as you know, was a great conciliator, was great at 
mediating problems. I expect perhaps the spirit of Paul Coverdell was 
involved in this because I think it is a good settlement for everybody.


                      Amendment No. 421, Withdrawn

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my second-degree 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Kentucky, at the appropriate time, will 
offer a modification to his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                     Amendment No. 384, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Pursuant to the agreement that Senator Reid and I have 
come to, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask 
unanimous consent that my amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 384), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end, add the following:

                      TITLE __--TEACHER PROTECTION

     SEC. __1. TEACHER PROTECTION.

       The Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

                     ``TITLE __--TEACHER PROTECTION

     ``SEC. __1. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Paul D. Coverdell Teacher 
     Protection Act of 2001'.

     ``SEC. __2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) The ability of teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals to teach, inspire and shape the intellect of 
     our Nation's elementary and secondary school students is 
     deterred and hindered by frivolous lawsuits and litigation.
       ``(2) Each year more and more teachers, principals and 
     other school professionals face lawsuits for actions 
     undertaken as part of their duties to provide millions of 
     school children quality educational opportunities.
       ``(3) Too many teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals face increasingly severe and random acts of 
     violence in the classroom and in schools.
       ``(4) Providing teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals a safe and secure environment is an important 
     part of the effort to improve and expand educational 
     opportunities, which are critical for the continued economic 
     development of the United States.
       ``(5) Frivolous lawsuits against teachers maintaining order 
     in the classroom impose significant financial burdens on 
     local educational agencies, and deprive the agencies of funds 
     that would best be used for educating students.
       ``(6) Clarifying and limiting the liability of teachers, 
     principals and other school professionals who undertake 
     reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an 
     appropriate educational environment is an appropriate subject 
     of Federal legislation because--
       ``(A) the scope of the problems created by the legitimate 
     fears of teachers, principals and other school professionals 
     about frivolous, arbitrary or capricious lawsuits against 
     teachers is of national importance; and
       ``(B) millions of children and their families across the 
     Nation depend on teachers, principals and other school 
     professionals for the intellectual development of children.
       ``(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide 
     teachers, principals and other school professionals the tools 
     they need to undertake reasonable actions to maintain order, 
     discipline, and an appropriate educational environment.

     ``SEC. __3. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE 
                   NONAPPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) Preemption.--This title preempts the laws of any 
     State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this 
     title, except that this title shall not preempt any State law 
     that provides additional protection from liability relating 
     to teachers.
       ``(b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This 
     title shall not apply to any civil action in a State court 
     against a teacher with respect to claims arising within that 
     State if such State enacts a statute in accordance with State 
     requirements for enacting legislation--
       ``(1) citing the authority of this subsection;
       ``(2) declaring the election of such State that this title 
     shall not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action 
     in the State; and
       ``(3) containing no other provisions.

     ``SEC. __4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Liability Protection for Teachers.--Except as 
     provided in subsections (b) through (d), no teacher in a 
     school shall be liable for harm caused by an act or omission 
     of the teacher on behalf of the school if--
       ``(1) the teacher was acting within the scope of the 
     teacher's employment or responsibilities related to providing 
     educational services;
       ``(2) the actions of the teacher were carried out in 
     conformity with local, State, and Federal laws (including 
     rules and regulations) in furtherance of efforts to control, 
     discipline, expel, or suspend a student or maintain order or 
     control in the classroom or school;
       ``(3) if appropriate or required, the teacher was properly 
     licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate 
     authorities for the

[[Page S4539]]

