[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4913-S4932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will now resume consideration of the Murray 
amendment No. 378. There are 5 minutes equally divided before the vote.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a minute we are going to be voting on 
a

[[Page S4914]]

very important amendment which reduces class size in first, second, and 
third grades and continue the commitment this Congress has made in the 
last three years.
  Frankly, I cannot believe the Senate just spent 2 hours debating 
whether or not smaller class size makes a difference. We know it makes 
a difference. Any teacher, parent, or student will tell you that, and 
we have the research that proves it.
  This vote is our opportunity to support the progress being made in 
schools across the country and to show that we are willing to invest in 
the things that work. If our colleagues vote against this amendment, in 
September when parents find their kids back in overcrowded classrooms, 
they are going to be upset. They are going to want to know why you 
voted against smaller classes. You can tell them about flexibility, 
choice, and funding pools, but the truth is, none of those buzzwords 
will help their kids learn to read when they are fighting just to get a 
teacher's attention. The choice we make today will demonstrate whether 
``no child left behind'' is just a catchy campaign slogan or a national 
commitment. I hope it is the latter. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment, and I yield back the remaining time on our side.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray 
amendment. The bill before us clearly states that Federal funds must be 
used for activities that will improve teaching and learning in the 
classroom, including the hiring of highly qualified teachers, if that 
hiring will improve student performance. The decision as to how Federal 
money is to be used is up to the local school district.
  Although there are teacher shortages in States and localities, there 
are also areas where teacher shortages are not prevalent. As you can 
see from this chart, which illustrates class size over the last 40 
years, the recent trend in the mid to late 1990s indicates that class 
size is averaging around 17 students per teacher.
  I oppose the class size reduction amendment because I believe local 
schools are in a better position than we are to determine how best to 
distribute funding in regard to professional development and hiring 
practices. S. 1 gives local school districts the opportunity to make 
their own decisions about the expenditure of dollars for the purpose of 
improving their teacher corps, which, in turn, will hopefully lead to 
gains in overall student performance. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this class size amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. MILLER (after having voted in the negative). Mr. President, on 
this vote, I have a live pair with the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. 
If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were 
permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I, therefore, withdraw my 
vote.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     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--50

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

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS

                         PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--1

       
     Miller, against
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Akaka
       
  The amendment (No. 378) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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.
  The Senator from Kansas.


                 Amendment No. 413 to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I call up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 413.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for a study regarding the effects on children of 
     exposure to violent enterainment, and to require the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress to gather information regarding how 
      much time children spend on various forms of entertainment)

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 902. STUDY AND INFORMATION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes of 
     Health and the Secretary of Education jointly shall--
       (A) conduct a study regarding how exposure to violent 
     entertainment (such as movies, music, television, Internet 
     content, video games, and arcade games) affects children's 
     cognitive development and educational achievement; and
       (B) submit a final report to Congress regarding the study.
       (2) Plan.--The Director and the Secretary jointly shall 
     submit to Congress, not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a plan for the conduct of the study.
       (3) Interim reports.--The Director and the Secretary 
     jointly shall submit to Congress annual interim reports 
     regarding the study until the final report is submitted under 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       (b) Information.--Section 411(b)(3) of the National 
     Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010(b)(3) et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in carrying out the 
     National Assessment the Commissioner shall gather data 
     regarding how much time children spend on various forms of 
     entertainment, such as movies, music, television, Internet 
     content, video games, and arcade games.''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the adoption of 
this amendment to S. 1. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by 
my friend and colleague, Senator Kohl from Wisconsin. I would also like 
to thank the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions for his work in securing the passage of this amendment. I 
think this is a noncontroversial amendment so I am going to summarize 
the point.
  Over the past several years, we have had a number of hearings by this 
Congress about the impact of entertainment, particularly violent 
entertainment, on children, and the accessibility of such entertainment 
to children. This last summer we had the six major health organizations 
in the country--the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric 
Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others--sign a 
statement which said that exposing children to violent entertainment 
can actually cause increases in aggression and hostility and decreases 
in empathy.
  Since then, there have also been reports of studies focusing on how 
violent entertainment affects a child's brain activity. Less than a 
month ago, USA Today reported on one study conducted by Professor John 
Murray of Kansas State University. It showed the results of MRIs taken 
of children who were watching violent film clips. The reporter 
concluded: ``The scans showed that violent film clips activate 
children's brains in a distinctive, potentially violence-producing 
pattern. Although children may consciously know

[[Page S4915]]

