[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 64 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4794-S4812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The senior assistant bill 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 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.
       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.
       Wellstone amendment No. 403 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     modify provisions relating to State assessments.
       Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise 
     provisions regarding the Reading First Program.


                           Amendment No. 403

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 403.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is now pending.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am wondering if the Senator would like to have a 
rollcall vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would like to have a rollcall vote. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be willing to enter into a reasonable 
time period? It is the noon hour now, just for notice to our Members. 
We had a good debate on this amendment. It is a very important one. I 
want to do whatever permits the Senator to make his case again.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I see a unanimous consent request which I think will 
be fine. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, like other Senators, 
I have other amendments to this bill and there will be plenty of time 
for extended debate later.
  This is a good amendment for the Senate to go on record. I am pleased 
to agree to a time limit.
  Mr. President, I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so I can propound 
a unanimous consent request regarding the Senator's amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to do so.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Wellstone amendment No. 403, the time between now and 
1:45 p.m. today be evenly divided in the usual form, with no second-
degree amendments in order. I further ask unanimous consent that the 
vote occur in relation to the Wellstone amendment at 1:45 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. President, first, I will be clear about this amendment. With this 
amendment, we want to make sure, as we talk about accountability and 
testing, that this is done the right way. In many ways this amendment--
really, in all ways, this amendment tracks the consensus in the testing 
community, the work of the Committee on Economic Development, which is 
the arm of the business community which is very pro-testing.
  We are saying a number of things:
  First, it is extremely important that this testing that is done--
after all, we are talking about testing every year from age 8 through 
age 13--that this testing that is done meet the criterion that is 
comprehensive; that is to say, there are multiple measures for any kind 
of testing that is done in our country. It is terribly important that 
is done.
  Second, it is important that it be coherent, that there is a 
connection, there is a relationship that the testing actually tests the 
curriculum and the subject matter being taught. It seems to me that is 
the very least we can do for our local school districts.
  Third, as we continue, it is important we be able to measure progress 
over time, how these children are doing.
  Moreover, this amendment says that States will provide evidence to 
the Secretary that the tests they use are of adequate technical quality 
for each purpose for which they are used. It is very important that 
this be done the right way.
  Finally, it says itemized score analyses should be provided to 
districts and schools so tests can meet their intended purpose, which 
is to help the people on the ground, the teachers and the parents, know 
specifically what their children are struggling with so they can help 
them do better.
  I am absolutely amazed that this amendment has not been accepted. I 
thought there would be a real consensus behind this amendment. The 
reason I say this is all across the country, in case colleagues have 
not taken note of this, they are having a very negative reaction to 
testing being done the wrong way. We have a lot of very distinguished 
educators at the higher end level saying we ought not rely on the SAT 
as a single test. We have parents, children, young people--really 
starting in the suburbs, interestingly enough--who are rebelling. We 
are having more and more reports coming out that the really gifted 
teachers, the very teachers we need in the school districts where 
children are most underserved, are leaving the profession because they 
do not want to teach to the standardized test; they do not want to be 
drill instructors.
  In addition, there has been, I think, some very important, moving 
writing that has come out. Marc Fisher, a columnist with the Washington 
Post, wrote a piece on May 8. The headline is, ``Mountain of Tests 
Slowly Crushing School Quality.'' I recommend this piece to my 
colleagues.
  What Marc Fisher is saying, on the basis of what a lot of teachers 
and a lot of parents are saying, is that if you just have the 
standardized tests, if you do not do this the right way, if you do

[[Page S4795]]

not have multiple measures, if you do not have tests that are actually 
testing the curriculum that is being taught, then what you are going to 
have all across the country is drill education.
  It is a sad sight to see when you have 8-year-olds and 9-year-olds 
sitting in straight rows--I have seen it on television--and you have a 
teacher saying: 2 plus 2 is 4; 3 plus 3 is 6; 5 plus 5 is 10. This goes 
for education, drill education, for standardized tests, for worksheets 
that have to be filled out. It is educationally deadening, and not one 
Senator would want his or her children to be taught that way or would 
want to see a teacher have to teach that way. But if we are not 
careful, that is what is going to happen.
  My understanding is the administration is opposed to this amendment. 
I am amazed that any education Senator would be opposed to this 
amendment.
  There is another piece that Marc Fisher wrote today which is a real 
heartbreaker. ``Schools Find Wrong Answers To Test Pressure'' is the 
headline. I am just going to quote the latter part of this piece.
       Michael West, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth 
     University, tells me that at his daughter's middle school, 
     students who pass this week's tests have been told they can 
     skip the final week of school. There's a great lesson: First 
     prize--you don't learn.
       The testing mania has brought with it a tidal wave of 
     mediocre teaching materials, Julie Philips, a teacher who 
     recently moved from the New York suburbs to Montgomery 
     County, says, ``Great books are tossed on the heap so that 
     students can practice writing about short, fable-like tales 
     that test prep writers concoct to imitate what is on the 
     tests. It is so disheartening.''
       Listen to a third-grade teacher who has taught in a Fairfax 
     County school for 30 years. Here are a few of the things she 
     says she has had to eliminate from her classroom since the 
     SOL tests took over the curriculum:
       ``We would have a whole biography unit. We would read a 
     biography of a famous American. We would talk about the 
     elements of a biography. Then the children would choose a 
     famous American for a report. They would write their own 
     autobiography. Finally, they would write a biography of one 
     of their parents. It really got the children talking to their 
     parents about their lives. I typed this up and bound it as a 
     book which the children illustrated. (I don't have time 
     anymore. I have to teach to the SOLs.)
       ``I would teach a poetry unit. We would explore the various 
     forms of poetry and the children would write at least one 
     poem in each of six forms. They would illustrate them and we 
     would bind them as a book. Something for them to keep 
     forever. (I don't have time anymore. We read some poems and 
     picked out the rhyming words so they can pass their SOLs.)
       ``I would teach reading twice a day so the children who 
     were behind could catch up. I was able to raise some children 
     by two years in one school year. (I don't have time anymore. 
     I have to teach to the SOLs. I have to teach how to fill in 
     bubbles.)''
       Frustrated by the new test-driven curriculum, this teacher 
     has decided to leave her profession. Is that school reform?

  I say to my colleagues: Believe me, next week I will have trigger 
amendments and I will talk about the mockery of not having the 
resources so these children will have a chance to succeed. But today 
you cannot even vote for an amendment that would assure quality of 
testing so we do not drive the best teachers out of the profession?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. REID. Senators are wondering what is going to be happening in the 
next couple of hours. With the courtesy extended to me by the Senator 
from Minnesota, the Senator has told me he wishes to speak for another 
20 minutes or thereabouts on the amendment that is pending, 
approximately; is that right?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Approximately. I am not sure exactly.
  Mr. REID. The only thing we have, Senator Lincoln is here. She is 
going to speak for 15 minutes on an amendment she is going to offer. 
The opposition would ask for 15 minutes. We wanted to have a couple of 
votes at about quarter until 2.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I certainly want to accommodate other Senators, but I 
want to hear the arguments against this amendment. I want people to 
come out here and debate this amendment. I want to have a chance to 
respond to those arguments.
  Mr. REID. Whatever time the Senator has, they will have that time, 
and if they choose to speak against it, they certainly can. I am 
wondering if we could have the Senator's agreement that we could have a 
couple of votes at quarter to 2. The Senator from Arkansas wishes 30 
minutes equally divided on her amendment, which would leave the rest of 
the time for the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to. I want to reserve 5 minutes before 
the vote to have a chance to summarize and, I say to my colleague from 
Arkansas, I will certainly try to finish my initial responses. I 
certainly would like to know what is the basis of the opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. REID. If I may say to my friend from Vermont, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 1:45 there be two votes, a vote on the Lincoln 
amendment, which will be offered shortly--there will be a half hour 
equally divided on that--and there will also be a vote on the Wellstone 
amendment which is the pending amendment. So the time not used for the 
Lincoln amendment would be evenly divided for Wellstone and those who 
want to speak in opposition thereto.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I think I have a unanimous consent request that has a 
sequence.
  Mr. REID. The problem with that is, it asks the Wellstone amendment 
be laid aside and he wants to finish. Perhaps that may be appropriate. 
Would the Senator from Minnesota allow the Senator from Arkansas to 
offer an amendment and speak for 10 or 15 minutes and you have the 
remaining time until quarter to 2?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. That would be fine. I would be pleased to hear 
from my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota still controls the 
time.
  Mr. REID. We understand that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Minnesota yield 
for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Wellstone amendment be laid aside and the Senate then turn to amendment 
451, and with respect to the Lincoln amendment, the time between now 
and 1:45 today be equally divided in the usual form with no second-
degree amendment in order.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask that be amended to 
allow the Lincoln amendment one-half hour evenly divided.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that the Lincoln amendment be 
allowed one-half hour.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I haven't even finished. I am not going to agree to 
have my amendment set aside right now. I haven't made the case for the 
amendment. I object. I probably will take another 15 minutes to explain 
why I think the amendment is so important. Then I would be pleased to 
yield the floor and we can move to the Lincoln amendment for a while 
and come back. I certainly don't want to lay the amendment aside right 
now.
  Mr. REID. We are planning on having two votes at 1:45. We will do our 
best to get to that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is something we can work out.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If we would not keep jumping on the floor with the 
unanimous consent requests, I could be finished in about 8 minutes, and 
then you can have the floor and we can come back.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two pieces by Marc 
Fisher be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 10, 2001]

              Schools Find Wrong Answers To Test Pressure

                            (By Marc Fisher)

       The fifth-grade girl stands in the foyer of Bethesda 
     Elementary School, capsized in tears. ``What's the matter 
     sweetie?'' a concerned mother asks. ``Can I help?''
       The girl sobs and sobs. She cannot speak. Finally, she 
     gulps: ``I'm a few minutes late, I missed the bus and now I 
     can't go on the playground.''
       The mother: ``They won't let you go on the playground if 
     you miss the bus?''
       Girl: ``No, not the regular playground. There's a special 
     MSPAP playground, but you can't go on it unless you come on 
     time and bring your special red pen.''
       It has come to this. The MSPAP--Maryland School Performance 
     Assessment Program--is Maryland's state-mandated standardized 
     test for children in grades 3, 5, and 8.

[[Page S4796]]

     It is used to compare how well schools perform. It is, 
     therefore, something principals and teachers desperately want 
     students to take seriously.
       How desperately? Bethesda Elementary set up a special 
     playground with triple the usual time for students to play 
     and an array of extra games. ``If you're on time every day, 
     are here every day, and do your best on the test, you qualify 
     for the MSPAP Playground,'' says Principal Michael 
     Castagnola. ``It's a motivator. The kids get penalized if 
     they miss a day of the test. They know that if you work hard, 
     you're going to have fun.''
       And if you miss the bus, what happens? ``You go to regular 
     recess,'' the principal says.
       Just imagine the ribbing those kids get. No wonder the 
     little girl was weeping.
       We don't need to dwell on the cheating scandals that have 
     hit Montgomery schools two years running, as panicky 
     principals and terrified teachers mortgage their consciences 
     to get the scores up at any cost. This week, at Silver Spring 
     International Middle School, the principal and six other 
     staffers were removed after students were given advance peeks 
     at a state math test.
       Those cases are clear enough. Let's look instead at the 
     supposedly ethical ways in which schools twist and tweak kids 
     to get them to take the tests seriously.
       In Virginia, where the Standards of Learning tests are much 
     more deadening than the relatively creative MSPAPs, Michelle 
     Crotteau, who teaches 10th- and 11th-grade English in 
     Rockingham County in the Shenandoah Valley, administered the 
     test this week with a heavy heart.
       Our students are given a five-point bonus on their final 
     grade if they pass the SOL test in each subject area,'' she 
     says. ``So a student with an 89 or B average for course work 
     who passes an SOL earns an A. Last year, I had two students 
     who failed my course because they did not bother to do most 
     of the coursework, yet these students passed the class 
     because of the five added points. Talk about grade 
     inflation!''
       Michael West, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth 
     University, tells me that at his daughter's middle school, 
     students who pass this week's test have been told they can 
     skip the final week of school. There's a great lesson: First 
     prize--you don't learn.
       In Maryland, there are MSPAP snacks and MSPAP parties. In 
     Virginia, there are entire classes devoted to preparing for 
     the SOL tests. At Carl Sandburg Middle School in Fairfax 
     County, ``Friday SOL prep classes have been going on'' since 
     the depth of winter, says eighth-grader Ijeoma Nwatu. ``We've 
     recently been given worksheets with test-taking skills, 
     vocabulary terms, graphs and stories.'' On Friday, the 
     children will work on SOL posters, which, they've been told, 
     will boost their self-esteem.
       The testing mania has brought with it a tidal wave of 
     mediocre teaching materials. Julie Philips, a teacher who 
     recently moved from the New York suburbs to Montgomery 
     County, says, ``Great books are tossed on the heap so that 
     students can practice writing about short, fable-like tales 
     that test prep writers concoct to imitate what is on the 
     tests. It is so disheartening.''
       Schools are so fearful of performing poorly that some 
     Virginia districts axed the 15-minute recess to cram in more 
     test prep time. ``With the pressure of the SOLs, there is no 
     time for recess built into the schedule,'' Ron Weaver, 
     principal of a Roanoke County elementary school, told the 
     Roanoke Times. Virginia's Board of Education last year 
     finally ordered elementary schools to reinstate a daily 
     recess.
       Some schools responded to the board's cry for a bit of 
     common sense by leading kids on a three- or four-minute walk 
     after lunch and calling it recess. Three minutes! Other 
     grudgingly restoring a 15-minute recess--by cutting the 
     minutes out of physical education class. Gee, thanks.
       Supporters of the testing binge argue that teaching to the 
     test is a good thing, because it ensures that schools will 
     eliminate unnecessary frills and focus on essentials--the 
     reading and math skills that the tests measure.
       That one-size-fits-all approach is driving parents nuts in 
     schools where kids are achieving; their kids are losing out 
     on creative lessons and enriching activities because 
     bureaucrats insist that all schools act identically.
       But the notion that we must do this for low-achieving 
     students is equally flawed; they need inspiration and 
     individualized attention even more than kids from privileged 
     backgrounds.
       Listen to a third-grade teacher who has taught in a Fairfax 
     County school for 30 years. Here are a few of the things she 
     says she has had to eliminate from her classroom since the 
     SOL tests took over the curriculum:
       ``We would have a whole biography unit. We would read a 
     biography of a famous American. We would talk about the 
     elements of a biography. Then the children would choose a 
     famous American for a report. They would write their own 
     autobiography. Finally, they would write a biography of one 
     of their parents. It really got the children talking to their 
     parents about their lives. I typed this up and bound it as a 
     book which the children illustrated. (I don't have time 
     anymore. I have to teach to the SOLs.)
       ``I would teach a poetry unit. We would explore the various 
     forms of poetry and the children would write at least one 
     poem in each of six forms. They would illustrate them and we 
     would bind them as a book. Something for them to keep 
     forever. (I don't have time anymore. We read some poems and 
     picked out the rhyming words so they can pass their SOLs.)
       ``I would teach reading twice a day so the children who 
     were behind could catch up. I was able to raise some children 
     by two years in one school year. (I don't have time anymore. 
     I have to teach to the SOLs. I have to teach how to fill in 
     bubbles.)''
       Frustrated by the new test-driven curriculum, this teacher 
     has decided to leave her profession. Is that school reform?
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 8, 2001]