     activities or practice in the State in which the harm 
     occurred, where the activities were or practice was 
     undertaken within the scope of the teacher's 
     responsibilities;
       ``(4) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 
     misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed by the teacher; and
       ``(5) the harm was not caused by the teacher operating a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which 
     the State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle, 
     craft, or vessel to--
       ``(A) possess an operator's license; or
       ``(B) maintain insurance.
       ``(b) Concerning Responsibility of Teachers to Schools and 
     Governmental Entities.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any civil action brought by any school or 
     any governmental entity against any teacher of such school.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect any State or local law (including a 
     rule or regulation) or policy pertaining to the use of 
     corporal punishment.
       ``(d) Exceptions to Teacher Liability Protection.--If the 
     laws of a State limit teacher liability subject to 1 or more 
     of the following conditions, such conditions shall not be 
     construed as inconsistent with this section:
       ``(1) A State law that requires a school or governmental 
     entity to adhere to risk management procedures, including 
     mandatory training of teachers.
       ``(2) A State law that makes the school or governmental 
     entity liable for the acts or omissions of its teachers to 
     the same extent as an employer is liable for the acts or 
     omissions of its employees.
       ``(3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability 
     inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of 
     a State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
       ``(e) Limitation on Punitive Damages Based on the Actions 
     of Teachers.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Punitive damages may not be awarded 
     against a teacher in an action brought for harm based on the 
     action or omission of a teacher acting within the scope of 
     the teacher's responsibilities to a school or governmental 
     entity unless the claimant establishes by clear and 
     convincing evidence that the harm was proximately caused by 
     an action or omission of such teacher which constitutes 
     willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant 
     indifference to the rights or safety of the individual 
     harmed.
       ``(2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) does not create a cause 
     of action for punitive damages and does not preempt or 
     supersede any Federal or State law to the extent that such 
     law would further limit the award of punitive damages.
       ``(f) Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--The limitations on the liability of a 
     teacher under this title shall not apply to any misconduct 
     that--
       ``(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
     defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
     of international terrorism (as that term is defined in 
     section 2331 of title 18, United States Code) for which the 
     defendant has been convicted in any court;
       ``(B) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
     State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
     court;
       ``(C) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
     found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law; 
     or
       ``(D) where the defendant was under the influence (as 
     determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating 
     alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
       ``(2) Hiring.--The limitations on the liability of a 
     teacher under this title shall not apply to misconduct during 
     background investigations, or during other actions, involved 
     in the hiring of a teacher.

     ``SEC. __5. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In any civil action against a teacher, 
     based on an action or omission of a teacher acting within the 
     scope of the teacher's responsibilities to a school or 
     governmental entity, the liability of the teacher for 
     noneconomic loss shall be determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Amount of Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each defendant who is a teacher, shall 
     be liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated 
     to that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the claimant with respect 
     to which that defendant is liable. The court shall render a 
     separate judgment against each defendant in an amount 
     determined pursuant to the preceding sentence.
       ``(2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a 
     defendant who is a teacher under this section, the trier of 
     fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of each 
     person responsible for the claimant's harm, whether or not 
     such person is a party to the action.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to preempt or supersede any Federal or State law 
     that further limits the application of joint liability in a 
     civil action described in subsection (a), beyond the 
     limitations established in this section.

     ``SEC. __6. DEFINITIONS.

       ``For purposes of this title:
       ``(1) Economic loss.--The term `economic loss' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       ``(2) Harm.--The term `harm' includes physical, 
     nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
       ``(3) Noneconomic losses.--The term `noneconomic losses' 
     means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       ``(4) School.--The term `school' means a public or private 
     kindergarten, a public or private elementary school or 
     secondary school (as defined in section 14101, or a home 
     school.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession 
     of the United States, or any political subdivision of any 
     such State, territory, or possession.
       ``(6) Teacher.--The term `teacher' means a teacher, 
     instructor, principal, administrator, other educational 
     professional that works in a school, or an individual member 
     of a school board (as distinct from the board itself).

     ``SEC. __7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       ``(a) In General.--This title shall take effect 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of the Paul D. Coverdell 
     Teacher Protection Act of 2001.
       ``(b) Application.--This title applies to any claim for 
     harm caused by an act or omission of a teacher if that claim 
     is filed on or after the effective date of the Paul D. 
     Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, without regard to 
     whether the harm that is the subject of the claim or the 
     conduct that caused the harm occurred before such effective 
     date.''.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the manager of the bill, are we 
ready to move forward with a vote after some closing observations?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think we will have to wait until about 
12:40. That is my understanding. Some people may not be available, but 
I am sure the vote will take a little while anyway. So if it is OK, 
could we have the vote start at 12:40?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor. Is 
that the unanimous consent request, that the vote begin at 12:40?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the McConnell amendment begin at 12:40.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we are about to vote on my amendment, 
the Paul D. Coverdell teacher protection amendment. This important 
legislation extends important protections from frivolous lawsuits to 
teachers, principals, administrators, and other education professionals 
who take reasonable steps to maintain order in the classroom.
  The amendment, I hasten to add, does not protect those teachers who 
engage in ``willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or a 
conscious flagrant indifference to the rights and safety'' of a 
student.
  This is not new ground for the Senate. I remind all of my colleagues 
that last year we approved this virtually identical amendment by a vote 
of 97-0. It is now the appropriate time for the Senate to revisit this 
issue and give its full endorsement. Mr. President, 97-0 is about as 
strong as it gets in the Senate. I hope we will have a similar vote 
when the vote commences at 12:40.
  I know Senator Coverdell would obviously be grateful to see that his 
legislation may well be on the way to becoming law this year. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support the amendment, as they did the last 
time it was offered.
  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. FRIST. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote in about 7 or 8