that violence on the screen isn't real, their brains are treating it as 
gospel truth.''
  We know that a young child's mind goes through extraordinary 
development, particularly before the age of 7. We know the influences 
on their early life can profoundly affect both what they think about 
and how they think. New research has provided interesting insights into 
how parents can create the best learning environment and most 
encouraging learning environment for their children--what influences 
and factors will encourage the healthiest development of a child's 
intellect and cognition and enhance their abilities as they develop and 
move forward in life.
  Despite these studies and their implications for the way a young 
child's mind grows and develops, as well as how they perform in school, 
there has been very little study on how exposure to entertainment, 
particularly violent entertainment, affects their cognitive 
development. This is not a data gap; it is a chasm. And it needs to be 
filled.
  It is in the public interest to find out what the impact of exposing 
children to violent entertainment has on their cognitive development. 
It is also in the parent's best interests, as well as in the best 
interests of children, and, obviously, it is in the best interests of 
this country. Therefore, the amendment I am proposing, along with my 
colleague, Senator Kohl, would be a first step in addressing this data 
chasm.
  It calls for a study on how children's cognitive and academic 
achievement are affected by exposure to violent entertainment. It calls 
on the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education to 
jointly work out a plan for conducting this study, subject to 
congressional approval, and to report its findings.
  The more we know about how our children's young minds are formed and 
cultivated, the better we can educate, nurture, and care for them. This 
amendment is an important step towards realizing that goal.
  In conclusion, let me say this: We know that currently children in 
America spend more time in front of a television, a computer screen, or 
a play station than they do in school. They certainly spend more time 
in front of one of those screens than they do talking with their 
parents. We know children spend a large portion of their waking hours 
focused on entertainment, and we can assume that it has some impact on 
their thoughts, attitudes, and even abilities. But what we do not know 
yet is what exposure to violent entertainment does to a child's 
cognitive abilities. Some of the early studies seem to be very 
troubling about what it is doing to a child's brain. That is why we are 
asking for this study, so we can learn about this much better.
  Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Jeffords, the manager of the bill 
would be willing to engage me in a short colloquy concerning the 
pending Brownback-Kohl amendment.
  I thank the managers of the bill for their willingness to include our 
amendment in the education bill. We think this is an important addition 
to the legislation because it will give Congress and the Department of 
Education a tool for evaluating the effect of violent entertainment on 
the cognitive development and educational achievement of our children.
  It is the Senator's intention when we go to conference in the House 
to make every effort to assure that the Brownback-Kohl amendment is 
included in the final version of the bill?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle. We all agree that the Brownback-Kohl amendment, 
which would gather data on the use of violent entertainment by children 
through the National Assessment of Educational Attainment and require a 
joint National Institutes of Health-Department of Education study on 
the issue, is highly relevant to improving the educational performance 
of our children. It is my intention to keep this provision in the final 
version of the education reform package when it comes out of conference 
with the House of Representatives.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just want to add that there have been no 
objections from our side of the aisle to including the Brownback-Kohl 
amendment in the bill. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' cooperation with 
me, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Brownback to get this amendment 
included in the bill. I also appreciate his assurance that he will do 
everything he can to make sure our proposal is included in the final 
education reform bill.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I do not know of anybody who is 
opposing this amendment. I ask for its adoption. There may be other 
Members who would like to comment on this amendment. I believe it is 
possible we may be able to proceed to a voice vote on this amendment 
while we are still on the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate that we study 
the impact of violence in the media on young people. The increasing 
incidence of violent behavior is alarming and we should carefully 
scrutinize the causes of that violence.
  It will be very helpful to learn which types of imaging and 
broadcasting have causal links to violent behavior. A great deal of 
research has already been conducted in this area. For example, 
researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have studied 
the impact of violent images in movies, television and video games and 
have expressed caution against a presumption that there is an isolated 
cause and effect between violent images and violent action.
  I also believe that access to guns is indisputably part of this 
critical problem. There is no one individual cause of this disturbing 
social pattern and we should avoid simplifying either this problem or 
our solution to it.
  However, many young people spend a great deal of time watching 
television and movies and we should explore incentives to the industry 
to provide entertaining material that is nonviolent.
  Industry leaders have expressed a willingness to incorporate improved 
warnings for parents to monitor the programming that their children do 
watch, and we should do all that we can to make these worthwhile tools 
accessible and understandable.
  We should be ready also to acknowledge that the entertainment 
industry is not solely responsible for increasing violent behavior in 
our youngest citizens.
  The Senate should also improve a broad range of opportunities for 
children to help them achieve to their fullest expectations and dreams. 
We can increase funding for Early Start and Head Start. We can improve 
the learning experience of children once they enter school, including 
reducing class size and teacher quality.
  I have sponsored--and I have worked very closely with the Senator 
from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran--on our Ready to Learn legislation to 
ensure that time spent watching television by young preschool children 
will be entertaining and educational. With a modest $15 million Federal 
appropriation, public broadcasting has created effective educational 
programming that develops skills necessary for success when a child 
enters a classroom for the first time.
  Accompanying material is provided for parents, caregivers and other 
family members to encourage reading in the child's home environment. We 
should be tripling funding for this program, but instead, this bill 
seeks to eliminate it.
  The number of awards that those programs for children have been 
nominated for has been truly amazing. There have been over 40 Emmys for 
all the ready-to-learn programs. ``Between the Lions'' has really been 
an extraordinary success. It and its Web site have won several awards. 
The series won the Parents' Choice Gold Award for best show for kids 
aged 4 to 7. It was recently named the Best Children's Show in the 
country by the Television Critics Association. It has just been 
nominated for several Academy Awards. And the Web site won two awards 
in the fall of 2000: Best Children's Entertainment Site from the 
Massachusetts Interactive Media Council and Best Kids Web Entertainment 
from NewsMedia.com's Invision Awards.
  We welcome the Senator's amendment and think it is an entirely 
appropriate one. We also recognize there are important additional 
matters to which we should give focus.
  I support a serious examination of the impact that violence in the 
media

[[Page S4916]]

has on young children. I am, as well, hopeful we can also improve the 
educational components of our media.
  As I know the Senator is aware, we attempted, for a number of years, 
to make that as a condition for the relicensing. What happened, of 
course, is that it never worked because we would find that with the 
application the broadcasting industry would just label programs as 
children's programs, and they never really carried forward the effect 
of that.
  We have been remarkably unsuccessful in monitoring and affecting the 
kind of violence there is on television. But when we provided a very 
limited amount of incentives for the development of children's 
programs, and worked those through public broadcasting, we have had 
some amazing success.
  I look forward to working with the Senator in terms of getting this 
study, this review, and also working with him to try to see what can be 
developed to attract families, and particularly parents with their 
children, to watch the programs on television that can be useful, 
positive, constructive, and, hopefully, educational and helpful to the 
children as well.
  I urge acceptance of the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not believe there is any objection 
to the amendment.
  I yield to the Senator on his amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed to a 
voice vote on the amendment. Unless the Senator from North Carolina 
would care to address the amendment, I think it would be appropriate 
for us to proceed to a voice vote. I call for a voice vote at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 413.
  The amendment (No. 413) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 462 To Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Voinovich amendment No. 443 is the pending 
business.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside, and 
I call up amendment No. 462.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 462 to amendment No. 358.