            Mountain of Tests Slowly Crushing School Quality

                            (By Marc Fisher)

       Those who say the culture wars are over must not have 
     children of school age. The struggles that have divided the 
     nation for 20 years--the phonics fracas, the New Math mess, 
     the tiff over teaching morality--pale next to the brewing 
     battle over testing.
       Just as President Bush and Congress reach consensus on 
     mandating even more testing for the nation's children, 
     colleges by the dozens step away from the SATs as a primary 
     arbiter of who gets in. Just as parents in poor schools rally 
     to use standardized tests to rid themselves of incompetent 
     teachers, parents in more affluent schools stage boycotts of 
     the very same tests.
       And just as D-Day looms for high-stakes testing programs 
     like those in Virginia and Maryland that will deny diplomas 
     to kids who flunk the tests, parents and teachers alike raise 
     the alarm about classrooms where creativity, variety and 
     inspiration are becoming dirty words.
       In Montgomery County, students reel under the burden of 50 
     hours of testing each year, including the state-mandated 
     MSPAPs, three other state test programs and the county-
     imposed CRTs. The 50 hours doesn't include PSATs, SATs or 
     Advanced Placement tests. Now, if Bush has his way, there'll 
     be nationally required tests as well.
       In Virginia, the load is lighter, but the grumbling just as 
     heavy, especially as we near 2004, when thousands of seniors 
     will be denied diplomas if they fail the Standards of 
     Learning tests.
       In wealthy Scarsdale, N.Y., more than half of the eighth-
     graders stayed home during last week's state testing, capping 
     a boycott organized by parents fed up with testing and its 
     pernicious deadening impact on their kids' education.
       In the District, a relative handful of parents--based in 
     affluent Northwest Washington--attempted a similar boycott of 
     last month's exams.
       Caleb Rossiter, who teachers statistics at American 
     University, led the boycott, keeping his first-grader home 
     from Key Elementary in the Palisades. ``My son has had a 
     whole series of Stanford-9 prep days at school, when they 
     work over and over on multiple choice questions and how to 
     fill in the bubbles correctly,'' he says. ``If you could see 
     how they waste students' time with all this test prep--it's 
     so disheartening.''
       Rossiter approached everyone from his son's teacher on up 
     to Superintendent Paul L. Vance, asking why first-graders, 
     many of whom can barely read, should be subjected to testing. 
     ``Everyone I talked to said there's no educational 
     justification for this,'' Rossiter says. ``They use the tests 
     to grade the teachers and the principal, which everyone 
     agrees the tests were not designed to do.''
       As a statistician, Rossiter likes tests. He understands how 
     useful they can be in diagnosing learning problems. But he 
     and those who write the tests are offended by their misuse--
     even as those companies rake in millions in the nation's 
     testing binge.
       Tests that were never meant to do anything of the sort are 
     now used to determine teacher pay and to judge the quality of 
     schools. Even though research has repeatedly shown that 
     affluence is the strongest indicator of test success, scores 
     are now used to declare some schools losers and others--such 
     as the Prince George's County schools yesterday--winners.
       The most corrosive effects of this measurement mania are 
     the emerging class and racial divisions over testing. ``It 
     just breaks my heart when I see parents stand up and cheer 
     when they hear that some number of kids in their school have 
     had their scores drawn up above Below Basic on the tests,'' 
     Rossiter says. ``They don't see what the effort to bring up 
     the scores is doing to the curriculum.''
       They don't see the dispiriting effect of scrapping art, 
     music and physical education because they are not on the 
     tests. They don't see the minds that go uninspired because 
     teachers must forsake their craft to focus like drones on 
     getting the scores up.
       ``Testing is even more damaging in low-income schools 
     because that's where you need the most creative teaching,'' 
     Rossiter says.
       But testing is a lot cheaper than paying teachers a decent 
     wage, and testing makes politicians look tough, so we will 
     test and test. And one day, we will look up and see how we 
     have crushed our schools, and tests--which when used properly 
     have lifted the educational fortunes of many poor and middle-
     income children--will end up the culprit, and the pendulum 
     will swing to the other extreme, zipping right past the happy 
     medium.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me explain what this amendment 
does.

[[Page S4797]]

 By the way, so we can be clear we already know--I am going to 
summarize--we actually already know which children are doing well and 
which children are not doing so well. Children who come from families 
who are low income, where they do not have the same opportunities other 
children have for the very best developmental childcare, children who 
attend schools that don't have anywhere near the same resources that 
more affluent schools have, children who live in inadequate housing and 
all too often their parents move two or three times during the school 
year, children who are in schools where sometimes during the school 
year there are two or three or four teachers who come in and try to 
teach and can't, and who do not have the best teachers, students who 
are in schools where the teachers don't make nearly the salaries and 
don't have nearly the access to technology, we already know these 
children are not going to do well on these tests. We already know.
  Actually, what we are going to do--and I will speak more about this 
next week--is something that is incredibly cruel. We are going to fail 
these children again because all of this authorization is fiction. We 
have no agreement on any resources. We just had a budget that gives 
instructions to appropriators, which means we are going to have but a 
pittance.
  I will have a particular amendment next week that says we do the 
testing when we live up to the Dodd amendment and fund title I at that 
level.
  By the way, when we are talking about these children and about full 
funding over 10 years, why are we waiting 10 years, I ask my 
colleagues. If a child is 8 years old now, 10 years from now when we 
fully fund these programs, although we don't have any commitment to do 
so yet, that child will be 18. Childhood is once. You don't recover 
your childhood. Why aren't we helping these children now? Where in the 
budget are the resources to help these children now? Where is the 
commitment to help these children now? Instead, you are going to have 
people pounding their chests saying they are all for accountability.
  These tests don't do a thing when it comes to getting a good teacher, 
when it comes to a smaller class size, or when it comes to making sure 
children come to kindergarten ready. None of that is accomplished.
  I say to my colleagues, at the very minimum let's at least not drive 
out good teachers. Let's not make the mistake of discouraging the very 
best women and men from going into teaching. Let's not drive out good 
teachers by forcing them to be involved in drill education where they 
basically are having to teach the tests and that is all that it is 
about and no more. So they drop social studies, they drop music, they 
drop theater, and they drop art. None of it is tested.
  This amendment says we make the commitment that these tests around 
the country, if we are going to talk about accountability, are 
comprehensive. Don't use just one measurement. In addition, they are 
coherent. They are a measurement that the curriculum is being taught, 
that they are continuous, and we can see how a child is doing over a 
period of time.
  We are saying the States need to provide evidence to the Secretary 
that the tests they use are adequate and of technical quality for each 
purpose for which they are used. Why wouldn't you want to go on record 
making sure we have the high-quality tests used for the purposes for 
which they are supposed to be used?

  Finally, the itemized test scores are provided to the schools so the 
parents and others know where the children are struggling and how they 
can do better.
  I am telling you, if we don't do this, there are two things that are 
going to happen. First of all, you are going to have either a lot of 
children who are going to be held back or put into lower reading groups 
or math groups or whatever or you are going to have a lot of schools 
that are going to be identified as failing schools on the basis of 
single standardized tests.
  We all draw from our personal experience. I can certainly tell you 
that based upon my own personal experience. I am glad that many more 
schools are looking at more than SATs. I wasn't supposed to graduate 
from the University of North Carolina based on SAT scores. I worked 
hard and did great. I wasn't supposed to be a graduate of graduate 
school on the basis of SAT records. I was lucky enough to get a 
doctorate degree at age 24.
  These tests are not always accurate. Why in the world would you want 
to defy what every single person in the testing field says--that you 
should never rely on a single standardized test. You must have multiple 
measures.
  I know there are some students and perhaps some teachers in the 
gallery today.
  The second thing that is going to happen is you are going to drive 
out the best teachers. You are going to make it impossible for the very 
communities, the very schools, and the very kids who need the best 
teachers to get the best teachers because you are going to channel 
everybody down the road of having to teach the standardized test, to 
teach the test. What could be more educationally dead?
  By the way--I will finish on this--I will have a lot to say about 
this bill next week. I will spend a lot of time saying it.
  First of all, we ought to get the testing right.
  Second, without the resources, it is a mockery. It is an absolute 
mockery. We already know what works and what doesn't work. All we have 
to do is look at the schools that our children and our grandchildren 
attend. That is all we have to do.
  The schools that Senators' children and grandchildren attend are good 
schools. They are beautiful. They are inviting. The landscape is 
lovely. The teachers are highly paid. The classes are small. They don't 
do drill education. It is exciting and rewarding. And our children and 
grandchildren, before kindergarten, have been read to widely, know the 
alphabet, and know computers. They are sophisticated and are ready to 
learn.

  We already know we don't need tests to tell us what works. All we 
need to do is live up to our own rhetoric and be accountable. We will 
not be accountable if we jam down the throats of every school district 
in every State in the United States of America a test without at least 
some standards to make sure they are high-quality tests that do not 
lead to what will only be a disaster for education, for these children, 
and for their teachers. We will not be doing our job if we do not 
provide the resources to go with the accountability.
  Today in this amendment I am focusing on the quality of testing. I 
would love to find out why--I had the understanding there was strong 
support for it. Now I understand there isn't. I would like to know in 
what ways the administration disagrees with this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Wellstone amendment be laid aside, and the Senate then turn to the 
Lincoln amendment No. 451, with 15 minutes under the control of Senator 
Lincoln and 5 minutes under the control of Senator Jeffords, with no 
second-degree amendments in order, and, further, following that debate, 
the remaining time until 1:45 be divided equally on the Wellstone 
amendment.
  I further ask consent that the vote occur in relation to the Lincoln 
amendment following the Wellstone amendment at 1:45 p.m. today, with 2 
minutes prior to the vote for explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Minnesota 
is in the Chamber. That would give the Senator from Minnesota 
approximately 50 minutes in additional time to debate the amendment.
  I ask the Senator, would that be sufficient?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I actually, first of all, am pleased to 
speak after the Senator from Arkansas. Second of all, as far as time 
that I need, I said what I needed to say. I am just interested in what 
in the world is the opposition to a high-quality testing amendment? I 
would like to hear what it is people have to say in opposition. So I 
only need time to respond.
  If the Senator from Vermont, and others, support the amendment--which 
I hope they will--I do not need to respond. If other Senators don't 
want to come to the Chamber and debate, then there is no one to respond 
to, so I will

[[Page S4798]]

not need a lot of additional time. I already said what I needed to say 
on this amendment.
  Mr. REID. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it is 
the understanding of the two managers of the bill--one of whom is not 
here--on these two amendments there would be no second-degree 
amendments?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Vermont, the Senator from Arkansas 
is on her way to the Chamber. She will be here momentarily. In the 
meantime, 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.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 451 To Amendment No. 358

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 451 to amendment No. 358.