[[Page S4540]]

minutes. During this period of time, unless somebody else wishes to 
speak on the amendment, I would like to address the issue of teacher 
quality. This reflects upon one of the underlying amendments we are 
discussing--which is, class size--with an emphasis on the relationship 
that exists between a teacher and a child where we know much of that 
learning experience takes place, kindergarten through the 12th grade. 
It is that relationship and a number of factors.
  We start with having a very good, highly qualified teacher in a 
classroom, an effective teacher in the classroom so that we really can 
say that every child has an opportunity to have achievement boosted, to 
have the achievement gap, which has gotten worse in the last 35 years, 
be diminished over time.
  The argument we have made again and again on this side of the aisle 
has been that while class size is important, the absolute size should 
not to be dictated by Washington but determined by local schools, local 
school districts, local communities. Whether it be Nashville TN, 
Anchorage, AK, New York, NY, the decision should be made by people, not 
by Washington, DC.
  Thus, what we have done in the underlying bill--and it is important 
that people understand what is in the bill;--is combine that program, 
with other programs so that we have the necessary resources we need--up 
to $3 billion, I should add. And these can be distributed, used, 
prioritized, locally rather than here in Washington, DC. So that in any 
particular classroom, a decision can be made whether or not to use that 
money for smaller class size, for more computers, for better reading 
materials, for more technology,--that they have the flexibility to 
prioritize rather than having a Government program for each and every 
issue.

  Yesterday I spent some time underlining what we have in the bill for 
teacher quality, teacher development. It is quite extensive, in terms 
of State activities, where States very specifically may use these funds 
for things such as teacher certification, teacher recruitment, 
professional development, and other ways of teacher support. Examples 
of such activities include reforming teacher certification or licensing 
requirements, addressing alternative routes to State certification of 
teachers, recruiting teachers and principals, providing professional 
development activities, looking at issues such as reform of tenure 
systems for teachers.
  Local educational systems may use these funds for professional 
development, teacher development, teacher recruitment or hiring 
teachers. Again, these decisions are made locally with the funds 
provided through the Federal system--as I said, $3 billion.
  It moves on down to local accountability because we do want to make 
sure, if these funds have been pooled and these resources are available 
locally for teacher development, for improving the quality of teachers, 
for attracting new teachers to the classroom, that the system is held 
accountable, and there are extensive accountability provisions in the 
underlying bill, already in the bill, that include, such things as 
performance objectives. Those performance objectives are related to 
student achievement, to reducing that achievement gap over time, to the 
ability to retain teachers, to the ability of taking teachers who may 
be certified in one field but haven't been certified in another.
  A particular area I hope we will be able to address later this week 
or next week is this whole specific area of math and science teachers. 
Again and again I have come to this floor citing the third 
international mathematics and science study, beginning in 1995 but even 
since that point in time, which shows that 4th grade students in the 
United States are among the top scorers from the 41 nations tested. But 
then both the TIMMS study and the TIMMS repeat study in 1999 show that 
by the 8th grade, U.S. students tested, not at the top, but in the 
middle. By the 12th grade, we see that U.S. students are scoring near 
the very bottom in math and science of all of the countries tested.
  In today's global economy this means that if we are not preparing 
people in the 12th grade in terms of math and science, we are going to 
see jobs move overseas because Americans, especially for the high tech 
jobs of the future are going to be very ill equipped to compete with 
our neighbors globally in job creation, in math and science, in 
technology, and broadly.
  Teacher educational development has to be a continuing process. It 
has to be done in a collaborative partnership with those people, 
including at local teacher training, local universities, local high 
schools, and local elementary schools. It has to be done in a 
partnership way. Again, this is spelled out in the bill.
  In closing, this bill--we call it the BEST Act--authorizes $500 
million in fiscal year 2002 for the establishment of math and science 
partnerships, linking the math and science departments of institutions 
of higher education with States and local school districts. That is 
very positive. There is a lot more we can do in terms of clarification 
of how moneys can be used, in authorizing the States to use funding in 
certain areas to recruit and retain teachers and, finally, in looking 
at math and science funding for a master teacher program.
  I am very excited about this amendment, which will be filed later 
today or later in the week. It will build on what is in the underlying 
bill, and puts the focus on the quality of teachers, not just the 
quantity of teachers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. The question is now on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. The yeas and 
nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     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
     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
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Thompson
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.


                 Amendment No. 425 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. REED. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, 
     Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Durbin, and 
     Mr. Dayton, proposes an amendment numbered 425.