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

  (Purpose: To provide for an independent analysis to measure school 
                         district achievement)

       On page 679, after line 25, add the following:
       ``(6) support for arrangements that provide for independent 
     analysis to measure and report on school district 
     achievement.''.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple and 
straightforward. It deals with the issue of testing.
  Much of our education bill we have been discussing for the last 
several days and much of the administration's proposal is modeled after 
what has been done in North Carolina. In North Carolina, we have had in 
place for a number of years a very vigorous measurement and testing 
regime. In fact, we already have annual testing in reading and math in 
grades 3 through 8, which is precisely what is being proposed by the 
administration and is incorporated into this bill.
  This testing process has played a very important role in allowing us 
to measure student performance in North Carolina and also to identify 
low-performing schools so we can make an intense effort to turn those 
schools around.
  What I have learned from visiting our schools and talking with 
students and teachers is that testing in and of itself is not an end. 
It is a means. From talking to students and teachers and at town hall 
meetings talking to parents about this testing procedure that has been 
used in North Carolina, I have learned that there is a great deal of 
concern that students are spending too much time preparing for tests 
and teachers are spending too much time in the classroom teaching to 
the test.
  It has gotten to the point where some students and some teachers 
believe the tests dominate the classroom. And because of the way the 
tests are given and administered and the kinds of tests that are given, 
it can sometimes be counterproductive to the learning process.
  What we are doing in this amendment is providing that States can go 
to private outside firms to evaluate the testing in a particular school 
district to determine whether it is working, how effective it is, and 
also to make comparisons with the testing being used in that school 
district as compared to the testing being used in another school 
district someplace else in the country.
  The basic theory is these private outside firms can identify school 
districts where the testing is working, where it is effective, where it 
has as little impact as possible on the learning process inside the 
classroom so the teachers, the students, and the parents feel the 
testing process is working. It allows them to measure but, at the same 
time, it doesn't interfere with the substantive learning process of the 
students, for the students and the teacher.
  The basic idea is the State is allowed to contract with these outside 
firms which can evaluate the testing programs and compare them with 
testing programs in other places across the country.
  The amendment does not authorize any new money. It simply allows 
States to conduct this type of analysis. The purpose of this amendment 
and its thrust is to focus on the issue of testing, allow States to 
identify testing methods and procedures that are, in fact, working. It 
is a specific effort to address a concern I have heard expressed over 
and over from students, from teachers, and from parents; that is, to 
have a testing system and a measurement system that provides us with 
the information we need but at the same time does as little as possible 
to interfere with the teaching process and with the learning process.
  I thank my colleagues for their support and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has given 
additional focus on a very key element in this legislation; that is, 
the information made available to parents. His amendment will add an 
additional dimension in terms of the possible accuracy and types of 
information so it can be easily understood and utilized by parents and 
so they can understand what is happening in the schools their children 
are attending.
  In the existing legislation, there is the requirement that the States 
will provide information to the parents. What the amendment of the 
Senator from North Carolina does is provide the ability for the States 
themselves to get, through this contracting arrangement, the up-to-
date, most advanced, most recent, comprehensive information that can 
possibly be developed. It gives that option to the State to provide it 
to the parents. It is incredibly important.
  This is one of the underlying concepts of the legislation; that is, 
that the parents become involved. We want them to be involved, and 
there are ample provisions in the legislation to have them involved. We 
want to get the parents involved. Part of a very powerful tool to get 
them involved is giving them information about what is happening in the 
school and what the condition of the school is.
  We have provided in the legislation a range of different information 
that will be available in the report card. The Senator from North 
Carolina, with this additional amendment, can give the assurance that 
if the State wants to work through a contracting arrangement, the 
information may very well be much more available and usable and current 
for the parent. That is very important

[[Page S4917]]

and completely consistent with the direction of the legislation and 
very desirable to have.
  I thank him for this idea, as well as bringing to the basic 
legislation the experience that has taken place in turning around low-
performing schools in North Carolina, and the way it has changed 
through the development of some enormously interesting and very 
successful models that will be available in this legislation to 
communities all over this country is really a major strengthening of 
and improvement in the legislation itself. That is one of the things 
that makes this legislation so hopeful.
  If we are able to get the resources to be able to give all these 
provisions some life and meaning, we are going to be in an even 
stronger position. As the Senator from North Carolina and others have 
pointed out, we have a blueprint here which is both supportable and 
commendable and can make a difference, but we need the resources to 
make sure these provisions are going to do what, in this instance, 
parents need and should have and also what schoolchildren should have 
in the provisions which have been included in the bill that are 
patterned after the very important, successful initiatives in North 
Carolina.
  I thank the Senator for his initiative. I hope we will accept it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to join in the accolades for the 
Senator's amendment. What we are doing in this bill is not something 
that is easily understood when you try to analyze the facts. But it is 
incredibly important that parents understand how their child is doing.
  The amendment that we have here will be very helpful in letting us 
understand what is an incredibly important move forward in making sure 
that we get changes and improvements in the system, but it does it in a 
way that we can fully understand how each child is doing. I thank the 
Senator for his excellent amendment.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator. I ask for a voice vote at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
  The amendment (No. 462) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Voinovich 
amendment.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 622, As Modified, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 622, and I ask 
unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself, Mr. 
     Corzine, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     622, as modified.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I may have to object. We haven't seen a 
copy of it yet.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. The Senator is permitted to 
modify his amendment. We haven't asked for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. DAYTON. I will make it a second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a filing deadline for first-degree 
amendments. That does constitute Senate action which would then require 
that the Senator does need consent to modify.
  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.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 622), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to 
fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for programs 
                       under part B of such Act)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC. ____. AMENDMENT TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       Notwithstanding any other amendment made by this Act to 
     section 611(j) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(j)), subsection (j) of such Act is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(j) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this part, 
     other than section 619, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, and there are appropriated--
       ``(1) $12,347,001,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(2) not more than $18,370,317,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(3) not more than $19,048,787,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(4) not more than $19,719,918,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(5) not more than $20,393,202,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(6) not more than $21,067,600,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(7) not more than $21,742,019,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(8) not more than $22,423,068,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(9) not more than $23,095,622,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(10) not more than $23,751,456,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2011.''.