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

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding, and authorize 
 appropriations for, part A and part D of title III of the Elementary 
                  and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE; AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should appropriate $750,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2002 to carry out part A and part D of title III of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and thereby--
       (1) provide that schools, local educational agencies, and 
     States have the resources they need to assist all limited 
     English proficient students in attaining proficiency in the 
     English language, and meeting the same challenging State 
     content and student performance standards that all students 
     are expected to meet in core academic subjects;
       (2) provide for the development and implementation of 
     bilingual education programs and language instruction 
     educational programs that are tied to scientifically based 
     research, and that effectively serve limited English 
     proficient students; and
       (3) provide for the development of programs that strengthen 
     and improve the professional training of educational 
     personnel who work with limited English proficient students.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out part A and part D of title 
     III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
       (1) $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (2) $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (3) $1,700,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (4) $2,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (5) $2,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (6) $2,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent 
to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senator Bingaman and Senator 
Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Before I describe the specifics of my amendment, I want to take just 
a few moments to commend Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their 
tireless efforts in crafting the bipartisan proposal that is before the 
Senate today. As someone who works hard to bridge the partisan divide 
in Washington, I think each Member of this body owes the managers of 
this particular bill a debt of gratitude for bringing Senators with 
very different points of view together to find common ground on the 
most important bill we will likely consider this year.
  They have done an excellent job. They have worked tirelessly 
together. I certainly commend both of them for their good manners and 
for the diligence with which they have gone about this very important 
issue. They have demonstrated real leadership in this debate by placing 
the education of our children above partisan advantage. I am proud to 
join this bipartisan effort to reform our system of public education by 
helping States and local school districts raise academic achievement 
and deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for all students.

  I think the way this bill has been brought up also accentuates the 
opportunity we have to move in a timely way. As the mother of small 
children who will start kindergarten this fall, I certainly understand 
that the more time we waste in addressing this critical issue, the more 
at risk we put more and more young people across this Nation of not 
being able to achieve their goals.
  So I am pleased to note that the bill before us reflects many of the 
priorities that are important to me and the 500,000 elementary and 
secondary students in my State of Arkansas. As many of my colleagues 
know, I have worked with Senator Lieberman and other new Democrats over 
the last 18 months on a bold ESEA reform proposal known as the three 
R's bill. Our bill took a new approach to Federal education policy by 
combining the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility and 
accountability to help our school districts meet higher standards.
  If there is one thing we have come to know about education, it is 
that you do not get something for nothing. We have to make a priority 
in this Nation of investing in education. This bill and this session 
gives us that opportunity to meet the mark and to actually do what it 
is we say we want to do.
  One fundamental component of our plan, which is also a part of the 
BEST bill, is a commitment to give States the resources they need to 
help all limited English proficient students attain proficiency in the 
English language and achieve high levels of learning in all subjects.
  The amendment I offer today recognizes that we aren't doing enough at 
the Federal level to provide the vast majority of LEP students in this 
Nation with the educational services they need to be successful under 
this new framework. This year, we will spend $460 million to serve LEP 
and immigrant students but only 17 percent of eligible children will 
benefit from these programs.
  My amendment calls on Congress to appropriate $750 million for 
language instruction programs and services in fiscal year 2002. Also, 
my amendment would authorize additional funding over the next 6 years 
so all LEP and immigrant students could receive services under title 
III within 7 years. Under this approach, funding will be distributed to 
States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the 
number of students who need help with their English proficiency. It is 
so essential, if we are going to ask these students to meet the 
performance standards in our schools, that we indicate we have left the 
status quo of education in this country and have moved beyond to the 
21st century. We must give them the tools in order to do so.
  If you have visited many schools in your States lately, you have 
probably heard about the challenges schools and educators face in 
serving the growing number of students in need of LEP programs. From 
1989 to the year 2000, the enrollment of limited-English-proficient 
students in our Nation's schools grew by 104 percent, from 2 million to 
an estimated 4.1 million today. During this same time period, total 
school enrollment grew only by 14 percent.
  My State of Arkansas is a prime example of the trend that is 
occurring across this great Nation, especially in Southern States. 
According to the most recent census estimates, the Hispanic population 
in our State of Arkansas grew 337 percent since 1990, which is believed 
to be the largest percentage of growth in the Nation. Not surprisingly, 
the number of LEP students in Arkansas has increased dramatically in 
recent years as well. Since 1994, the number of LEP students enrolled 
in Arkansas public schools has increased by 80 percent, from 2,172 
students to 10,599 students today.
  Other States have experienced a similar increase in the number of 
students in need of services under title III. Between fiscal year 1999 
and the year 2000, the percentage of immigrant students grew 
dramatically in the following States: Connecticut by 72 percent; 
Georgia by 39 percent; Louisiana

[[Page S4799]]

by 34 percent; Michigan by 35 percent; Missouri, our neighboring State 
to the north, grew by 50 percent; Oregon by 28; Tennessee by 33 
percent; and Utah by 38 percent.
  The need to do more to serve these students and the educators who are 
responsible for teaching them is clear. Providing more resources alone 
won't bring about reform or help close the achievement gap which 
persists between LEP and non-LEP students. Under the BEST bill, States 
will have to establish and meet annual performance goals for LEP 
students or face sanctions. In addition, all LEP students must attain 
the State's proficient level of performance within 10 years. This is a 
new approach that represents an important change from the past where 
too often low expectations for LEP students and immigrant students has 
resulted in low performance in the classroom. Our Nation and its 
economy cannot tolerate that approach to educating our children any 
longer.
  In closing, I hope my colleagues will support my amendment which 
expresses a strong commitment to enhance educational opportunities for 
LEP students by increasing and distributing Federal resources for LEP 
programs in a reliable way and requiring LEP and immigrant students to 
meet higher standards. If we are going to ask these students to master 
English and meet the same challenging State content and student 
performance standards that all students are expected to meet, which we 
must do under this bill, then we need to provide States and local 
school districts with the resources they need to meet this new 
challenge.
  I thank all of my colleagues for their support and encourage their 
vote in favor of the amendment. Attention to this issue is growing in 
so many of our States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold, please.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 403, As modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really will not need to take much 
more time. In a few moments, I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
modify my amendment. There isn't anything I have said that I would 
change. I just think part of the disagreement, at least with the 
Senator from Vermont, was more semantics. I am intending the quality of 
testing language here to apply to this act, this piece of legislation, 
this reauthorization of the ESEA.
  I haven't resolved this one way or the other yet. In my own mind, I 
have a question as to whether or not the Federal Government ought to be 
telling the school districts--I really mean this--in States across the 
country that you will do this testing, and you will do it every year in 
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 with every kid. That is a philosophical 
question.
  The second concern I have is that in terms of our involvement and the 
ways in which schools are going to be measured and accountability is 
going to be defined, I want to make sure we have the necessary language 
that deals with quality, and again I, in particular, would emphasize 
the importance of comprehensiveness, multiple measures, and coherence, 
tests measuring the curriculum and what is being taught, and that it is 
continuous so that we see how children are doing over time.
  I don't know how other Senators will vote, but I am certainly pleased 
to have had the discussion with my colleague from Vermont.
  I send my amendment to the desk and ask that the amendment be 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 403), as modified, reads as follows:

       On page 46, strike line 19 and replace with the following:

     ``assessments 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 required under this Act, and such evidence is 
     made public by the Secretary upon request;''.
       On page 46, line 20, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
       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, 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, I want to hear from my colleague from 
Vermont. Sometimes when I feel particularly indignant--and I do right 
now about where we are heading with this bill, and I have a Senator on 
the floor whom I respect and like to work with, I don't want the 
Senator from Vermont to think this is aimed at him.
  My third concern, which I will talk about next week, is that we are 
just going to kind of keep these children thin when it comes to 
prekindergarten and what is being done for them, and keep them thin 
when it comes to the additional title I help, which could be pre-K, or 
extra reading help, or after school, and we are going to keep them thin 
when it comes to whether or not their schools have the resources and 
they are able to get the best teachers; and then we are going to put 
them on the scale, test them, and fail them again.
  This doesn't work. The ``accountability'' without resources doesn't 
work. But at least this amendment deals in part with the accountability 
piece, which is to make sure we don't confuse accountability and 
testing and a single standardized test as one and the same thing. It is 
not.
  So in the spirit of improving this bill, I hope there will be support 
for this amendment. I thank my colleague

[[Page S4800]]

from Vermont for his very useful suggestions. As I say, next week I am 
going to have some amendments that are going to say, basically, put up 
or shut up. We voted for the title I authorization--not money. So at 
least let's not do this testing until we in fact fund it. I am going to 
have amendments that say that, and I am going to talk about the funding 
of prekindergarten. If you are going to start testing 8-years-olds, I 
guarantee you what has much more to do with what 8-year-olds do in 
school is what happens to them before kindergarten. That is absolutely 
true. That is what is so wrong about the direction in which we are 
heading. I will speak about that at great length next week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on Senator 
Wellstone's willingness to modify his amendment. We all agree we want 
high-quality tests, and it is entirely proper the tests required under 
this act be demonstrably valid and reliable. I appreciate the Senator 
offering his amendment, and I believe it is vastly improved. Hopefully, 
it will be acceptable.
  The Senate now has returned to consideration of the Better Education 
for Students and Teachers, called the BEST, Act. We have now spent a 
little over a week on this bill, and we have made good progress. We 
have disposed of about a dozen amendments, and we have eight that are 
pending, most of which I hope we can complete action on quickly.
  As my colleagues know, consent was reached that first-degree 
amendments were to be filed by 5 p.m. yesterday, and I want to bring my 
colleagues up to date as to those results.
  I compliment my colleagues for their interest and industry in 
preparing the amendments. Somewhere around 280 amendments were filed to 
the bill. Of course, this number does not include possible second-
degree amendments that could be allowed under the rules.
  At our current base of 20 amendments a week, we would complete this 
legislation, say, in another 14 weeks. Obviously, that is about the 
time we intend to adjourn for the year, if we assume we did not do 
anything else. Assuming the Senate takes up no other business and all 
amendments are offered and everybody is happy, that would be fine. 
Obviously, that is not the case. I urge all my colleagues to make sure 
when we get back into the amendment process after today that they 
cooperate so we can narrow these amendments and hopefully consolidate 
many of them, or whatever, so we can finalize this bill within the next 
week or 2.
  I hope my colleagues will reflect on what is really important to them 
and this legislation and communicate to Senator Kennedy's staff or my 
staff which amendments they want considered.
  At a minimum, I urge my colleagues to restrict themselves to 
education amendments. I advise my colleagues that I plan to oppose all 
amendments that are not relevant to the bill regardless of the merits 
of the particular proposal.
  We will obviously have our hands full completing action on this 
legislation without undertaking debate on largely unrelated issues.
  Senators rightly have taken a great interest in this legislation and 
have proposed hundreds of amendments to the bill. We will do our very 
best to work with Senators to clear as many amendments as possible and, 
in turn, will ask our colleagues to identify over the next few days 
which amendments are their highest priority.
  As we move on today, hopefully Members will let us know which 
amendments they want to pursue so we can narrow the number as soon as 
possible without having to bother Members with calling up amendments.
  I urge my colleagues to please let us know which amendments they 
really want to have offered, and we will try our best to expedite them.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first I want to say I am very hopeful 
that the Senate will overwhelmingly support the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. He spoke very clearly and 
effectively about his presentation today. I made comments yesterday 
about the importance of developing a test which is going to be 
comprehensive and not just reflective of perhaps the simple rote 
answers to rote kinds of questions, but real examinations of the 
thinking process of children and where they need help and assistance.
  The purpose of this legislation is to provide valid and reliable 
tests along with meaningful reforms that enable children to move ahead 
academically.
  That is what we want to try to do with the whole range of tests. We 
have enough experience now of knowing which ones really can be used for 
instruments for learning as compared to those which are solely 
punitive. In too many instances, teachers teach to the test. In this 
way, we both fail the student, fail the test, fail the school, and fail 
the parents.
  Senator Wellstone's amendment is enormously important. As I tried to 
point out yesterday, I think the kind of thoughtful examination by 
those who have been in the field for years in terms of the evaluation, 
as well as testing, have come to the conclusion that the more 
comprehensive examination of children done in a timely way and with the 
supplementary services available can be a very powerful instrument in 
helping needy children move ahead academically. I am hopeful that will 
be accepted by the Senate.
  I want to say a strong word in support of Senator Lincoln's amendment 
in terms of the bilingual education.
  One of the themes of this legislation is to try to find out what the 
challenges are in our local communities but also what works in our 
local communities in terms of educational achievement and build on 
that; also, to take that experience, and make sure that the children 
who ought to be covered in title I will be covered. This amendment is a 
no-brainer.