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

[[Page S4541]]

   (Purpose: To make amendments regarding the Reading First Program)

       On page 32, line 11, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,400,000,000''.
       On page 201, line 19, strike ``and''.
       On page 201, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 201, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(3) shall reserve $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and 
     each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years to carry out section 
     1228 (relating to school libraries).
       On page 203, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1228. IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds reserved under section 
     1225(3) for a fiscal year that are not reserved under 
     subsection (h), the Secretary shall allot to each State 
     educational agency having an application approved under 
     subsection (c)(1) an amount that bears the same relation to 
     the funds as the amount the State educational agency received 
     under part A for the preceding fiscal year bears to the 
     amount all such State educational agencies received under 
     part A for the preceding fiscal year, to increase literacy 
     and reading skills by improving school libraries.
       ``(b) Within-State Allocations.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving an allotment under subsection (a) for a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(1) may reserve not more than 3 percent to provide 
     technical assistance, disseminate information about school 
     library media programs that are effective and based on 
     scientifically based research, and pay administrative costs, 
     related to activities under this section; and
       ``(2) shall allocate the allotted funds that remain after 
     making the reservation under paragraph (1) to each local 
     educational agency in the State having an application 
     approved under subsection (c)(2) (for activities described in 
     subsection (e)) in an amount that bears the same relation to 
     such remainder as the amount the local educational agency 
     received under part A for the fiscal year bears to the amount 
     received by all such local educational agencies in the State 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(c) Applications.--
       ``(1) State educational agency.--Each State educational 
     agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to 
     the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary shall 
     require. The application shall contain a description of--
       ``(A) how the State educational agency will assist local 
     educational agencies in meeting the requirements of this 
     section and in using scientifically based research to 
     implement effective school library media programs; and
       ``(B) the standards and techniques the State educational 
     agency will use to evaluate the quality and impact of 
     activities carried out under this section by local 
     educational agencies to determine the need for technical 
     assistance and whether to continue funding the agencies under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Local educational agency.--Each local educational 
     agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to 
     the State educational agency an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the State 
     educational agency shall require. The application shall 
     contain a description of--
       ``(A) a needs assessment relating to the need for school 
     library media improvement, based on the age and condition of 
     school library media resources, including book collections, 
     access of school library media centers to advanced 
     technology, and the availability of well-trained, 
     professionally certified school library media specialists, in 
     schools served by the local educational agency;
       ``(B) how the local educational agency will extensively 
     involve school library media specialists, teachers, 
     administrators, and parents in the activities assisted under 
     this section, and the manner in which the local educational 
     agency will carry out the activities described in subsection 
     (e) using programs and materials that are grounded in 
     scientifically based research;
       ``(C) the manner in which the local educational agency will 
     effectively coordinate the funds and activities provided 
     under this section with Federal, State, and local funds and 
     activities under this subpart and other literacy, library, 
     technology, and professional development funds and 
     activities; and
       ``(D) a description of the manner in which the local 
     educational agency will collect and analyze data on the 
     quality and impact of activities carried out under this 
     section by schools served by the local educational agency.
       ``(d) Within-LEA Distribution.--Each local educational 
     agency receiving funds under this section shall distribute--
       ``(1) 50 percent of the funds to schools served by the 
     local educational agency that are in the top quartile in 
     terms of percentage of students enrolled from families with 
     incomes below the poverty line; and
       ``(2) 50 percent of the funds to schools that have the 
     greatest need for school library media improvement based on 
     the needs assessment described in subsection (c)(2)(A).
       ``(e) Local Activities.--Funds under this section may be 
     used to--
       ``(1) acquire up-to-date school library media resources, 
     including books;
       ``(2) acquire and utilize advanced technology, incorporated 
     into the curricula of the school, to develop and enhance the 
     information literacy, information retrieval, and critical 
     thinking skills of students;
       ``(3) facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing 
     networks among schools and school library media centers, and 
     public and academic libraries, where possible;
       ``(4) provide professional development described in 
     1222(c)(7)(D) for school library media specialists, and 
     activities that foster increased collaboration between school 
     library media specialists, teachers, and administrators; and
       ``(5) provide students with access to school libraries 
     during nonschool hours, including the hours before and after 
     school, during weekends, and during summer vacation periods.
       ``(f) Accountability and Continuation of Funds.--Each local 
     educational agency that receives funding under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall be eligible to continue to receive 
     the funding for a third or subsequent fiscal year only if the 
     local educational agency demonstrates to the State 
     educational agency that the local educational agency has 
     increased--
       ``(1) the availability of, and the access to, up-to-date 
     school library media resources in the elementary schools and 
     secondary schools served by the local educational agency; and
       ``(2) the number of well-trained, professionally certified 
     school library media specialists in those schools.
       ``(g) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant 
     other Federal, State, and local funds expended to carry out 
     activities relating to library, technology, or professional 
     development activities.
       ``(h) National Activities.--From the total amount made 
     available under section 1225(3) for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve not more than 1 percent for annual, 
     independent, national evaluations of the activities assisted 
     under this section. The evaluations shall be conducted not 
     later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act, and each year 
     thereafter.
       On page 203, line 21, strike ``1228'' and insert ``1229''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment on my 
behalf and of Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
Dayton.
  This amendment is a bipartisan attempt to ensure that the President's 
Reading First initiative is a success. Let me commend the President for 
emphasizing literacy as a very important part of education reform. His 
proposal would recognize the importance of literacy and increase and 
support the training of teachers, but it would not reach another 
important aspect of achieving literacy, and that is a well-equipped 
school library. My amendment would help students achieve literacy by 
authorizing funds so schools could acquire new library books, new 
library material.
  Funding school libraries has been part of the educational 
authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its 
beginning in 1965. The very first ESEA authorized the purchase of 
library materials.
  One of the sad commentaries about school libraries today is that much 
of that material is still on the shelves, with copyright dates of 1967, 
1968, 1969, and 1970. Clearly, the world has moved a great deal from 
those days. We have landed on the Moon. We have created the Internet 
and done lots of other interesting things. Many other aspects of life 
have changed since the mid-1960s and early 1970s.
  My proposal would provide resources, based upon a targeted formula, 
so the poorest schools would have access to these funds, so we could, 
in fact, replenish library collections throughout the United States.
  Last week the Senate uniformly voted for Senator Collins' Reading 
First amendment, where she incorporated additional provisions into the 
President's proposal for Reading First. I support this effort by 
Senator Collins, but I believe there is a deficiency within this 
initiative. It fails to include an essential component that would 
ensure students learn to read. We have to fund school libraries so 
students have the necessary books, technology, and materials, which is 
an integral part of our effort to improve reading in our schools.
  What we are finding is the gap between the highest and lowest 
achieving students is widening. But what we are also finding, when we 
look at data, is that in those schools that have first-