     SEC.  . MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is amended to add the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Continuation of Authorization.--For fiscal year 2012 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for purpose of 
     carrying out this part, other than section 619.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment, 
which is also sponsored by Senators Corzine and Wellstone.
  This amendment would bring the Federal share of funding for special 
education up to its long-promised 40 percent level in 2 years.
  I greatly admire the efforts of my senior colleagues, the authors of 
this legislation, who have negotiated the previous agreement which is 
now contained in the legislation. I applaud their efforts and I support 
their work.
  However, I would like to see their timetable for funding 40 percent 
of the costs of special education accelerated. That is the promise I 
made to Minnesota educators, parents, and students.
  The failure of the Federal Government to pay for 40 percent of the 
cost of special education is a broken promise which now extends for 25 
years. This unfunded Federal mandate is having devastating consequences 
for schools all across Minnesota.
  Federal law requires these important services to students with 
disabilities and special needs, but it does not provide the funds 
necessary for them. There is no question that school districts must 
provide them and should provide them. But without the necessary and 
long-promised funding from the Federal Government, Minnesota school 
districts must take money away from other students and from other 
education programs. In Minnesota, that means local property taxes must 
be increased to make up the shortfall. Yet even then there is still not 
enough money available to do justice to all students.
  Then schools are blamed, teachers are blamed, and even students are 
blamed. Yet the failure is ours. The failure is our unwillingness to 
provide the funding necessary to allow schools to succeed, teachers to 
succeed, and students to succeed.
  Without my amendment, we are saying: Yes, we recognize our 
responsibility. We intend to finally keep our

[[Page S4918]]

promise, but we need 6 more years to do so. That is too much 
procrastination.
  The recently passed budget resolution said that Congress can afford 
huge tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. However, we cannot 
afford to keep our promises to the schoolchildren of America, 
especially those who have the greatest needs.

  That is just plain wrong.
  It is time to put our money where our mouths are. We can no longer 
hide behind the claim that we don't have the funds to do what is right. 
We have the money. The question is, Do we have the will to spend some 
of it on behalf of better education for all of America's children? That 
is the decision we must make today on this amendment.
  My amendment would increase education funding by $12 billion in 
fiscal year 2002 and by $18 billion in fiscal year 2003. That is a lot 
of money, no doubt about it. But it is less than one-fifth the cost of 
the proposed tax cuts for 2002, and less than one-third of the tax cuts 
proposed for 2003. We could still have major tax reduction for middle-
income working Americans, and even for upper income Americans, and 
still keep our promise to fund 40 percent of America's special 
education costs.
  That is the decision before us today. That is the question which my 
amendment addresses.
  On behalf of Minnesota's schoolchildren and educators, I urge the 
Senate to adopt this amendment. Its benefits will accrue to every 
classroom, in every school, in every school district throughout 
America. It will help take the President's words: ``leave no child 
behind'' and make them a living reality for millions of schoolchildren 
throughout our country.
  I am reminded of the title of the old television show, ``Truth or 
Consequences.'' Either we tell the truth or we face the consequences. 
The truth is that we are not meeting our financial commitment to public 
education throughout America. The truth is that the Federal Government 
has mandated important special services to children with special needs 
for the last 25 years but has not provided its promised funding 
necessary to fulfill this pledge.
  The consequences of our failures are children throughout America who 
are not receiving the special education they need and deserve. The 
consequences are lost hopes, lost dreams, and lost lives.
  It is time to tell the truth. This amendment will restore the truth 
to a 25-year unfunded mandate.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate's passage of this amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAYTON. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative 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, I rise to speak for and offer my strong 
support to my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. My 
understanding is I am an original cosponsor, along with Senator 
Corzine. I will not take much time. There are other colleagues who are 
on the floor.
  This amendment fully funds the IDEA program within 2 years, and the 
spending will be mandatory. Because of the special rules regarding 
mandatory spending, my understanding is this amendment will require 60 
votes for it to be adopted.
  To give some sense of the impact IDEA full funding will have on some 
school districts in Minnesota, Minneapolis will receive around $16 
million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth will receive around $4.5 
million; Blue Earth area public schools will receive around $550,000; 
Deer River will receive $419,000; and Walnut Grove will receive 
$54,000.
  For those who do not know each of these towns, they probably know 
Minneapolis and St. Paul. I am also giving some greater Minnesota 
examples so no one will labor under the misunderstanding that this 
amendment only applies to urban or metropolitan areas. It is terribly 
important to rural areas as well.
  We have had some other important amendments dealing with IDEA, and, 
in particular, there was the Harkin-Hagel amendment which passed last 
week. That was to fully fund IDEA and also to make it mandatory. That 
was to provide full funding over a 6-year period.
  I commend the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska for 
their work. I also want to say this about the Senator from Iowa. I do 
not think there is another Senator--one has to be careful when one says 
this because one doesn't want to slight anyone, but I do not believe 
there has been anybody in the Senate who has been, if you will, more 
there for children and adults with disabilities than Senator Harkin. 
The IDEA program in some ways is Tom Harkin's idea. This is who he is.
  The amendment that was adopted is terribly important, and Senator 
Hagel's support was critical as well. We also have done some other work 
on this education bill that is critically important.
  The real importance of this amendment and what Senator Dayton is 
saying and the reason this is a joint effort by both Senators from 
Minnesota--I worry a lot about what we are doing on this education 
bill. I worry about what we are doing for a couple of different 
reasons. I will try to make a couple quick points, I say to the Senator 
from Missouri and also to my friend from Arkansas.
  I have not even had a chance to read this article yet today, but I 
was skim reading a piece where I saw--and this is really important--a 
reference to a letter or a statement that has been put out by Dr. 
Robert Coles and Dr. Albert Poussant who are two child psychologists 
or, in the case of Coles, a psychiatrist, and maybe Dr. Poussant is a 
psychiatrist as well. They have done the best work with children in the 
country. Robert Coles has written 46 books on children. I remember 
assigning one of his books to my students called ``Children in 
Crisis.''
  I say to the Senator from Vermont, their letter is a plea to the 
Senate not to rush to these tests.
  What they are saying is--these are now my words--you are taking the 
childhood away from children. They are finding 8-year-olds and 9-year-
olds who are under tremendous stress and showing signs of being under 
tremendous stress because of all these tests they are now taking.

  We have to think this through. Some of the amendments I have--and I 
hope to have as many of them adopted as possible, and I appreciate the 
support from other colleagues--are to make sure we do this the best 
possible way.
  In my own mind, I raise the philosophical question again: Should the 
Federal Government be telling every school district in every State to 
test every child starting at age 8 all the way every year to age 13? I 
do not know whether we should even be doing this. Should we be doing 
this to these little children? I am not sure we should. That is a 
philosophical question, and I will now put it aside.
  The second problem is whether the resources are going to be there. I 
want to again put my colleagues on notice, not in a confrontational 
way, but I want them to know there are a couple of amendments I have 
prepared that I look forward to offering which basically say: When we 
adopt these amendments that authorize money, that does not mean it will 
ever happen, so we have to make sure that if we are going to do this 
testing, not only do we do it the right way, but that the funding will 
be available, be it the IDEA program--

[[Page S4919]]

that is what is so important about Senator Dayton's amendment--for 
children with special needs, be it title I for children who come from 
economically disadvantaged families so that there is more help for 
reading, more help for afterschool programs, more help for good 
teachers and teaching assistants, you name it--which will be another 
amendment which I, frankly, think is just as important, especially if 
we are going to start testing 8-year-olds, third graders. I will argue 
forever that far more important in determining how that child is going 
to do--maybe not at age 13, but at age 8--far more important than the 
teacher, although good teachers are always critically important, and 
far more important than reduced class size, far more important than 
whether the school is inviting and a good facility is whether or not 
that child came to kindergarten ready to learn. So the issue is, if we 
are going to start testing 8-year-olds, then we do that when we make 
the commitment to fully fund the Head Start Program, and that includes 
Early Head Start.