  If we look at the legislation that we currently have without the 
acceptance of the Lincoln amendment, we will be denying millions of 
limited English proficient children the key element in terms of 
increasing their academic ability with high quality, effective programs 
in Title III. We are not prescriptive. We give the local communities 
the choices in terms of the bilingual and language instructional 
programs that will be available to the schools and to the local 
communities in terms of helping children who are limited English 
proficient. Local communities can make judgments and decisions as to 
which program is suitable for their particular community.
  There is a wide range of different evaluations of these programs to 
demonstrate the ones that have been the most successful. All of that 
will be available to the local community. What is important is that 
those services be available to those children. Without those services 
being available to those children, then we are basically failing those 
children. It is a very clear group of children that we are failing.
  The number of children who fall into the limited English proficiency 
has virtually doubled over the period of the last 10 years, and is 
increasing daily. These students are making up a growing number of 
district's total enrollment. In 9 states the limited English proficient 
population has grown by 25 percent or more since 1995.
  The amendment of the Senator from Arkansas recognizes this growth, 
and responds to it. It says: Look, we know what works for the local 
communities. We know that schools throughout the nation have been 
struggling to serve this population.
  For a certain period of time, we thought the only language was going 
to be Spanish, and that it was just

[[Page S4801]]

going to be in Florida, Texas, and California. But we know of the 
expansion of and the need for these programs in many other areas of our 
country, including Arkansas, as the Senator has pointed out.

  On this chart, the red line shows that the limited-English-
proficiency enrollment has increased by 100 percent in the last 10 
years, while total enrollment has basically been rather flat over that 
period of time.
  What we also know is, if we do not provide these programs, 
effectively, these children, almost out of definition, are going to 
fail in terms of new accountability and testing standards. That, we 
know. That is a given.
  The question is--here, this afternoon, in a few minutes--whether we 
are going to go on record and say, look, this is a particular group of 
children who are part of our public school systems--as a result of a 
variety of factors; the changes in immigration patterns, the changes in 
our immigration laws--who need assistance.
  There are many children who are falling into this category. We know, 
as sure as we are standing in this Chamber today, that if we do not 
adopt the Lincoln amendment, we are denying millions of children the 
kinds of benefits that we know are successful because they have 
demonstrated success.
  I have a number of examples where we have seen local communities that 
were able to participate in programs, such as what would be included in 
the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas. They have seen dramatic 
changes in their whole academic attitude. The result is that these 
children have really blossomed with those kinds of programs. Without 
them, we are going to be reaching only a very small number of these 
children who would otherwise be eligible--only 17 percent under the 
Bush budget. Over the 4 million limited English proficient students 
nationwide, we are only serving 900,000 at the present time. We aim to 
serve more. But we need the resources.
  We are hopeful, with this legislation, to try to build on tried and 
tested efforts that have been initiated in different parts of the 
country and that have been demonstrated to be constructive and 
productive in enhancing academic achievement--to offer these out to 
local communities, to let local communities make these decisions. We 
have given them additional kinds of flexibility. Then we would have 
accountability in terms of the teachers, in terms of the schools, in 
terms of the parents, and also new accountability for disadvantaged 
children who are facing enormous kinds of challenges every single day. 
Many students struggle with learning English, and meeting challenging 
academic standards.
  If we are really interested in getting a fair start for these 
children, if we are really interested in no children being left behind, 
we have, we believe, a program that can do that. But if we do not 
provide the kinds of targeting assistance with these programs for 
children who have the limited English proficiency, then effectively we 
are writing them off, make no mistake about it.
  That is what is at stake. That is what is so important.
  If we are really interested, we ought to recognize that this is a 
defined group of children who we have in our schools, and we ought to 
make sure the children are going to benefit from these programs.
  The red line on the chart--which brings us up to the year 2000--shows 
that the limited English proficient population now numbers more than 4 
million students. That number is going to continued to grow. So the 
question is, Are we going to recognize what is happening in our schools 
today--what has happened over the last 10 years and what is going to 
happen in the next 5 years? If we are really interested in trying to 
make sure these children are not going to be left behind, this is the 
amendment that can make a major difference.
  I congratulate the Senator from Arkansas. I think this is one of the 
most important amendments we will consider. It is a lifeline in many 
respects. It is the crutch upon which the other provisions in Title III 
of this legislation really depend. If we do not provide resources for 
this program, then the other aspects of this legislation are going to, 
fail millions of children. That is wrong.
  We ought to take what we know. The good Senator from Arkansas has 
done that and has offered us an opportunity to make this legislation 
even stronger. We saw a modest increase in our authorization coming out 
of the committee. But that increase is clearly not enough to do the 
job. The Lincoln amendment will do the job. I am very hopeful that it 
will be accepted in the Senate.
  Mr. President, whatever time I have remaining, I am glad to yield to 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 9\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  In the last few weeks this Senate has begun to focus on what is, by 
any measure, the most pressing issue before the country; and that is 
simply the quality of education for America's schoolchildren.
  It is a quality-of-life issue. It is an economic issue. It is even a 
national security issue. A great nation cannot long endure in its 
position if the quality of education for its children is not paramount. 
You cannot lead economically, socially, culturally, or even militarily 
for long if you do not lead in the quality of education for your 
children.
  This reality, I believe, has focused the Senate's attention on 
funding standards and quality of education. I believe the debate has 
been promising. The Senate adopted the Dodd amendment to authorize a 
$132 billion increase over 10 years in title I aid to poor schools. 
Currently, the Federal Government provides school districts with only 
one-third of the assistance for which they are eligible. Under the Dodd 
measure, by 2011, they will receive 100 percent of the assistance they 
both need and require.
  The Senate adopted the Harkin amendment to meet our Federal 
commitment to special education by guaranteeing $181 billion over 10 
years for IDEA. This program was enacted by Congress in 1975. The 
Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the per-pupil cost. 
The reality is, for the year 2000, we have paid simply 13 percent.
  The Harkin amendment will make an enormous difference to local school 
district budgets where the share of the special education funding has 
increased from 3 percent to 20 percent in total cost since 1975.
  But also, I believe that the bill itself--before amendment --does 
have the underpinnings of genuine reform. The Bush administration's 
plan does include an emphasis on accountability, standards, and 
testing. If these provisions of accountability are married with meeting 
a genuine Federal commitment on special education, training, hiring 
teachers, and special education, then the Senate can be proud of this 
legislation. Indeed, to date, we have done exactly that.
  Now we turn to the question of construction, the quality of these 
schools themselves. Most Americans in their communities would not 
believe what many of us have seen in our States, that in this 
extraordinary time of American prosperity, economic power, and budget 
surplus, American students are attending class in gymnasiums, trailers, 
and hallways. I have seen it in New Jersey, in prosperous communities. 
It is not a proud statement about our country.
  Mr. President, 2,400 schools will have to be built in the next 2 
years just to accommodate rising enrollments.
  Education reform will be incomplete without dedicating this funding. 
No standard of accountability or testing will mean anything--indeed, 
even hiring teachers will mean little--if we do not do something about 
the quality of the schools themselves.
  As strongly as I believe in the building of schools, even that must 
be complemented by doing something about the human capital, our 
teachers, for it to be a balanced piece of legislation.
  This week we passed the Kennedy amendment which authorized $3 billion 
for professional development. By combining professional development 
with class size reduction, this bill, however, will be jeopardized 
without keeping the commitment of the Clinton administration to hire 
100,000 new teachers. I believe there was nothing more significant 
accomplished in the Clinton administration than the hiring of these new 
teachers to reduce class size.

[[Page S4802]]

  In the Nation, we have hired 30,000 towards that national goal. In my 
State of New Jersey, 1,500 new teachers are at work today who would not 
be in place, reducing class size, but for this initiative.
  A balanced program in the Senate will have accountability; it will 
construct new classrooms. But it must also reduce class size. Every 
study that has ever been chartered has made it clear that the single 
greatest variable in the quality of education is having more teachers 
teaching fewer students. Overcrowded classrooms are a direct threat to 
the ability of our children to learn. We must take disadvantaged 
students and have them engaged in the classroom to increase 
performance.
  An important element is going to be not only recruiting but also 
retaining teachers who otherwise are leaving the classroom, who can 
only be retained by improvements in discipline, but also easing the 
burden by smaller class size and, of course, by compensation.
  In the next decade in New Jersey, more than one-third of our 93,000 
teachers are going to retire. It is going to happen. It is a clock that 
is ticking. Nationwide in the next 11 years, 2.4 million teachers will 
retire.
  As I believe this debate has demonstrated, we have moved beyond a 
partisan debate. The most significant element in this education 
discussion is that Democratic and Republican ideas are now being melded 
together. It is a great moment for the Senate. If we can preserve the 
Clinton administration's efforts at hiring new teachers to reduce class 
size, combine the efforts of Democrats in the Senate for school 
construction to improve the quality of the infrastructure, and take the 
Bush administration's proposals for accountability and testing and 
discipline, this Senate can be proud of what we have done. The Harkin 
and Dodd amendments on special education, on title I, on full funding 
of IDEA are important beginnings. But it is in the balance whether good 
legislation can now be made great, reducing class size, constructing 
the schools that America's children need and deserve.
  I believe every Member of the Senate can be proud of this debate to 
date. Now let's finish and make a good bill great.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, both the Wellstone and Lincoln amendments 
are very important.
  One is to make sure we have quality testing that reflects an accurate 
evaluation of the progress children are making and where the needs are 
so teachers can work on them and so the children can excel. The other 
is to make sure the programs are made available to the children who 
need the kind of assistance that limited-English programs provide and 
that has been demonstrated to be effective. We are talking about the 
neediest children in the country. We are talking about the poorest of 
the poor, living in enormously trying circumstances, who are trying to 
understand and make academic progress. Let's make sure that all the 
support will be there for them.
  I believe the yeas and nays have been asked for, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
  The Senator from Tennessee has 11 seconds.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is we will have a vote 
at any moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will take a moment or two to 
summarize this amendment.
  Again, the amendment focuses on quality testing. The amendment says 
that everything we are doing within this Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act which has to do with these tests that are going to take 
place every year must meet the professional standards. In particular, 
what I am focused on is that there be multiple measures, not a single 
measurement; that, again, there be coherence; that the actual 
curriculum that is being taught is what is being measured; and that we 
also focus on continuity and are able to look at a child's progress 
over time.
  I am not at all excited about any of the direction here, but any way 
I can make this bill a better bill, I want to. I certainly hope my 
colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  Again, this budget resolution that was passed tells the story loudly 
and clearly. We are not going to have the resources going to the 
schools and the children. Next week I will have amendments that say we 
go with the testing and accountability when, in fact, we have provided 
the funding for title I; when, in fact, we have provided funding for 
early childhood development; when we have done the job by way of 
getting the tools to the schools and the children and the teachers so 
they can succeed. That is going to be a long story next week.
  For now, I am hoping there is good, strong support for this quality 
of testing amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining on either side.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. on 
Monday, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1 and the Reid amendment 
No. 460 and there be up to 1 hour for debate to be equally divided in 
the usual form with no second-degree amendments in order.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following that debate, the 
amendment be laid aside and at 4 p.m. the Senate resume consideration 
of amendment No. 376 offered by Senator Cleland and there be up to 1 
hour for debate on that amendment with no second-degree amendments in 
order.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a vote occur in relation to that 
amendment following the Reid amendment with 2 minutes prior to the vote 
for explanation.
  I further ask unanimous consent that a vote occur in relation to the 
Reid amendment at 5:30 p.m. on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that there would be no second-degree amendments to the 
amendments of Senators Reid and Cleland.
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
Wellstone amendment No. 403, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran

[[Page S4803]]


     Collins
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Boxer
     Crapo
     Ensign
  The amendment (No. 403), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 451

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes evenly divided on the 
Lincoln amendment No. 451.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, the amendment on which we are about to 
vote reconfirms our commitment to give States the resources they need 
to help all students with limited English proficiency to attain 
proficiency in the English language and achieve high levels of learning 
in all subjects.
  This year we spent $460 million to serve LEP and immigrant students, 
but only 17 percent of eligible children will benefit from these 
programs. This amendment calls on Congress to appropriate $750 million 
for language instruction programs and services in 2002. It would also 
authorize additional funding over the next 6 years.
  The critical part of this is that these children are also going to be 
judged by standards and tests. We want to be able to give these school 
districts the capabilities to give these children the tools they need 
in order to be successful within these standards and these tests. It is 
absolutely essential if what we want to do in this Nation is to leave 
the status quo of education and move on to something that is 
progressive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no requests for time. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to Lincoln 
amendment No. 451.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Craig
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Boxer
     Breaux
     Crapo
     Ensign
  The amendment (No. 451) was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 534 to Amendment No. 358