[[Page S4542]]

rate libraries and trained library personnel, achievement goes up 
consistently. That is a factor I believe we cannot ignore. It is one of 
those factors that provide additional support for my proposal today.
  Again, the President's underlying proposal authorizes $900 million 
for the Reading First Initiative. It has been enhanced and improved by 
Senator Collins' amendment. This proposal, which I and my colleagues 
have offered, would provide further enhancement to this worthwhile goal 
of ensuring every child in America reads, and reads well.
  Let me also acknowledge the great work of Senator Jeffords and 
Senator Kennedy who have brought us this far. But even though they have 
brought us this far, even though we have, with the President's 
direction, emphasized literacy, we still have this gap in achieving 
literacy. We have to provide funds for school libraries so they can buy 
the material and books necessary to support the scientifically based 
reading programs the President has made the centerpiece of his Reading 
First Initiative.
  School libraries are really the places where we reinforce those 
reading skills. They are, in one sense, the laboratories where children 
explore their ability to read and explore a great world beyond the 
confines of their classroom or their community. You can go into a 
library and, figuratively, travel around the world, even reduce 
yourself to the size of a microbe, and travel, coursing through the 
veins of the body. That is what is remarkable about reading and so 
fundamentally important about reading. It is also something that has to 
be a lifelong pursuit.