  I am convinced, the more I think about this moving beyond Head Start, 
that we have to get to the point where, for 4-year-olds, if not 3-year-
olds--and it could be optional--you need to pay teachers who do this 
work decent salaries. The Head Start Program is optional for families, 
but every family has that opportunity, and we fund it within our 
overall goal of public education. We really need to get real about it.
  I think the context for Senator Dayton's amendment is twofold. No. 1, 
for Minnesota, let me repeat these figures: Minneapolis, an additional 
$16 million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth, $4.5 million; Blue Earth 
Area Public School, $550,000; Deer River, $419,000; Walnut Grove, 
$54,000. It would be hugely important for us to make this commitment. 
That is why I join my colleague, Senator Dayton, in this effort.
  Final point: I really think the work that is being done for the IDEA 
program, that deals with children with special needs, is, as my good 
friend from Iowa likes to say, a constitutional mandate. We believe 
these children with special needs should have every right to be in 
school with other children and to get the best possible education.
  But we are nowhere near our 40-percent funding to which we made a 
commitment. We are at about 14 percent. What Senator Dayton is saying 
in this amendment is: Why 7 years? Why 10 years? If it is the right 
thing to do and we have this huge surplus now, then let's do the right 
thing over the next 2 years. The sooner we do it, the sooner we get the 
assistance to the local school districts, the sooner we get the 
assistance to the children, the sooner we get the assistance to our 
teachers, the sooner we get the assistance to our States. Therefore, if 
it is a great idea and a compelling idea and the right thing to do, it 
is the right thing to do now. Make it mandatory and fully fund it over 
a 2-year period of time.
  I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will vote 
for it.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 555

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
business and call up amendment No. 555.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 555.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, under 
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')


                     Amendment No. 555, as Modified

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask that the modifications to 
amendment No. 555 that are at the desk be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 555), as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding access to 
          secondary schools for military recruiting purposes)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     ``SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF 
                   EDUCATION PROGRAM TO PROMOTE ACCESS OF ARMED 
                   FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY 
                   INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       ``(1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is 
     voluntary.
       ``(2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary 
     to maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by 
     Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
       ``(3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very 
     challenging, and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must 
     devote extraordinary time and effort to their work in order 
     to fill monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
       ``(4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and 
     women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition 
     from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and 
     from institutions offering postsecondary education.
       ``(5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by 
     recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to 
     those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly 
     difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
       ``(6) A number of high schools have denied recruiters 
     access to students or to student directory information.
       ``(7) In 1999, the Army was denied access to students or 
     student directory information on 4,515 occasions, the Navy 
     was denied access to students or student directory 
     information on 4,364 occasions, the Marine Corps was denied 
     access to students or student directory information on 4,884 
     occasions, and the Air Force was denied access to students or 
     student directory information on 5,465 occasions.
       ``(8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all 
     high schools in the United States did not release student 
     directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
       ``(9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single 
     biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was 
     denial of access to student directory information, as the 
     student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
       ``(10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the 
     United States, as it prevents students from receiving 
     important information on the education and training benefits 
     offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students' 
     decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the 
     options available to them.
       ``(11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to 
     student directory information undermines United States 
     national defense by making it more difficult to recruit high 
     quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the 
     readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national 
     defense.
       ``(12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, 
     requires local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to 
     provide recruiters access to secondary schools on the same 
     basis that those agencies provide access to representatives 
     of colleges, universities, and private sector employers.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Defense, should, not later than July 2, 2001, 
     establish a year-long campaign to educate principals, school 
     administrators, and other educators regarding career 
     opportunities in the Armed Forces, and the access standard 
     required under section 503 of title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Since I became chairman of the Armed Services 
Personnel Subcommittee last year, the subcommittee has conducted two 
hearings on recruiting. This has been a real eye opener to me, to 
listen to these front-line military recruiters about the obstacles they 
face in doing a very important job for the U.S. military.
  At both hearings, uniformed recruiters complained that denial of 
access to high school students or student directory information was the 
No. 1 obstacle they face in their efforts to recruit high-quality men 
and women needed to man today's military. It is a bigger problem than 
the health care of the military, a bigger problem than educational 
benefits, a bigger problem than image. Bigger than anything else was 
the problem of actually getting access to the students to be able to 
tell their story about the career opportunities they might have serving 
in the U.S. military.
  I was stunned to discover that more than 4,000 high schools across 
the Nation, which routinely allow colleges, employers, and class ring 
companies access to students, are denying access to recruiters from one 
or more of our military services.
  In 1999, the last year in which accurate figures are available, the 
Army was denied access by 4,515 schools; the Navy was denied access by 
4,364 schools; the Marine Corps was denied