 (Purpose: To provide for a Careers to Classrooms program and improve 
                    the Troops to Teachers program)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Crapo, 
     Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 
     534.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, 
under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, amendment No. 534 is the Careers to 
Classrooms Act of 2001. I have several cosponsors who have worked very 
hard with me to put this amendment together because many of us had 
ideas along the same line. I thank very much my cosponsors: Mr. 
Wellstone, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Schumer, and Mr. Biden.
  We have all worked on this issue because probably every one of us has 
had some experience that caused us to realize we must do more to 
recruit teachers into our classrooms. I had the experience of having a 
very good friend in Greenville, TX, who was a Latin major in college. 
She taught Latin in a private school, but when she moved to Greenville, 
she did not have the teacher certification for public school, so she 
was not able to teach Latin. Well, they didn't offer Latin in 
Greenville High School, even though they very much wanted to do so. But 
she was not qualified to teach because she didn't have the teacher 
certification, even though she had taught Latin in private school and 
that was her major in college.
  So I started thinking, what are we doing, when we have a shortage of 
teachers, especially in rural classrooms, in urban classrooms, in high-
growth areas, where we have subjects that are not being taught--
subjects such as math, science, languages--yet we have artificial 
barriers to bringing people who have expertise into the classroom?
  So I modeled the Careers to Classrooms Program--along with my 
cosponsors--along the lines of the Troops to Teachers Program, which 
Senator DeWine will speak about later, which has been so successful in 
taking retired military personnel who would like to have another 
career, who are 40, 45, 50 years old, and bringing them into the 
classroom with all of their myriad of great experience and giving the 
children in our country the chance to experience this kind of 
expertise.
  This is Careers to Classroom because now we have a number of people 
who have done very well early in their careers, and they would like to 
change careers, or they would like to retire from the computer 
industry. We want to lure those qualified people into the classroom. We 
want to target the classes that don't have teachers, where we have 
teacher shortages. So this amendment simply puts forward another 
opportunity for our school districts to give alternative certification, 
expedited certification, to encourage teachers to go into the 
classrooms in areas where we have teacher shortages.
  In this legislation, individuals with demonstrable skills in high-
need areas would be given the chance to help a school that has a need 
for teachers in their field. It would provide limited stipend 
assistance for individuals involved in State alternative certification 
programs and will agree to

[[Page S4804]]

teach in rural schools, schools with the most pressing teacher 
shortages, and schools with the highest percentage of students from 
low-income families. So we give incentives through stipends to help 
them get that teacher certification.
  Second, to help offset the additional costs these high-needs schools 
incur when they accept individuals in the Careers to Classrooms 
Program, the provision allows States to award grants to such schools to 
meet these costs.
  In other words, we are rewarding the school districts for creativity, 
for going the extra mile to bring qualified teachers into the 
classroom, and we are rewarding the person who is willing to go into 
the classroom by giving assistance for that alternative certification.
  I ask that we pass this bill. It is one more way our public schools 
can give every child an opportunity to reach his or her full potential. 
That is the goal of public education. It is why public education is so 
important. We want every child to reach his or her dreams with a public 
education.
  We like private schools. We like parochial schools. We think home 
schools are fine for many students. But we also want our public schools 
to be the foundation of our country, and that is exactly what adding 
more options and more incentives for creativity will do.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 3 or 4 minutes. I notice 
Senator Clinton is on the floor, and Senator DeWine is on the floor as 
well. I say to Senator DeWine, I will let him cover the Troops to 
Teachers part of this legislation. It is a real addition, and I like 
this effort. This whole notion of Careers to Classrooms makes all the 
sense in the world.
  I want to highlight two facts. No. 1, we are focusing again on 
underserved children and underserved communities, be they inner city, 
rural, or, for that matter, in a suburb.
  No. 2, we want to make it possible for some people to make big career 
changes, to go into teaching, working with the States, and States 
having collaborative relationships with higher institutions to provide 
alternative means for certification and have more lateral entry into 
teaching.
  Some of the best teachers are women and men who midcareer decide to 
make this change and go into teaching. For my own part --I hope I do 
not have to do it too soon; some of my colleagues might disagree with 
me on that--I often think to myself that I would love to do some 
teaching in the schools I visit all the time. Even though I do have a 
doctorate in political science and have some experience in the area of 
social studies, the thought of going back to school and going through 
the usual certification is a disincentive. We are trying to provide 
more incentives for people to come into teaching.
  Every discussion I have been involved in at every school, once every 
2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years, if I ask a student what makes for a 
good education, the first thing they talk about before anything else is 
good teachers. By the way, they are not talking about teachers who 
teach the worksheets. They are talking about teachers who fire their 
imagination.
  Finally--and Senator Clinton may speak about this--it is not just 
recruitment but retention, having mentors, and providing support for 
teachers to stay in the profession. We run into the problem of good 
people leaving the profession. This is terribly important.
  This amendment is on target. Each of us wrote our own amendments, our 
own bills. The Senator from Texas is right; we put this all together in 
a collaborative relationship. It is a very important amendment. There 
is widespread support for it, and I am proud to work with my colleagues 
on this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I congratulate my colleagues from Texas, Minnesota, 
and New York for the great work they have done on this bill. This bill 
goes to the heart of the challenge we face in the next few years in 
education. We know a lot of things are important in education. We know 
we have to have a good building, laboratory equipment, and good books. 
We have to have different items, but we know the most important thing 
in education is the teacher.
  As my high school principal, Mr. Malone, told me years ago, there are 
only two things that really count in education: One is a student who 
wants to learn and the other is a teacher who can teach. This amendment 
goes directly to the heart of this issue.
  We face a challenge in this country. In the next decade, we will have 
to produce 1.6 million to 2.6 million new teachers just to replace the 
teachers today who are getting ready to retire--1.6 to 2.6 million. We 
know from our experience that the greatest challenge with regard to 
recruiting these teachers is in the poorer parts of the country--in the 
inner cities many times, in areas of Appalachia. This is where it is so 
vitally important for us to attract, retain, and keep the best teachers 
we can find. We absolutely have to do that. This amendment is targeted 
directly at that.
  I wish to talk for a moment about the part of the bill that we refer 
to as Troops to Teachers. This is not a new program. It is a program, 
frankly, we had to fight last year to keep afloat. It is a program that 
has been proven to work.
  The concept is very simple. Every year in this country we have tens 
of thousands of men and women who retire from the military, and they 
retire many times at, at least from my point of view now, a relatively 
young age, the age of 57. They have a lot of time ahead of them, and 
they have a great deal of experience. We want to encourage as many of 
these people as we can who have already proven they can lead other 
people to go into education, to teach, to take that leadership ability 
and lead our young people and mold them and work with them to, in turn, 
become leaders.
  It has been a very successful program. This bill expands that 
program. Let me briefly tell the Members of the Senate what the results 
of this program have been.
  A 1999 study found that 30 percent of Troops to Teachers, 30 percent 
of the people who go from the military into teaching under this 
program, are minorities. That is compared to only 10 percent of all 
teachers. Thirty percent of these former troops are now teachers and 
teaching math. Many of them are involved in teaching science. These are 
two subjects for which we know it is always difficult to find quality 
people to teach and people who have that background.
  Twenty-five percent of the Troops to Teachers teach in urban schools; 
90 percent are male, compared to the current teaching force, which is 
74 percent female. Many educators tell us we need more males to go into 
teaching, particularly in K-6, 7, 8, the primary education. Troops to 
Teachers has proven this will, in fact, work and helps to do that.
  I congratulate my colleagues for their work on this issue. The Troops 
to Teachers provision is something I have worked on for some time. I 
have had the chance in my State of Ohio to meet with people who have 
been troops who are now teachers. It is phenomenal to see their 
enthusiasm but, more importantly, to see the enthusiasm of their 
students. It really makes a difference in these children's lives.
  This is an amendment that goes right at the heart of our problems and 
our concerns and that is to improve the quality of teaching in this 
country and to continue to do what we can to recruit the best people we 
can and put them into education and let them teach our young people.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleagues 
supporting this amendment, Careers to Classrooms. I commend my good 
friend from Texas who brought all of us together, took all of our 
various ideas, and came up with a amendment that I believe will make a 
tremendous difference in one of the most serious problems facing us in 
education. This is an issue all of us who joined together as original 
cosponsors have worked on because it is one that came to us in our 
respective States.
  I brought along just three sample headlines from 3 different years. 
The first, from August of 1998, from the Buffalo News, reports that 
more than half of the teachers in New York State,

[[Page S4805]]

201,000, were headed for retirement in the next 10 years.
  Then a year later, in August 1999, the New York Times ran a story on 
the front page alerting the public that as children were heading back 
to school, cities and towns across our country were struggling to fill 
the teacher slots, especially in our poorest neighborhoods, and 
especially in difficult subjects such as math and science and special 
ed.
  Then, again, in August 2000, the New York Times focused on 
Westchester County where I live, highlighting the fact that faced with 
retirements and other departures from the profession, superintendents 
were spending their time desperately searching for teachers to be there 
when school opened.
  I think all of us who joined together on this amendment do not want 
to see these headlines anymore. We think it is time that, from August 
2001 on, the headlines should read that our country is coming together 
to answer the call to recruit and retain more teachers. I am so pleased 
that this amendment hits what I see as all of the necessary major 
points.
  As Senator Hutchison said, it supports alternative routes to 
certification. I have heard so many stories similar to the one she told 
about her friend, the Latin teacher, who could not get a job in the 
public schools. As Senator DeWine points out, it continues to support 
and fund the very successful Troops to Teachers Program. As Senator 
Wellstone points out, it begins to provide the resources that our high-
need school districts will require in order to place them at the head 
of the queue to try to attract teachers. I am pleased it will permit 
each local school district to develop a local teacher corps, which 
would be able to provide bonuses for midcareer professionals interested 
in becoming teachers.
  I have often said if we give signing bonuses to athletes, we ought to 
give signing bonuses to teachers. There is not any more important job 
in our country. All too often our teachers are relegated to the margins 
of our concerns. The teacher corps would also be able to make 
scholarships available for recent college students and create new 
career ladders for teacher's aides to become fully certified teachers. 
A lot of our teacher's aides want to become teachers. If they are 
performing well, if they have the requisite academic skills, we ought 
to encourage their development.
  It will also provide additional mentoring, support, and professional 
development that is needed to become an effective teacher.
  All in all, I am so pleased that we have an opportunity to address 
this important issue in this bill because if we do not address the 
quality and the quantity of our teaching force, we are not going to be 
able to deliver on all the other promises we are trying to make and 
keep with the children, teachers, and parents of our country.

  I know in New York City we are looking desperately to fill the slots 
that are needed for our teachers. This kind of program of alternative 
certification and additional mentoring, similar to what we call the New 
York City Teaching Fellows Program, will help us recruit and retain our 
teachers.
  In addition to promoting alternative routes to full certification, I 
am pleased that in the underlying bill as part of S. 1 we have the 
National Teacher Recruitment Campaign to alert prospective teachers 
from across the country about these new resources and routes to 
teaching and include a National Teacher Recruitment Clearinghouse so 
someone, anywhere in the country, can sign on to the Web and find out 
information about where they are living now or where they hope to move 
so we can really attract people who are the best and the brightest into 
teaching.
  I am excited about this opportunity. I commend all my colleagues who 
have worked in a collegial and bipartisan manner, representing States 
from Texas to Ohio to Minnesota to New York, to send a clear message 
that teacher recruitment and retention is not a partisan issue. It is 
at the root of how successful we can be in improving education. I am so 
pleased we are going to have a chance to vote on this amendment and 
send that clear message to the people of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have 
spoken so eloquently. I think Senator Wellstone, Senator Clinton, 
Senator DeWine, and I have each addressed a separate part of this bill. 
We have each addressed something from our own States that we have seen 
that caused us to come together to try to alleviate the critical 
teacher shortage that we have in public schools throughout our Nation.
  I think this is one more way that we will be able to add more 
creativity and more options to our arsenal of weapons that we have to 
combat the teacher shortage that we are seeing in our country.
  I thank all my colleagues.
  If there is no one else wishing to speak on this amendment, I urge 
adoption of amendment No. 534.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 534) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I think we have taken a 
great step forward. I hope in the final bill this is a very big part of 
the reform we are all seeking in public education.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, thanks to my colleague, especially for 
her leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today as we debate one of the most 
important issues to come before us in the Senate--the education of our 
children--and to urge my colleagues to support the Careers to 
Classrooms amendment.
  If you have listened to the debate, there is not a single Senator who 
is satisfied with the quality of education in our public schools. We 
are unanimous in our belief that U.S. schools must do better in this 
global, competitive, ideas-based world.
  In my own State, New Yorkers were shocked to learn that more than 
one-third of the State's students performed below the basic level of 
achievement in reading. Over the last 8 years, the number of New York 
State schools cited for poor performance has more than doubled, and 
this is simply unacceptable.
  When you look at the studies, you see that they show that the 
greatest influence on how a young person performs in school is their 
parents and the values and oversight their parents are giving. There is 
something we can do about that, but not very much--at least in this 
bill.
  Second is the quality of our teachers. On this bill, if we could only 
accomplish one thing--I hope it will accomplish many more than that--if 
we could make only one change to our schools to raise the quality of 
education for all kids, it would be to improve the quality of our 
teachers and make the teaching profession more attractive to young 
people and midcareer professionals alike.
  In the past, America was able to attract high-quality individuals 
into teaching. We had three cohorts of people who went into teaching:
  In the 1930s and 1940s, we had New Dealers--people who were raised in 
the Depression and got that civil service job because they did not want 
to be fired, even if it paid a little less.
  In the 1950s and 1960s, there were not many opportunities for women, 
and millions of young, bright American women were told, ``Go be a 
teacher,'' and, ``Go be a nurse.'' To our great luck as a nation and to 
my great luck as a student who was taught by many of them, many of them 
did go into teaching.
  The final cohort were the young men in the late 1960s and early 1970s 
who, because you received a draft deferment when you taught, went into 
teaching.
  My children attend public schools in New York City. At Open School 
Night, I asked the six teachers of my daughter who is in high school 
how they got into teaching. They are women who had gotten into teaching 
in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and they are men all about my age--I am 
50--who had become teachers during the Vietnam war.