  Frankly, even though we can instruct children with respect to 
literacy, unless we provide them with stimulating books and expose them 
to the library as students, it is not that likely that they will 
appreciate reading or continue the habit of reading, this habit of 
self-improvement. Children leave schools, but we hope they will not 
leave the library. That is one of the great lessons they will take from 
their schooling--not just the mechanics of reading but a love of 
reading so they will leave the school but never leave the library, they 
will be patrons of public libraries, they will be patrons of books. The 
library is the foundation for independent learning, and I cannot think 
of a more worthwhile goal in this reauthorization than creating that 
type of spirit and that type of ability within the students of America.
  As I mentioned before, as we look at high levels of literacy, we find 
a very strong correlation between these high literacy levels and good 
school library programs. In one study, this was the case for every 
school and in every grade level tested, regardless of social and 
economic factors in the community, and in very dissimilar States: 
Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. These findings echo earlier studies 
which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and 
professional library specialists performed better on achievement tests 
for reading.
  Again, we understand one major focus of this legislation is testing 
students to standards, bringing those standards up and bringing every 
child up to those standards. Without the support of good public 
libraries in the community but, more particularly, good school library 
programs, we are not going to be able to give these children the tools 
to reach the standards, to pass the tests we are prescribing now for a 
vast section of American students.
  As I indicated, there is an array of scientific evidence, research 
evidence, that demonstrates this fundamental point. A 1993 review of 
research, ``Power of Reading'' by education professor Stephen Krashen 
of the University of Southern California, demonstrated that higher test 
scores result when there is a greater investment in better qualified 
school library staff and more diverse school library collections.
  A 1994 Department of Education report on the impact of school library 
media centers noted that the highest achieving students tend to come 
from schools with strong libraries and library programs. So I believe 
this evidence is further proof that we can improve reading by making a 
wise and efficient investment by enhancing our school libraries.
  We also understand that we have today on our shelves, in our 
libraries, books that are simply out of date and inaccurate. I have 
made something of a cottage industry of bringing my favorite anomalous 
books to committee hearings, such as a book that talks about what is it 
like to be a flight attendant; only they use an incorrect term 
``stewardess.''
  If you look through this book, if you look through these pages, you 
get a distinctly different impression of what it is like to be a flight 
attendant. First of all, they are all women. We know that is not the 
case today. Second, there are very few minorities. We know that is not 
the case today. Third, they talk about the rule that you must leave if 
you want to get married, because they all have to be single. They have 
pictures of flight attendants doing sit-ups and describe that as their 
homework.
  These are images that are totally out of sync with today's times. But 
yet this book was on the shelves of the school library. Ask yourself. 
If a young man is interested in that profession and takes that book off 
the shelf, what impression will he get? Obviously, it is not going to 
open up the possibility of a career for him as a flight attendant.
  That is just one example. There are examples of books on the shelves 
of today's schools that say things like some day we will get to the 
Moon.
  I received a book from a librarian in Arizona that has the title, 
``Asbestos, The Magic Mineral,'' suggesting a book that was not written 
recently.
  One of my favorite selections that was sent to me is the story of the 
U.S. Constitution, and an analysis of the Constitution, with a foreword 
by President Calvin Coolidge--a little bit out of date but still on the 
shelves of a school library.
  We can do more than provide our children with outdated sources of 
information. We also now know that we are in a situation where books 
are not the only way we are communicating information to children. 
Libraries need sophisticated, computer-based media. They need the 
technology of the computer.
  Yet what you find at the local level is a situation where despite the 
best intentions of school committee men and women and the best 
intentions of Governors and mayors, school library collections are the 
first casualties of unexpected expenses.
  It is not a surprise. Here is typically what happens across this 
country day in and day out. A school superintendent has worked hard all 
year. She reserved $50,000 for a new library, new books, and new media.
  Then she gets a call. Their unexpected expenses have gone up $75,000. 
Where do you get that kind of money for an unexpected expense? We will 
do the library improvement next year. Next year becomes the following 
year, and the following year. As a result, we have a crisis at school 
libraries. Some shelves are near empty and the books are out of date. 
They are not opening up new, modern vistas to students. In some cases 
they are giving them erroneous stereotypes about the world at a very 
impressionable age.
  Let me suggest, as I said before, some of the books that we find on 
the shelves of our libraries.
  There is one called ``Rockets Into Space,'' copyright 1959. This 
book, by the way, has been checked out of a Los Angeles school library 
13 times since 1995.
  It informs the student that there is a way to get to the Moon. 
Obviously, it was written before there was the successful voyage to the 
Moon by man. It states that it will take two stages to get to the Moon, 
first to a space station, and then to the moon. Essentially, that is 
not what we did. But the book has been checked out numerous times 
within the last decade.
  There is another book which I found interesting. This was from a 
school library in Richmond, VA, entitled ``What A United States Senator 
Does,'' copyright 1975. It notes that the Vice President of the United 
States and the President of the Senate is Nelson Rockefeller, and that 
there are two Senate office buildings, the Old Senate Office Building 
and the New Senate Office Building, which we now call the Dirksen 
Building.
  There is a book from a library in Tarzana, CA, entitled ``Women At 
Work,'' copyright 1959, which informs

[[Page S4543]]

the reader that there are seven occupations open to young woman: 
librarian, ballet dancer, airline stewardess, practical nurse, piano 
teacher, beautician, and author.