[[Page S4920]]

access by 4,884 schools; and the Air Force was denied access by 5,465 
high schools in the United States.
  This, I suggest, is a national disgrace. Our Armed Forces protect 
America's freedoms, and uniformed recruiters should not be denied 
access to almost a quarter of America's young people because, many 
times, of the arbitrary decision of a high school principal or a high 
school superintendent.
  Denial of access undermines our national defense by making it even 
more difficult to recruit high-quality young Americans in numbers 
sufficient to maintain the readiness of our All-Volunteer Force.
  Denying recruiters direct access to students and student directory 
information also unfairly hurts America's youth. It prevents students 
from receiving important information on the educational and training 
benefits offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students' 
decisionmaking by hiding the career opportunities available to them.
  When I became aware, that our recruiters whom we ask to do one of the 
most difficult jobs in the military, to go out and recruit young men 
and women to go into our military at pay that is disparate from what 
they could get in the private sector, in an almost full-employment 
economy, we were asking them to do that with one hand tied behind their 
backs because they weren't given access to almost one-quarter of the 
students, I offered a provision in last year's defense authorization 
bill which would, effective July 1, 2001, require high schools to 
provide recruiters for the armed services both physical and directory 
access equal to that provided to colleges and prospective employers.
  If the high school wants to have an across-the-board policy of no 
access to their students--no employers, no colleges--then certainly 
they could apply that to military recruiters. But if they are going to 
say class ring companies can come on, colleges and institutions of 
higher learning can come on to the campus and recruit, industries can 
come on and recruit for careers, then we said that military recruiters 
should have access on the same basis.
  If such access is not granted, a recruiter must report the denial to 
his or her respective service. This report will trigger, then, a series 
of visits and written notifications by the Department of Defense 
personnel culminating in the Secretary of Defense contacting the 
relevant Governor and asking for help in restoring access to the 
offending high school.
  Any school district in America would have the opportunity to opt out 
of the law if the local school board voted publicly to discriminate 
against recruiters from the Armed Forces. But no more simply shall a 
superintendent or a principal making a determination on their own for 
whatever reason, because of a bad experience or whatever they might 
have had, that might motivate them to prevent these recruiters from 
access. It would have to go to a public vote of the elected 
representatives, elected school board, before they could opt out of the 
law. Any high school that continued to discriminate against recruiters 
from the Armed Forces without the support of such a vote would open 
itself to lawsuits in Federal court.
  We are rapidly approaching July 1, 2001, which will mark 1 year until 
the new law becomes effective. We have already heard from many 
recruiters that they are finding that high schools are not aware of the 
public law that changed Federal policy and the fact it is going to go 
into effect in just a little over a year. So as thousands of high 
schools, yet ignorant of the pending change in the law, continue to 
discriminate against uniformed recruiters, I think now is the time for 
a national wake-up call concerning this denial of access that continues 
to this day.
  My amendment states that:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
     should. . .establish a year-long campaign to educate 
     principals, school administrators, and other educators 
     regarding career opportunities in the Armed Forces and the 
     access standard [that is required under this new law].

  I think it is very important that recruiters as they go across this 
country have the support of the Congress in the sense that these 
principals, these superintendents, and school administrators are aware 
that we have changed the public policy. There will be a new law in 
effect.
  There will be a new law in effect, and the only way they can deny 
that access is when they go before the elected school board members and 
have a public vote to that effect.
  I hope my colleagues will unanimously support a very commonsense and 
patriotic amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                      Amendment No. 374, withdrawn

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on 
amendment No. 274, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 448, As Modified

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 448, and I ask 
unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 448, as modified.

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. 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 improve the quality of education in our Nation's 
                              classrooms)

       On page 319, line 4, insert ``, including teaching 
     specialists in core academic subjects'' after ``principals''.
       On page 326, line 1, insert ``, including strategies to 
     implement a year-round school schedule that will allow the 
     local educational agency to increase pay for veteran 
     teachers'' after ``performance''.
       On page 327, line 2, insert ``as well as teaching 
     specialists in core academic subjects who will provide 
     increased individualized instruction to students served by 
     the local educational agency participating in the eligible 
     partnership'' after ``qualified''.
       On page 517, line 18, strike ``and''.
       On page 517, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 517, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       ``(I) alternative programs for the education and discipline 
     of chronically violent and disruptive students as it relates 
     to drug and violence prevention.
       On page 528, line 11, strike ``and''.
       On page 528, line 14, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 528, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(16) alternative programs for the education and 
     discipline of chronically violent and disruptive students as 
     it relates to drug and violence prevention.
       On page 539, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 539, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(E) alternative programs for the education and discipline 
     of chronically violent and disruptive students as it relates 
     to drug and violence prevention; and''.

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the quality classrooms amendment 
provides flexibility for our schools. I am delighted that the Senate 
has recognized the need to provide our schools with more choices, not 
more mandates. The amendment allows for the hiring of teaching 
specialists, the development of alternative educational programs, and 
year-round school schedules. It will recognize, reward, and encourage 
promising reform efforts.
  I thank the managers for their assistance with the quality classrooms 
amendment. I greatly appreciate the suggestions that Senator Jeffords 
and his staff have offered. I am also grateful to Senator Kennedy and 
his staff for their assistance and for their hard work throughout the 
education debate. I am proud to be a part of this debate.
  I am confident that our efforts in behalf of public education will 
bring greater opportunity to our Nation's children.
  I understand that the managers have agreed to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 448), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S4921]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending question before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Hutchinson 
amendment No. 555.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily so that I might call up an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.


                 Amendment No. 564 To Amendment No. 358

  (Purpose: To encourage States to require each expelled or suspended 
student to perform community service for the period of the expulsion or 
                              suspension)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 564.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 564 to amendment No. 358.

  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001 
under ``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')


                     Amendment No. 564, As Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to the 
amendment. Do I need to ask unanimous consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 564), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 571, strike line 13, and insert the following:
     ance with this section.

 ``Subpart 4--State Grants To Encourage Community Service by Expelled 
                         and Suspended Students

     ``SEC. 4141. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``In addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under section 4004, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for State grants to 
     encourage States to carry out programs under which students 
     expelled or suspended from schools in the States are required 
     to perform community service.