[[Page S4806]]

  Those three groups of people are gone. New Deal, not too many people 
who lived in the shadow of the Depression are going into professions 
now; Women, thank God there are many more opportunities; and, again, 
thank God we don't have a Vietnam war that drove men into teaching.
  As a result, because of that, our teachers are old.
  This chart shows the age of teachers in America. This big bump shows 
teachers 47 to 49 in my State. I think the No. 1 age--the ``immediate 
mode'' I think it is called--of the teacher, the most frequent age of 
any, is 53.
  In the next 10 years, we are going to have huge numbers of our 
teachers retire, and they are going to have to be replaced. The $64,000 
question for education is, Who is going to replace them?
  One thing we know. Today, to choose to teach is to choose financial 
sacrifice. Teacher salaries do not compare with other possible options 
facing graduates. In fact, over the past 4 years salary offers for 
college graduates in all fields have grown at twice the rate of those 
for new teachers. Isn't that incredible that in America, where we value 
education, salaries for teachers grew at half the rate of others?

  This chart tells the story about why we are having such difficulty 
attracting good teachers. The starting salary for computer programming 
is $44,000, for accounting is $37,000, for market research is $34,000, 
and for a paralegal is $45,000. But the starting salary for a teacher 
with a bachelor's degree in America is $26,700.
  So a qualified young person, idealistic though they may be, can often 
make $10,000, $15,000, or even $20,000 more starting out by going into 
another profession.
  What job could be more important than teaching? It is the most 
important job in America in the 21st century. Teaching should be an 
exalted profession the way medicine and law were in the 20th century. 
That is not just something that sounds nice; that is if we want to keep 
America the leading country in the world.
  Yet this most important job has become less and less and less 
attractive compared to other jobs financially. That means that quality 
has become less important than simply filling vacant teacher slots. We 
have seen it all. We have seen in my city they now are going not just 
around America but around the world to find young men and women to 
teach, particularly in math and science. The board of education in New 
York City found itself lucky that it had a gold mine of Yugoslavian 
students who wanted to come teach, and Austrian students who wanted to 
come teach. And they are good to have--better than nothing. But how 
many of them are going to stay here and become career teachers and gain 
the invaluable experience in the first 3 or 4 years that a teacher 
gains?
  We cannot continue in this manner. We cannot have so many math and 
science teachers not experienced in math and science. We cannot have 
this global search for people who might teach for a year. We cannot 
have it for a lot of reasons.
  Today's economy depends on the quality of the minds of our young 
people, the quality of the education we provide in our schools, and, 
consequently, our children's success depends on the education they 
receive.
  As you can see from the chart, in my own State, in New York City 
alone, 11,000 teachers could retire by this year's end. And remember 
that previous chart: One-third of our teachers are eligible to retire 
in 5 years. That means our country will have to hire or replace close 
to 2 million teachers over the next decade. And New York State will 
need to hire 80,000 teachers over the next 5 years.
  Studies tell us that teacher qualifications account for more than 90 
percent of the differences in students' math and reading scores.
  I believe in having more teachers. I support having 100,000 new 
teachers. But let me tell you this. I would rather have a really good 
teacher for 21 students than a mediocre teacher for 18. So as much as I 
support having 100,000 new teachers, I would much rather see us get the 
best quality teachers, even if it means slightly bigger class size.
  We, of course, in an ideal world, should not have to settle between 
one and the other. But quality and training counts. That is what the 
studies show. The bad news is that more than 12 percent of all newly 
hired teachers enter the teaching workforce with no training at all. 
More than 1 out of 10 teachers have not a single bit of training. They 
hire you and throw you in a classroom. Isn't that amazing? Would we 
do that to somebody who is working in a foundry on an assembly line? 
Would we do it in almost any other job? No. But here it is. And a third 
of all teachers lack a major or even a minor in the subject they teach. 
And 33 percent of new teachers nationwide lack full certification.

  We all talk about education. We all think that it is the key to our 
future. And the people who are going into teaching are often 
financially underpaid, which means, frankly, we do not get the highest 
quality, and they are untrained when they enter the classroom.
  I do not think anyone in this Chamber, from the most conservative to 
the most liberal, would dispute this statement: Every American child 
deserves to be taught by a highly qualified, motivated teacher.
  So what does that mean? It means that scarce Federal dollars--and 
they are scarce; particularly, I might add, with this huge tax cut they 
are even more scarce--it means that scarce Federal dollars should be 
used to support and help replicate successful programs to recruit and 
retain highly qualified teachers, especially in those districts with 
the highest need.
  I have been working on this piece of legislation since I came to the 
Senate 2 years ago. We put together something called the ``Marshall 
Plan for Teachers.'' I am proud to say that a lot of the things in this 
amendment--and the ideas were not mine alone; lots of my colleagues had 
very similar ideas--are very much like the ``Marshall Plan'' that we 
introduced and talked about.
  I am very proud to have worked with so many of my colleagues --of 
course, Senator Kennedy in the lead, and Senators Hutchison, Wellstone, 
Crapo, Clinton, DeWine, and Biden--on this amendment to provide Federal 
support for States and local districts to recruit and retain midcareer 
professionals and to attract young people into the teaching profession. 
To me, it is the most important part of this bill.
  There are many important parts. Federal dollars will help establish, 
expand, or enhance programs that provide alternative routes to 
certification, such as the National Teaching Fellows Program in my city 
of New York. Dollars will be targeted to the areas where they are 
needed most--districts and schools with high numbers of low-income 
families, high numbers of uncertified teachers, and high teacher 
turnover.
  Similar to legislation I introduced this Congress, our amendment 
would provide funds that could be used to recruit new teachers through 
incentives, scholarships, tax credits, or stipends, as long as these 
efforts are linked to effective retention activities such as mentoring 
programs and high-quality, in-service professional development 
opportunities.
  We know that 20 percent of new teachers leave the profession within 
their first 3 years of service. And nearly 10 percent leave within the 
first year. We must be committed to providing incentives to attract 
highly qualified people and provide the resources and opportunities to 
keep people teaching.
  The amendment would support collaboration--partnerships, if you 
will--between local districts, parents, colleges, and universities, and 
community leaders to develop effective recruitment and retention 
strategies.
  In addition, we would support accelerated paraprofessional-to-teacher 
programs and State and regionwide clearinghouses for recruitment and 
placement. And we would expand upon the successful Troops to Teachers 
Program.
  Because accountability is so crucial to the success of our efforts, 
the amendment would require an evaluation report from each grantee to 
determine whether we have increased the number of certified, highly 
qualified teachers teaching the subject areas in which they have 
experience, decreased teacher shortages in high-need subject areas, and 
increased teacher retention.
  It is time to make a change. This amendment will get us on the way to 
what I know is a goal shared by all of

[[Page S4807]]

us: a qualified teacher in every classroom in America.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to our friend and leader from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend and colleague from New York for 
offering this amendment. I would appreciate his opinion on this. I have 
seen, in a number of different situations, where there are many 
individuals in different professions who are skilled in math and 
science and other areas in the new economy. And there are individuals 
who are retiring.
  If they had some way, some pathway to go into teaching, we would find 
that there is a great deal of interest. What the Senator is attempting 
to do is create a pathway for individuals who may have gone into a 
career for a period of time and have been able to have achievement in 
terms of their professional careers but then, with this kind of an 
opportunity that is included in the Schumer amendment, they would be 
able to have a career change and, with the kind of training and what 
they would bring to teaching as achievement in a number of different 
potential areas, they would be able to be of a real advantage to these 
students.
  Many of us have seen, for example, the Troops to Teachers Program 
where we have had a number of members of the U.S. Navy, particularly in 
the areas of--well, the submarine fleet comes the closest in the State 
of Washington, I believe, where a number of the people who retired from 
the Navy stayed in the area. These are people with enormous kinds of 
understanding and a great deal of training in terms of math and in 
terms of science. When they were offered this opportunity to engage in 
the schools--it is also true in a number of districts in Florida and in 
other communities where there were significant numbers of retirees in 
the military--when they opened up the opportunity for these servicemen 
to go into teaching, they just went in droves. The positive impact it 
has had in the schools in the areas of math and science has been 
absolutely extraordinary.
  As I was listening to the Senator, it seems to me that this is sort 
of a particular situation, but there are going to be other professions 
as well where individuals, through the Senator's amendment, could get 
into the areas of teaching and have a rewarding and satisfying and 
inspiring career and also make a real difference in terms of children's 
appreciation for learning as well as enhancing their skills 
academically.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his question. He is right on the 
money, as usual. There are so many people in modern America in the 
military--the Troops to Teachers--so many other professions who retire 
early; they receive their pensions after 25 years; they say they are 
not going to work at this job any longer because they are getting a 
good pension, whatever, who would love to teach, who would just love to 
teach.
  I myself, as everyone here, have been invited into classrooms to 
teach. Come to Cunningham Junior High School and teach 8th grade social 
studies for a day or come to Madison High School and teach 11th grade 
history for a morning. I guess I am not atypical. I love it. When these 
people who have retired, who have such skills, get a taste of teaching, 
they love it.
  One of the things we do in this amendment--and the Senator is correct 
to point this out--is make it a lot easier for them to go into 
teaching. There are no inadvertent barriers in the way.
  In this bill, we allow them to go teach. These days they could have 
15 or 20 productive years as a teacher after their original career. The 
Senator is exactly correct. As we try to think of how to attract new 
teachers, this group of people is one of the great untapped resources. 
I hope, through this amendment, we can tap it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I commend the Senator. We have seen awakened in this 
country, particularly in recent times, a sense of voluntarism. I think 
voluntarism is alive and well in the United States. Many of us hope 
that our young people, whatever their disposition, will be more 
involved in the public policy aspects of our country. You can't get 
away from the fact of their involvement in terms of volunteerism. I 
have seen it in our high-tech area in my own State of Massachusetts 
with our ``netdays'' where Massachusetts was 48 out of 50 States in 
terms of Internet access. And basically, through asking the high-tech 
industry to tie up with local schools, we have moved now into No. 11. 
We have what we call ``netdays.'' The private sector in the high-tech 
area, the software industry, has been enormously responsive in adopting 
schools, and labor laid down 350 miles of cable in Boston voluntarily 
on Saturdays because their children were going to these schools.

  Schools have an enormous ring in terms of our value system. To 
challenge our society in ways which they haven't been challenged 
before, in terms of giving people an opportunity to be a part of an 
educational system, would get a very positive response. We shouldn't 
miss the opportunity to at least challenge professionals in that area. 
The good Senator's amendment will help enormously in being able to do 
it.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to share some 
experiences I have had in this area also.
  As you may remember, a few years ago, Congress took back--sort of--
the school system of the District of Columbia. I had the opportunity of 
sort of being the de facto superintendent of schools for awhile. I have 
been following up on some of the problems they have had, as all schools 
are having, with finding teachers who are qualified. I find that the 
only teachers they can get in the science and math area are retired 
people who have come back in and had some sort of a certification 
process to make sure they knew the basics about teaching.
  Also, in Vermont, we have one of the largest IBM plants, and we have 
the same shortage of teachers. They are finding there that the source 
of getting good teachers back into the schools is from the retired IBM 
employees.
  This is an idea we have been talking quite a bit about today. I 
wanted to share those experiences with the Senate because we have to do 
everything we can. At some point, the States would be better to do 
that, to make sure the standards just of the common capabilities of 
teaching are there and all that sort of thing.
  I commend the Senator on his amendment and the Hutchison amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Vermont not only for his 
insight but for his great leadership on this bill. One of the reasons 
we have such a broad and bipartisan bill is because of the Senator's 
leadership, as well as my friend from Massachusetts.
  Teaching is so fulfilling. It is a great job, if people get a taste 
of it, as both Senators from Massachusetts and Vermont have said. 
Whether you are a retired military person or a retired person from 
technology or a retired small businessperson, I say: Look at teaching. 
If we can pass this legislation with the amendment that so many of us 
on both sides of the aisle have put together, we will make it easier 
for you to get into teaching.
  Given the importance of teaching to America and given what a 
fulfilling job it is, maybe this amendment will really help the 
children of this generation, and certainly generations in the future, 
to get the kind of great fulfilling experience they had from great 
teachers as we each did as we went through elementary and secondary 
school.
  I thank the Senator for those nice words as well as for his 
leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I plead with my fellow Members of the 
Senate who may still be here that we are waiting for another Senator to 
hopefully offer an amendment. We have some 270 remaining to be brought 
to our attention. Hopefully, we will be here for a little length of 
time anyway. I am not sure how long. Now is the time.
  I yield the floor to Senator Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S4808]]

                 Amendment No. 402 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall offer an amendment. The amendment is 
at the desk. It is amendment No. 402. I call up the amendment at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 402.

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

 (Purpose: To provide grants for the teaching of traditional American 
                     history as a separate subject)

       On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

     SEC. ____. GRANTS FOR THE TEACHING OF TRADITIONAL AMERICAN 
                   HISTORY AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT.