  These are not positions open exclusively to women and are certainly 
not the only professions open to women today.
  Here is one from a Pennsylvania library entitled, ``The First Book 
Atlas,'' copyright 1968, which states that the five most populated 
cities in the world are New York City; Tokyo, Japan; Paris, France; 
London, England; and Shanghai, China.
  That might have been correct in 1968. But, for the record, the five 
most populated cities in the world today are Seoul, South Korea; Sao 
Paolo, Brazil; Bombay, India; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Moscow, Russia.
  In a rapidly changing world when we expect our students to be 
internationally adept and not just locally competent, we are providing 
them with information that is woefully out of date.
  I am sure there are atlases and maps throughout most schools and in 
school libraries that do not have all the present sovereign nations of 
the world. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, we know there has 
been quite a few new nations emerging into the world. But this is what 
we find consistently.
  I believe if we do not provide better materials for our libraries, we 
are not going to fully complement the President's initiative and 
Senator Collins' amendment. It is one thing to be literate and to have 
the mechanics of reading, but there is something else. A child must 
have material to read which provides accurate information and that is 
not full of stereotypes and misinformation. If you don't provide access 
through school libraries, students will not acquire the skills and love 
for reading necessary to boost scores on reading tests.
  That is what my legislation will do. It will give the school 
libraries the opportunity to become up to date, to entreat children 
with the idea of reading so that in their lifelong pursuits they will 
know that libraries are the place to go to find knowledge and 
information that is accurate.
  Let me also talk about the situation from the perspective of low-
income students because typically this is where you find the most 
chronic absence of a good school library for the reasons I talked to 
previously--budget pressures that are so compelling and constraining on 
municipalities, and the idea that next year we will fix the library. 
Next year never comes. Jonathan Kozol, who has been referred to many 
times on this floor, and who is a passionate advocate for students 
everywhere but who has a particular passion for those disadvantaged 
students that he works with on a daily basis, wrote in May in a school 
library article, entitled ``An Unequal Education,'' that a fiscal 
crisis in the 1970s reduced school libraries and the poorest 
neighborhoods in New York City to: ``little more than poorly stocked 
collections of torn, tired-looking, or outdated books. As student 
populations grew and school construction was postponed by scarcity of 
funds, libraries themselves were soon co-opted to be used as classroom 
space. Librarians were fired or, more diplomatically, `retired'--and, 
as they retired, were not replaced. Books were frequently consigned to 
spaces scarcely larger than coat closets.''
  He continues:

       Few forms of theft are quite so damaging to inner-city 
     children as the theft of stimulation, cognitive excitement, 
     and aesthetic provocation by municipal denial of those 
     literacy treasures known to white and middle-class Americans 
     for generations.

  The reason for this sad state of affairs is the loss of targeted 
national funding for libraries, which we had provided in the 1965 ESEA 
authorization.
  I would challenge all of my colleagues to go to their States and go 
to a school library. It won't take too long until you find a book that 
has a copyright of 1967, and maybe with a stamp, as they do in the 
Philadelphia school system, that says, ``ESEA 1965.''
  About 20 years ago, however, a decision was made to roll this 
dedicated funding into a block grant competing with other programs, and 
the funding for libraries declined. Schools have not been able to 
replace outdated books. At the same time funds have diminished, as 
everything else, the price of quality school library books goes up.
  The average school library book costs $16. But the average spending 
per student for books in elementary schools throughout this country is 
approximately $6.75, $7.30 in middle schools, and $6.25 in high 
schools. You can't buy lots of high-quality books at those types of 
prices.
  Earlier in this session, I introduced bipartisan legislation 
addressing the need for adequate library books, which is the 
predecessor of this amendment. On February 20, 2001, there was note of 
that introduction in the Washington Times. Then there was a response on 
February 23 from a school librarian who described the real frustrations 
we are talking about, and that I have tried to suggest.
  She has worked for 27 years, and she saw the article and took it upon 
herself to write the newspaper. Here is what she said:

       The money coming down for spending has been diverted by 
     administrators for technology. The computers are bought with 
     book money and the administrators can brag about how wired 
     the schools are. The librarians are ordered to keep the old 
     books on the shelves and count everything, including unbound 
     periodicals and old filmstrips dating back to 1940s.
       And most of all keep their mouth shut about the books--just 
     count and keep quiet. Now do you wonder why librarians keep 
     quiet?

  Well they are not keeping quiet anymore. They have taken a very 
strong position with respect to this amendment. Coincidentally, they 
have come to Washington, and I believe they have visited most of my 
colleagues' offices, to talk about the need, not some esoteric 
hypothetical pie-in-the-sky need, but the real need for investments in 
school libraries.
  What happens is that we have a situation where schools face this 
Hobson's choice: with declining resources, and other demands, do we 
remove all of the outdated books, leaving only bare shelves or keep 
outdated books on the shelves, hoping that students wont be confused or 
turned off by reading? The result is too many of our students don't 
have the tools they need to learn to read and achieve.
  Too often schools sacrifice improvement in libraries. We can help 
change that dynamic. We can pass this legislation. We can give them 
flexibility at the local level, although targeted to low-income 
schools, to go out and buy library materials, to fulfill an important 
part of our national purpose today to improve the literacy of all 
American children.
  Now I believe that we should, and we must, complement the President's 
Reading First Initiative. He has, quite rightly, identified the 
problem. He has very astutely suggested we need to train teachers in 
the latest scientific methods, that we need to have classroom material, 
that we need to do many other things. But one aspect is still lacking; 
and that is books - books to practice the skills they learn in class 
and books to foster a love for reading which is the key to success in 
school and beyond. This amendment addresses that need.