     ``SEC. 4142. ALLOTMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--From the amount made available under 
     section 4141, the Secretary shall allocate among the States--
       ``(1) one-half according to the ratio between the school-
     aged population of each State and the school-aged population 
     of all the States; and
       ``(2) one-half according to the ratio between the amount 
     each State received under section 1124A for the preceding 
     year and the sum of such amounts received by all the States.
       ``(b) Minimum.--For any fiscal year, no State shall be 
     allotted under this section an amount that is less than one-
     half of 1 percent of the total amount allotted to all the 
     States under this section.
       ``(c) Reallotment.--The Secretary may reallot any amount of 
     any allotment to a State if the Secretary determines that the 
     State will be unable to use such amount within 2 years of 
     such allotment. Such reallotments shall be made on the same 
     basis as allotments are made under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' means 
     each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, many young people in our schools today are 
suspended for bad behavior, somewhat unlike the days when I was in high 
school. They took care of the bad ones right there on the spot when I 
was there. But today a lot of them are suspended. A number of children 
in our schools are expelled for violent or dangerous behavior. And I am 
all for that. I am all for suspensions and expulsions where warranted, 
but what then? In today's home, all to often, both parents work. The 
suspended or expelled student may be left to his or her own devices. 
Many counties send expelled students to alternative schools, but 
alternative schools do not always follow the same procedure, the same 
schedule as regular public schools, again leaving children on their own 
for portions of the school day. And an idle mind is the devil's 
workshop.
  An idle young person with no supervision is a child who can easily 
get into trouble. A violent young person expelled for serious breaches 
of behavior could even be a menace to the community at large. Some 
children actually misbehave in school, I am told, in the hopes of being 
suspended or expelled with the notion that they will be able to enjoy a 
brief respite from their school classes.
  The amendment which I have offered and which has now been modified 
would encourage States to create a program that enrolls suspended and 
expelled youth in community service programs. You see, put them to work 
at something that encourages them to become builders, not wreckers, of 
buildings. The purpose of this amendment then is twofold.
  First, it would occupy young people who have been suspended or 
expelled. It would put those idle hands to work. Instead of hanging 
around on street corners or roaming around the shopping malls, these 
youths would participate in community service activities that give them 
structure, that promote a work ethic, and send the message that being 
suspended from school is not a vacation.
  Second, this program would give back to the community. Too often the 
young people of the ``me'' generation--the ``me" generation--do not 
consider that we are a society, and that each member of that society 
has a responsibility to the other people in that society. By performing 
community service, these young people would be making a contribution to 
their neighbors which would give them a sense of doing for others, 
perhaps even opening their eyes to the problems of those around them.
  My amendment would provide $50 million to allow States to coordinate 
and run a program which puts suspended and expelled students to work. 
Whether it is picking up litter, whacking weeds, painting fences, or 
mowing the grass, participating in public service activities will 
provide these young people with an alternative activity that helps to 
better their communities, and to better their lives.
  Wordsworth wrote, ``Small service is true service while it lasts.'' I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment which authorizes this amount 
of money and helps to point troubled students toward true service to 
their communities, their country, and help them to become good, 
productive citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, if I may be recognized again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada, the Democratic whip, be made a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I am very happy to have a voice vote if Senators are so 
inclined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are ready to vote 
on the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 564, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 564), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont who is the majority manager of the bill. He is very gracious to 
accept the amendment. I also thank Mr. Kennedy who likewise was 
supportive of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Arizona.


                 Amendment No. 477 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending

[[Page S4922]]

amendment be laid aside to call up amendment No. 477, which was 
previously filed. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 477 to amendment No. 358.

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that S. 27, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Reform Act of 2001, as passed by the Senate on April 2d should 
 be engrossed and transmitted to the House of Representatives without 
                             further delay)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRANSMITTAL OF S. 27 
                   TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) on April 2, 2001, the Senate of the United States 
     passed S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, by 
     a vote of 59 to 41;
       (2) it has been over 30 days since the Senate moved to 
     third reading and final passage of S. 27;
       (3) it was then in order for the bill to be engrossed and 
     officially delivered to the House of Representatives of the 
     United States;
       (4) the precedents and traditions of the Senate dictate 
     that bills passed by the Senate are routinely sent in a 
     timely manner to the House of Representatives;
       (5) the will of the majority of the Senate, having voted in 
     favor of campaign finance reform is being unduly thwarted;
       (6) the American people are taught that when a bill passes 
     one body of Congress, it is routinely sent to the other body 
     for consideration; and
       (7) the delay in sending S. 27 to the House of 
     Representatives appears to be an arbitrary action taken to 
     deliberately thwart the will of the majority of the Senate.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Secretary of the Senate should properly engross and 
     deliver S. 27 to the House of Representatives without any 
     intervening delay.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It 
instructs the Secretary of the Senate to properly engross and deliver 
S. 27, the campaign finance legislation that was passed 43 days ago by 
this Senate, to the House of Representatives without any intervening 
delay.
  I am sure that few people in this body knew that the bill they voted 
for--or against, for that matter--was never sent to the other body. Why 
is this so? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I do know that it is 
not what we teach our children.
  We give out a book here, a very interesting book, one that 
schoolchildren all over America, I hope, know. Some do, but I wish all 
of them did. In that book, on page 41, it says: When a bill originates 
in the Senate, this process is reversed.

       When the Senate passes a bill that originated in the 
     Senate, it is sent to the House for consideration.

  There is another booklet, ``Our American Government,'' the 2000 
edition. ``What are the stages of a bill in Congress?'' It goes through 
the various stages:

       (6) Passage by the House after votes to confirm the 
     amendments that were adopted in Committee of the Whole; (7) 
     Transmittal to the Senate, by message; (8) Consideration and 
     passage by the Senate--usually after referral to and 
     reporting from a Senate committee--and after a debate and 
     amendment on the Senate floor; (9) Transmission from the 
     Senate back to the House, with or without Senate amendments 
     to the bill.

  Those are documents that indicate it is the normal procedure. I note 
that this is not business as usual. In fact, arbitrarily holding this 
bill in the Senate after being passed is not the usual practice. I will 
read from a chart prepared by my staff which shows that the normal 
expected practice is to send legislation to the other body in a much 
more timely fashion.
  Thirteen bills originating in the Senate have passed the Senate 
during the 107th Congress. Of those bills, 11 were sent in an average 
of 5.18 days. The two remaining bills, S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act of 2001, and S. 143, Competitive Market Supervision Act of 
2001, were passed on April 5, 2001, and March 22, 2001, respectively. 
Neither has been referred to the House of Representatives.
  The holding of this bill is arbitrary and unfair. A sound majority of 
Senators has passed the campaign finance reform bill. This is not only 
bad for the Senate but bad for this great country.
  The minority in this body has a great deal of rights. But the Senate 
also recognizes in its rule that once a majority reaches a certain 
threshold, it can prevail and move forward. What we are seeing here is 
a minority of one stopping the will of this body.
  As I said, there is no good rationale for this action. The staff of 
this body, including the Secretary of the Senate, serve the entire 
Senate. I repeat: The Secretary of the Senate serves the entire Senate, 
not just one Senator. They are not tools of one individual. They serve 
all 100 duly elected Senators. These good people should be allowed to 
perform their duties with due process.
  This amendment should not require much discussion or debate. It 
should be adopted and the Secretary of the Senate should immediately 
take the actions the resolutions direct. That is what is right, and 
that is what is fair.
  I urge my colleagues, those who support campaign finance reform and 
those who do not, to join me in seeing that the will of the majority 
and basic fairness prevail.
  I want to talk for a second about this practice being allowed to 
continue. I speak, I hope, for Members on both sides of the aisle. If 
the majority prevails in the Senate on a piece of legislation and that 
legislation is not sent over to the other body, then this could lead to 
a very, very, very unsound and unfair process that could deprive the 
majority of the Senate of their rights. A bill passed in the other body 
is sent over here for our consideration and placed on the calendar. 
Then it is up to the majority leader and/or the minority leader, 
depending on who has the votes, as to whether to consider that 
legislation.