       Title IX (as added by section 901) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

           ``PART B--TEACHING OF TRADITIONAL AMERICAN HISTORY

     ``SEC. 9201. GRANTS FOR THE TEACHING OF TRADITIONAL AMERICAN 
                   HISTORY AS A SEPARATE SUBJECT.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 to enable the Secretary to establish and 
     implement a program to be known as the `Teaching American 
     History Grant Program' under which the Secretary shall award 
     grants on a competitive basis to local educational agencies--
       ``(1) to carry out activities to promote the teaching of 
     traditional American history in schools as a separate 
     subject; and
       ``(2) for the development, implementation, and 
     strengthening of programs to teach American history as a 
     separate subject (not as a component of social studies) 
     within the school curricula, including the implementation of 
     activities to improve the quality of instruction and to 
     provide professional development and teacher education 
     activities with respect to American history.
       ``(b) Required Partnership.--A local educational agency 
     that receives a grant under subsection (a) shall carry out 
     activities under the grant in partnership with 1 or more of 
     the following:
       ``(1) An institution of higher education.
       ``(2) A non-profit history or humanities organization.
       ``(3) A library or museum.''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes to be appropriated 
$100 million to enable the Secretary to establish and implement a 
program to be known as ``Teaching American History Grant Program'' 
under which the Secretary shall award grants on a competitive basis to 
local educational agencies--to carry out activities that will promote 
the teaching of traditional American history in schools as a separate 
subject; and for the development, implementation, and strengthening of 
programs to teach American history as a separate subject, not as a 
component of social studies, within the school curricula, including the 
implementation of activities to improve the quality of instruction and 
to provide professional development and teacher education activities 
with respect to American history.
  A local educational agency that receives a grant under subsection (a) 
shall carry out activities under the grant in partnership with one or 
more of the following:
  (1) An institution of higher education.
  (2) A nonprofit history or humanities organization.
  (3) A library or museum.
  Mr. President, I started school in a two-room schoolhouse 79 years 
ago, in 1923. It was 1924 that John W. Davis of Clarksburg was 
nominated on the 103rd ballot for the office of President of the United 
States. He was defeated by Calvin Coolidge.
  My first teacher was a woman by the name of Carrico. Her husband had 
lost his arm as a brakeman on, I believe, the N&W railroad. Mrs. 
Carrico was my first teacher and she taught the lower grades.
  We started out in the Primer and the main character in that primer 
was Baby Ray. And there were two rooms, as I say. In the other room, a 
man by the name of Lawrence Jennings taught the upper grades. I went 
through the Primer in about 3 weeks. I promoted myself when it came to 
geography. Being in the same classroom with other students in the 
first, second, third, fourth grades--I believe the fourth grade was in 
the same room--I learned a lot by listening to the other students in 
the higher grades.
  There was a geography book. I can remember it as though it were 
yesterday; it was Fryes Geography. Well, I liked geography; I liked the 
maps and the pictures. So I went home one night and said to the man who 
raised me, a coal miner--he was my uncle by marriage--``I want a copy 
of Fryes Geography. I like that book.'' He said, ``Well, we will go to 
Matoaka,'' which was about 5 miles away. This was all in Mercer County, 
in southern West Virginia. ``We will go to Matoaka on Saturday, which 
is pay day, and we will get Fryes Geography.''
  He took for granted that the teacher had asked me to ask him for this 
book. The teacher didn't ask me to do that. I just decided I wanted it. 
So we caught the train and went to Matoaka. There was no highway up to 
Algonquin. Algonquin was the coal camp. There was no highway up to 
Algonquin from Matoaka.
  The railroad ran across Clark's Gap Mountain, and we went by 
railroad, a passenger train, from Matoaka up to Algonquin. We went by 
Giatto and Weyanoke in Mercer County. That is the way we went from 
Matoaka to Algonquin.
  Mr. Byrd, the man who raised me, was a man who didn't have much 
education. He probably never went to the second grade. He could barely 
read. We had a Holy Bible in our house. That was about the only book at 
our house. I always called him my dad because I loved him and he loved 
me. I didn't know anybody else as a father. His wife was my aunt. She 
was my natural father's sister, and I had three brothers and a sister. 
But losing my mother when I was 1 year old, my biological father could 
not care for five children. That was back in the days when he probably 
earned only $3 or $4 a week working in a furniture shop.
  Upon the death of my mother during the influenza epidemic, he gave 
the children to his sisters. He kept the one daughter. I only saw her 
when I was in high school--about 15 or 16 years old. I saw my sister 
then for the first and only time.
  But there we were. These people who took me in to be raised loved me. 
They had one child prior to their taking me as their adopted child. 
That child had died of scarlet fever. So they had me as their adopted 
son. They loved me. I never knew about a mother's kiss. My aunt was 
tough, very religious, and strict. I never knew a mother's kiss, but 
she loved me.
  Anyhow, I went home one evening, and I said to my dad--as I say, I 
called him my dad because, as far as I knew at that time, he was my 
father. Now, I went home and I said I had to have a Fryes Geography. So 
on Saturday, we caught the passenger train, went down to Matoaka and 
bought Fryes Geography.
  I took it to school on Monday. The teacher Mrs. Carrico, said, ``I 
didn't tell you to get this.'' I said, ``Well, I have to have it and I 
want to study it.'' That teacher let me keep that book and let me study 
along with the class in which the book was being taught.
  Well, I came to love my teachers, and we had a category on that 
report card that was denominated ``Deportment.'' My old coal miner dad 
told me, ``If you get a whipping in school, I will give you another 
whipping when you get home.'' I wanted to please that coal miner dad, 
and I wanted to please those teachers. Back in those days, I say to 
Senator Kennedy, the history book was by Muzzie.
  It did not have a lot of pictures in it. It was full of narrative. I 
often ask the young pages who serve us--we have different pages from 
year to year to let me see their history book. I ask the students, the 
pages: Who is Nathan Hale? If an American history book does not tell us 
about Nathan Hale, I do not think it is much of a history book.
  Who was Nathan Hale? Nathan Hale was a young schoolteacher, 21 years 
of age. When George Washington asked for a volunteer to go behind the 
British lines and spy on the British fortifications and bring back 
drawings of the British gun placements, and so on, this young man by 
the name of Nathan Hale, age 21, schoolteacher, volunteered to go.
  He went behind the British lines. He accomplished his mission. On the 
night before he was to return to the American lines, he was arrested as 
a spy, and, of course, the drawings and the papers were in his 
clothing. The next morning, September 22, 1776, he was brought before a 
gallows, and as he

[[Page S4809]]

stood there with his hands tied behind him, he asked for a Bible. The 
request was refused. Nathan Hale stood there before the gallows, and 
only a few yards away was a wooden coffin--a wooden coffin. He knew 
that his body would soon be placed in that coffin.
  He was asked by the British captain, whose name was Cunningham: Have 
you anything to say?
  Nathan Hale said:

       I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my 
     country.

  Nathan Hale died for his country. I often wonder why people cannot 
give one vote for their country--whether they are Republicans or 
Democrats, why they will not vote, why they will not give one vote for 
their country Nathan Hale gave the only life he had for his country.
  That history book taught me about Nathan Hale. As a lad, I memorized 
my history lessons. I memorized them by the light of an oil lamp. I 
memorized history. I liked history. I liked to read about Francis 
Marion the ``Swamp Fox,'' Nathanael Greene, Daniel Morgan, George 
Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison. They were my heroes.
  So I say today we need good history books and good teachers so that 
the boys and girls today will find their heroes among the early 
Americans who built this country.
  I came to appreciate the fact that the peoples of western Europe, 
eastern Europe, central Europe, southern Europe, northern Europe and 
elsewhere came to this country and helped to build it. My heroes were 
those men and women who were mentioned in the history books. The 
teaching of history is important.
  When I moved out of that area of West Virginia--moved out with a 
wagon team--we moved up a hollow called Wolf Creek Hollow. We were 3 
miles up that hollow.
  I then attended another two-room school up on the mountain. I walked 
to that school with a man by the name of Archie Akers. He was one of 
the two teachers in the school. He would walk from 3 or 4 miles down 
the hollow up by my house, and I would get with him and walk on up to 
the top of that mountain to that school.
  I had two teachers there. One was named Mary Grace Lilly. I remember 
the first day I went there. She said: If you have a fence and you can't 
get over it, you can't get under it, what do you do?
  I held up my hand. She called on me. I was eager to be called on. I 
said: If you can't get over it, you can't get under it; you go around 
it.
  She patted me on the head and said: That's right.
  I memorized my lessons. Yes, memorized my lessons. I loved to do it. 
I loved to be called on by the teachers. I liked my teachers. I had 
good teachers. They did not get paid much. Very little did they get 
paid, but they were dedicated teachers.
  We did not have any electricity in the house. We did not have any 
running water. If we wanted to go to the toilet, we had to go outside 
to a privy behind the house. No radio. Never heard of television. You 
see, that was in the twenties.
  I will never forget those books. Those history books, to a degree, 
shaped me to what I am today. They shaped me, they shaped my attitude, 
they shaped my outlook, and I came to want to be like James Madison or 
Webster or Clay or some other historical figure.
  Oh, yes, I had my sports hero. That was Babe Ruth or Jack Dempsey--
these are some years later. But history, history had an impact on me, 
may I say to my friend, Senator Kennedy. It had a decided impact on me 
when I was just a boy, 8 years old, 9 years old, 10 years old, and was 
a root of my ambition to try to make something out of myself.
  Mr. Byrd, who raised me, wanted me to go to school and to learn and 
to get a better education than he had been given. As I say, if he went 
to the second grade, I do not know that.
  He did not want me to be a coal miner. He wanted me to get an 
education. And in those days, when I graduated from high school in 
1934, it was something to have a high school education. I heard it said 
by my elders: If you don't get a high school education, you are not 
going to amount to much, you are going to have a hard time. You have to 
have a high school education.

  We had great teachers, good high school teachers. W.J.B. Cormany, 
William Jennings Bryan Cormany, was the principal of the high school.
  When we moved out of that hollow, Wolf Creek Hollow in Mercer County 
and moved to a coal camp, I enrolled at the Mark Twain School. The 
principal of that school, when he learned that I could recite whole 
chapters from the history book, took me up before the senior class and 
had me perform for the senior class. Well, that kind of enhanced my 
reputation around the school--to be able to go up before the senior 
class and recite history.
  So, I loved my teachers. We were talking about teachers a minute ago. 
I often worked to be the best student in the class in order to please 
my teacher. David Reemsnyder, a huge man, when I was in junior high 
school, taught mathematics, Algebra, and geometry. I wanted to please 
him.
  Mrs. W.J.B. Cormany taught music. I wanted to study the violin 
because she wanted me to study the violin.
  That is the kind of influence teachers had on me. I always wanted to 
be the best student in the class, to please my teachers and to please 
that old coal miner dad who reared me. There is no way to establish the 
worth of a good teacher.

     A Builder builded a temple,
     He wrought it with grace and skill;
     Pillars and groins and arches
     All fashioned to work his will.
     Men said, as they saw its beauty,
     ``It shall never know decay;
     Great is they skill, O Builder!
     Thy fame shall endure for aye.''

     A Teacher builded a temple
     With loving and infinite care,
     Planning each arch with patience,
     Laying each stone with prayer.
     None praised her unceasing efforts,
     None knew of her wondrous plan,
     For the temple the Teacher builded
     Was unseen by the eyes of man.

     Gone is the Builder's temple,
     Crumpled into the dust;
     Low lies each stately pillar,
     Food for consuming rust.
     But the temple the Teacher builded
     Will last while the ages roll,
     For that beautiful unseen temple
     Was a child's immortal soul.

  I have done a little reminiscing here today. The Senator I am most 
fond of saying is my favorite Senator on this side of the aisle, 
Senator Kennedy--one gets into trouble saying things like that--saying 
``This man, this Senator, is my favorite,'' or, ``that Senator is my 
favorite.'' They are all my favorites. But Senator Kennedy is my 
favorite favorite Democratic Senator.
  A few days ago, he wanted me to do a little reminiscing about my 
schooldays. You see, I have been going along life's pathway quite 
awhile. I came from those deep roots, and I like to speak of my 
remembrances of those teachers who sacrificed, back in the Depression. 
They couldn't get their checks cashed. They had to surrender 20 
percent, sometimes, of the monthly check, the total check, in order to 
get it cashed. That was in the Great Depression.
  Mr. President, my amendment to the budget resolution, as I have 
already indicated, will add $100 million in fiscal year 2002 to 
function 550, education. This increased funding will allow for the 
continuation of an American history grant program I initiated last 
year. That program is going, it is ongoing, it is moving. This program 
is designed to promote the teaching of history, American history.
  It is shocking--it is shocking--to read of students who do not know 
that the Civil War occurred during the second half of the 19th century. 
They cannot place the Civil War in a specific 50-year period with 
accuracy, let alone say it was from 1861 to 1865. They don't even know 
what half century it occurred in. So we are falling down badly in 
teaching American history. And history is so important.
  Byron, Lord Byron, said, ``History, with all her volumes vast, hath 
but one page,'' meaning that history repeats itself. And it does. It 
repeats itself.
  When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, H2O 
was water. Water was made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of 
oxygen. And it is still that way. It has never changed. It is still 
H2O.
  It is the same with human nature. Human nature has never changed. 
Cain slew Abel, and men are still slaying their brothers. It has not 
changed. That is why we can truthfully say, and mean it, that history 
repeats itself--not in every precise and particular detail, but one 
needs to know history.