  My amendment specifically would add $500 million in funding reserved 
to support school libraries. It would not take away any resources that 
have been already identified for the President's Reading First 
Initiative pursuant to Senator Collins' amendment. It targets funding 
to schools with the highest levels of poverty.
  Recall now the comments of Jonathan Kozol: the diminishment of the 
educational experience by a lack of access to materials which in 
suburban schools are taken for granted.
  If we can get this spirit of inquiry, this excitement about reading, 
if we can infuse that into every child in every public school, 
particularly in our disadvantaged schools, we will accomplish a great 
deal with this reauthorization.
  This amendment also provides the districts and the schools with the 
flexibility to use the funding to meet local school library needs. Who 
better than a local school system and local librarians to decide what 
they need? A new atlas, new materials for the younger readers, a better 
library media that can be used by all the students--all of that will be 
decided by local individuals.
  It also includes language that would help enhance the training of 
library specialists. There is a misconception sometimes that all you 
need to do is

[[Page S4544]]

have the teacher just take the children into the library and say: Pick 
a book. That overlooks the huge contribution a well-trained librarian 
can make to the education of young children. A well trained librarian 
is essential to helping students read. It is also important to have 
librarians with particular skills to be able to show children different 
means of research, different techniques, to be able to answer their 
questions, to find material for them, and to show them how to find 
material. That is not done simply by walking the children into the 
library, and saying: Pick a book. You need to try to get a sense of 
their interests and you need to try to lead them from one interest to 
another interest.
  This might be the most fundamental aspect of education, and yet if 
you do not have the trained professionals to do it, you will not get 
the kind of high-level achievement we seek in this legislation.
  The amendment would also allow establishing resource sharing 
initiatives. In my home State of Rhode Island, and in Ohio, the school 
librarians have set up a wonderful network with other school libraries, 
with public libraries, with academic libraries, so they can multiply 
the resources at their disposal. That would provide the kind of support 
that I believe is not only necessary but long overdue with respect to 
school libraries.
  This amendment allocates funding on a formula basis to school 
districts, so that all needy districts and schools get the assistance 
they need to improve school libraries, rather than authorizing a very 
limited, competitive grant program which would only help certain 
districts that have a knack for grant writing.
  This amendment is built upon the initial legislation I introduced 
along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Snowe, Chafee, Daschle, and 
others. The amendment, as I indicated, has broad support.

  This bipartisan amendment I offer today, along with Senators Snowe, 
Kennedy, Chafee, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Clinton, Sarbanes, 
Johnson, Baucus, Levin, Reid, Rockefeller, Durbin, and Dayton, is a 
modified version of that legislation because, rather than being a 
separate, stand-alone portion of the ESEA, this amendment includes 
support for books as part of the Reading First initiative.
  In conclusion, since I have talked about what the amendment does, I 
would like to briefly talk about some of things the amendment does not 
do.
  First of all, this is not a new program. This amendment would 
incorporate school library funding into the Reading First Initiative, 
the President's reading initiative. Unanimously, last week, we embraced 
Senator Collins' amendment, so I assume, without contradiction, we are 
all for Reading First, we are all for literacy. This would be 
incorporated into that. This is not a new program.
  The second point I make is that this is not, as I said before, a 
novel Federal intervention into school policy. In 1965, we authorized 
funds to buy library materials. It worked. Those materials are still on 
the shelves. It is something that has been long associated with our 
Federal effort to help local schools.
  Now we all want to consolidate programs. I think that makes a great 
deal of sense. As you look across the board, some programs could be 
more efficient. But here is an effort to present, within the context of 
the Reading First Initiative, a comprehensive reading program: training 
teachers to teach reading based on scientific principles, classroom 
materials, and then, if you will, the laboratory for reading, which is 
the school library and the books to read.
  If we are serious--and I know we are--that we want to see every child 
succeed, if we want to see every child meet challenging standards, and 
in a very real sense pass the test, then we have to invest more in our 
school libraries. It is not simply enough to just prescribe the test 
and hope for the best. We have to give children books to read, the 
tools to master these techniques and, hopefully, I think in a broader 
sense, to acquire a passion for reading that will carry them far beyond 
their schooldays into their adult days. That truly, in my view, is the 
sign of an educated person.
  Let me conclude my initial remarks by citing the Department of 
Education's guide for parents entitled ``A Guide For Parents: How Do I 
Know a Good Early Reading Program When I See One?'' In that guide they 
say that a good early reading program has: ``a school library [which] 
is used often and has many books.''
  We must take this opportunity to dispense with inaccurate, out-of-
date books that line the shelves of our school libraries. We have an 
opportunity to complement the President's proposal and provide the 
funding that is critical to making the program work so it can actually 
improve the reading and literacy skills of our nation's students. I 
hope we will seize this opportunity and urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 849 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________