[[Page S4810]]

  An unfortunate trend of blending history with a variety of other 
subjects to form a hybrid called ``social studies'' has taken hold in 
our schools. I am not against social studies, but I want history. If we 
are going to have social studies, that is OK, but let's have 
history. Further, the history books provided to our young people, all 
too frequently, gloss over the finer points of America's past. My 
amendment provides incentives to help spur a return to the teaching of 
traditional American history.

  Every February our nation celebrates the birth of two of our most 
revered presidents--George Washington, the father of our country who 
victoriously led his ill-fitted assembly of militiamen against the 
armies of King George, and Abraham Lincoln, the eternal martyr of 
freedom, whose powerful voice and iron will shepherded a divided nation 
toward a more perfect Union. Sadly, I fear that many of our Nation's 
schoolchildren may never fully appreciate the lives and accomplishments 
of these two American giants of history. They have been robbed, the 
students have been robbed of that appreciation robbed by our schools 
that no longer stress a knowledge of American history, robbed by books 
that purport to be history books but are not history.
  Study after study has shown that the historical significance of our 
Nation's grand celebrations of patriotism--such as Memorial Day or the 
Fourth of July--is lost on the majority of young Americans. What a 
waste. What a shame.
  American students, regardless of race, religion, or gender, must know 
the history of the land to which they pledge allegiance. They should be 
taught about the Founding Fathers of this Nation, the battles that they 
fought, the ideals that they championed, and the enduring effects of 
their accomplishments. Without this knowledge, they cannot appreciate 
the hard won freedoms that are our birthright.
  Our failure to insist that the words and actions of our forefathers 
be handed down from generation to generation will ultimately mean a 
failure to perpetuate this wonderful, glorious experiment in 
representative democracy. Without the lessons learned from the past, 
how can we insure that our Nation's core ideals--life, liberty, 
justice--will survive? As Marcus Tullius Cicero stated: ``. . . to be 
ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a 
child.''
  Many groups are interested and have expressed support for this grant 
program. Representatives from the National Council for History 
Education, the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of 
History, the American Historical Association, and National History Day 
have all expressed enthusiasm for this grant program. They are very 
supportive of this effort.
  So, for those reasons, I offer this amendment to the budget 
resolution to increase function 500 (education) by $100 million in 
fiscal year 2002, and I urge the adoption of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, some few days ago when we were on the 
floor of the Senate--I think it was at that time, or perhaps even a 
little later in the week as we find ourselves today--we listened to our 
good friend from West Virginia. At that time he quoted one of his 
famous poems that, as his poem today suggests, had a deep-seated 
meaning to it. I took the occasion to ask him prior to the time that we 
were going to end this debate and discussion if he might recall his 
early years as a student and share them with us once again on the floor 
of the Senate.
  I have had the good opportunity to listen to the good Senator speak 
on many, many different subject matters, and always with great 
enthusiasm, strength, and belief for the causes for which he speaks, so 
many of which I agree. I always find, having listened to him for many, 
many years, that the stories he talks about of his early years and the 
power of education is really a lesson that all of us should hear 
because it reminds all of us about what, in this case, this legislation 
is all about and what we are attempting to try to provide for the young 
people in this country.
  If we were ever possibly able to sort of capture that extraordinary 
magic that was evidenced in that small school, the primer schools and 
then after that, and somehow develop in that classroom the atmosphere 
which brought Bob Byrd to sense the great desire and thirst for 
knowledge and personal achievement, accomplishment, and desire to 
really respond to the teachers by demonstrating keen intellect and an 
awareness in the classroom, and to take those early lessons and use 
them as guideposts for the rest of his life resulting in this 
extraordinary career of public service for the people of West Virginia, 
and the people of this Nation, I think our problems really as a country 
and as a society would be immensely advanced.
  Whenever I listen to Senator Byrd, I think about what we were trying 
to do in terms of different paragraphs, different authorizations and 
approaches in what we were trying to do in different provisions of the 
legislation. It always makes us think about what we ought to be doing 
better to try to make the dream of education and the kind of 
opportunity this extraordinary Senator felt, which was so much a part 
of his pathway to his own life and such a source of strength to him, as 
well as his deep-seated faith--we would be very fortunate if we were 
ever able to sort of capture that in a legislative undertaking. We have 
not done so with this legislation, needless to say.
  But we are going to continue to try to create a climate and 
atmosphere in the schools so other Bob Byrds in West Virginia, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, and across this country might perhaps have a 
similar life's experience, and, as a result of that, we would have a 
better and a stronger nation.
  I thank the Senator for his amendment. I know very well the Senator's 
strong interest in history.
  I will just take a moment or two to remind the Senate that one of our 
great historians, David McCullough, will be releasing his wonderful 
book on Adams and Jefferson. The book is going to be published in about 
2 weeks. They have already printed some 350,000 copies. I don't think 
they have underestimated both the success of the book or the thirst of 
Americans for knowledge about this country in its early years.
  I remember the occasion when I was at the Longfellow House in 
Cambridge, MA, a few years back. I was looking at some of the papers in 
the Longfellow House. The Longfellow House was designated by Mrs. 
Clinton under Saving America's Treasures as one of our two treasures. 
The Longfellow House in Cambridge and the Frelinghuysen Morris House in 
Lenox are other treasures. But this was a special treasure for a number 
of reasons.
  One of those related to David McCullough's book is the fact that this 
was the place where George Washington assumed command of the American 
forces in the American Revolution. As David McCullough reminds us, this 
was the first symbol of national unity of a southern general commanding 
northern troops. Others had signed up for the American Revolution for 
periods of time, but the Glovers, which was a small band of troops who 
had been organized by Colonel Glover, committed themselves for the 
duration of the war.

  They were subsequently enormously important because they were the 
ones who brought Washington from Brooklyn Heights over to New York when 
the British fleet came into New York Harbor at a very key time in 1776. 
And when the wind was blowing from the northeast, it kept the British 
troops out. The Glovers brought Washington back into the main of New 
York, which would be Manhattan now. And then he escaped out into 
southern New York State and eventually over to New Jersey. Then the 
Glovers were the ones who brought him across the river at Trenton.
  But Dave McCullough wrote to me about papers that were there that 
were not as well cataloged or kept and were in danger of deterioration. 
These were magnificent handwritten notes of John Adams and John Quincy 
Adams that were directly relevant to the early years of the founding of 
this country. Senator Byrd was good enough to review--find out for 
himself, actually, as one would expect--the substance of that material 
and made his own independent judgment about the importance of 
preserving those in terms of

[[Page S4811]]

our national history. As a result of his efforts, some extraordinarily 
important early documents involving the founding of this country are 
now carefully preserved for future generations.
  So when Senator Byrd talks about his love of history, we all know it 
and have seen it, but I think many of us have also witnessed it in our 
relationships with Senator Byrd on different issues.
  I thank him for offering this amendment.
  Some years ago, I was on the Bicentennial of the American 
Constitution committee. I was on that committee that Chief Justice 
Berger chaired with a number of our colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator 
Thurmond--a number of our colleagues.
  From that, which was the bicentennial of the Constitution, one 
enduring, continuing, and ongoing force from that period was the 
establishment of the Madison Fellows. And there are two schoolteachers 
from each State, each year, who are selected through a very rigorous 
selection process. They receive a stipend for a period of study and 
then basically commit to teach the Constitution for the rest of the 
time they are teaching. We have now two in each State of the Union.
  We found during that period of time there was so little understanding 
about the Constitution. We found the challenge that we had so many 
people who could not read the Constitution. One of the small efforts 
that came out of that was a literacy corps to try to help in terms of 
reading.
  We have seen a number of different efforts since that time. There are 
some important initiatives in this legislation to improve reading for 
the young people in this country. This was a serious deficiency. But I 
can just say, as we reviewed at that time the importance of developing 
knowledge about the Constitution, we saw, as well, the failure in too 
many of our schools of the understanding, the appreciation of being 
taught good history.
  The good Senator's amendment can help immeasurably in developing a 
better understanding and awareness in history for our students.
  I appreciate the way the amendment is structured as well because it 
gives some special effort to our neediest communities that perhaps do 
not have the range of different resources in terms of our history and 
gives them the recognition that they can participate in this program 
and be able to do so on a very even basis with any of the other 
communities in the country. So I think it is structured in a very 
compelling way as well.
  I thank the Senator for both his statement and, most of all, for his 
earlier comments. I know every Member in this body is extremely busy, 
but if Americans want to know the value of an education and what it 
means in terms of an individual, read Bob Byrd, West Virginia, 
Thursday.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from 
Massachusetts for this dialog. I was in this Chamber, I think it was 
probably a week ago, when there were similar circumstances, when the 
Senator from Massachusetts asked the Senator from West Virginia to 
bring together his memories of his childhood and the importance of 
history and the importance of a good education.
  So I am pleased to have had the opportunity to hear the Senator 
speak. I wish more Members had the opportunity to be able to do that 
because it is a step back into history and a move forward in our 
ability to understand this great Nation of ours.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia so much for his efforts and 
for the amendment he has offered today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could say one final word, I 
particularly appreciate the reference the Senator from West Virginia 
made about his teachers and the names of his teachers. And Fryes, is 
that the geography book?
  Mr. BYRD. Fryes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And the history book was----
  Mr. BYRD. Muzzie.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Muzzie. So I was glad to hear that.
  I might just mention one of my great teachers was Arthur Holcombe, 
who wrote ``Our More Perfect Union,'' who was probably the leading 
teacher--and certainly was at Harvard--about the Constitutional 
Convention. When he taught, you had a feeling you were right at the 
Constitutional Convention.
  I was fortunate to have him the last year he taught at Harvard. He 
taught my father when he went to Harvard, and he taught my three 
brothers. He taught about the Constitutional Convention. So he had a 
pretty good grasp of the subject matter by that time. But it was also a 
course that made a profound impact and impression on me, and one I will 
never forget.
  I thank again the Senator for his good words and his good work today.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me share another moment, too. When the Senator 
mentioned who his teachers were, I thought, let's see if I can remember 
my teachers. They were Miss Anderson, Miss Maughn, Miss Burns, Miss 
Brown, Miss Shipp, and then back to Miss Burns for the first six 
grades. I remember them just as if it were yesterday.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. But it is amazing what influence teachers have on 
students, and others. The principal at the high school I went to was a 
good friend who was a real mentor to me, also.

  So we have to do all we can to make sure every child in this country 
has the ability to get as good an education and have as wonderful 
teachers as we all had.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for their 
generous comments.
  I sat and marveled, with great admiration, at the recollections that 
were expressed by Senator Kennedy and at what he had to say today about 
some of the things that have happened in his great State as we try to 
contemplate the American Revolution, and then his comments concerning 
David McCullough; and his reference to John Adams.
  Some few years ago I read John Adams' ``Thoughts on Government.'' 
John Adams, I think, has been underestimated--or really has never been 
fully appreciated, as he should be.
  During the Constitutional Convention, he had had his ``Thoughts on 
Government'' printed and had passed this work around among the members 
of the convention. It had a great impact on the members and influenced 
them very much in their deliberations.
  I am glad that David McCullough, who is the right man for the job, is 
going to have this publication soon concerning John Adams, which leads 
me to say that knowing of David McCullough's interest in John Adams and 
knowing of John Adams' influence upon the Framers of the country, I 
have been interested in trying to get an appropriation for an 
appropriate monument to John Adams. I understand that David McCullough 
is also supporting and promoting that idea. I am very much for it.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for what he has said about John Quincy Adams. 
John Qunicy Adams suffered a stroke on February 23, 1848, as he spoke 
in Statuary Hall. He was a vigorous opponent of America's entry and 
participation in the Mexican war. He was making this very emotional 
speech, and he had a stroke. He was taken to the office of the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives and died 2 days later--John Quincy 
Adams. He was elected to nine terms in the House, after having served 
as President.
  Senator Kennedy, we are not supposed to address each other in the 
first person in this body, but I want to tell you, I really enjoyed 
what you had to say. I am glad that you have such an appreciation of 
American history and the great patriots who gave us the Constitution. 
Senator Kennedy is a student of history sui generis.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. And an important part of history.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, Mr. Jeffords, for his recollections of 
teachers. I remember a Miss McCone who taught history. And she asked me 
a question one day. I said: Huh? And I kept on studying. I was paying 
attention to my reading, and Miss McCone had not said another word. 
Next thing I knew, she had walked around the room and she came up 
behind me and gave me a resounding slap on the cheek and said: Robert, 
don't you ever say ``huh'' to me again.
  I never said ``huh'' to Miss McCone again.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if there is no further discussion of this

[[Page S4812]]

particular amendment, we are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 402.
  The amendment (No. 402) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I again thank both of the Senators.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have had a wonderful moment here, and 
I now would like to give the opportunity for others to come and give 
their moments if they so desire.


                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, during rollcall vote No. 96, the 
Mikulski amendment, and No. 97, the McConnell amendment, as modified, I 
was necessarily absent to attend the funeral of a dear friend, Larry 
Cacciola, of Middletown, Connecticut.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each amendment.

                          ____________________