  The same thing is true of legislation that originates in the Senate. 
As I say, I could go back many years. It is roughly an average of 4 
days between the passage of legislation through this body and its 
transmittal to the other body. We have now gone 43 days, and the 
majority leader of the Senate has stated publicly that he has no 
intention at any time of sending the legislation to the other body for 
their consideration.
  One can speculate--and I will not--on the reasons why this 
legislation is not being transmitted to the other body as is our 
custom. I say to my colleagues in all seriousness, if this practice is 
condoned, watch out if you prevail and it is against the majority 
leader's wishes for that bill to be sent over to the other body. By not 
sending this and every piece of legislation passed by the Senate over 
to the other body, we may be beginning a very dangerous precedent.
  I am very aware that this amendment is not relevant to the education 
bill, although obviously, as I mentioned, we educate our children in 
ways that we may have to at least amend in this book. I hope we don't 
have to. But I want to assure my colleagues, as soon as this bill is 
transmitted to the other body, I will be the first to stand up and ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw this from the legislation because I don't 
want to encumber the education bill with this issue. But when I see, 
after the long, hard struggle that I have been through, along now with 
a majority of the Senate, to achieve a legislative result and see that 
legislative result stymied at least temporarily in a procedural 
fashion, as far as I can see an unprecedented fashion, then I have to 
seek whatever vehicle I can to express what I hope is the majority will 
of the Senate.
  I hope we can get this issue behind us. I strongly believe it has 
more importance than even the campaign finance reform bill itself, if 
this practice is allowed to become a precedent, what is being done with 
this legislation.
  I might add, it was about 3 weeks ago that by accident I found out 
that it was not going to be sent over to the other body. I was not even 
notified that this legislation was not going to be sent over.
  Once we did discover it, then I went to the majority leader. I asked 
on numerous occasions if he would send this bill over. The majority 
leader, yesterday morning, stated that under no circumstances would he 
do so.
  I have no alternative than to move to get the sense of the Senate on 
this issue and then, if that doesn't succeed, then we will have to 
obviously use what other parliamentary options we have.

[[Page S4923]]

  After a long and fair and, in many ways, illuminating and elevating 
debate on this issue and having a result achieved, and then to have it 
not even sent over to the other body, is a great disservice. I hope it 
will be rectified as soon as possible.
  I ask for the yeas and nays at a time determined by the leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am happy to join with the Senator from 
Arizona in offering this amendment. Actually, that is not true. I am 
not really happy we are offering the amendment; I am disappointed and 
puzzled. Because this amendment should be totally unnecessary. It is 
unnecessary because by instructing the enrolling clerk not to transmit 
S. 27 to the House, the majority leader is frustrating the will of the 
Senate and of the American people for no apparent reason.
  I was pleased with the debate we had on campaign finance reform back 
in late March. Not only because we finally were able to have a real 
debate, vote on amendments, and ultimately pass a good bill, but also 
because I thought the Senate acquitted itself extremely well under 
difficult circumstances. Both sides played fair in that debate. The 
majority leader kept his word not to filibuster the bill.
  The opponents fought hard but did not drag out the proceedings 
unnecessarily. I think we kept our word as well, even though there were 
amendments added that we did not necessarily approve of or like a great 
deal. We did not offer a cleanup amendment before the end of the debate 
to wipe out all the work of other Members of the Senate; we let the 
chips fall as the Senate wished. The result was a bill of which the 
Senate and the public could be proud.
  As we know, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 59-41 on April 2, 
2001. There was a technical amendment right before final passage, and 
it could normally be expected with such a complex piece of legislation 
that it might take a few days for the bill to be engrossed and 
officially delivered to the House. That is the way the legislative 
process legitimately works. The House passes a bill, and it goes to the 
Senate; the Senate passes a bill, and it goes to the House. But it has 
been a month and a half.
  The McCain-Feingold bill passed by the Senate still has not been sent 
over to the House. There is not a question at all that it is ready to 
go, but apparently an instruction was received by the enrolling clerk 
not to follow the standard procedure when the Senate passes a bill. 
That instruction clearly originated with the majority leader of this 
body.
  This is actually an embarrassment to the Senate. I think it would 
also be an embarrassment to the majority leader. I thought we were 
beyond petty game playing in this body. These kinds of tactics 
discredit the institution, and they also completely undercut the good 
feeling many of us gained during that extraordinary 2 weeks of open 
debate. As a result, this action by the majority leader could be 
indicative of the lengths to which the opponents of reform will go to 
stop the bill even when they have lost in the Senate fair and square. 
Will they stop at nothing? Is there no legislative or parliamentary 
tactic too obscure to be invoked in the name of stopping reform, to be 
invoked in the name of protecting this big money system?
  In the end, we will enact a reform bill for the American people in 
this Congress, and the President will sign it, no matter how the 
opponents complain or what tricks they try to stop it. I agree with the 
Senator from Arizona that we need to resolve this. The regular business 
needs to go forward, but that has to happen after this message is sent 
clearly by the Senate that it is long overdue for this bill to be sent 
over to the House.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Arizona and the 
Senator from Wisconsin have pointed out the focus on this legislation, 
and Senator McCain indicated that once the papers go over to the House, 
they will ask to withdraw this amendment.
  I must say, on a broader issue, I congratulate the Senators from 
Arizona and Wisconsin for bringing this to light on the Senate floor. I 
think all of us are very mindful in this institution that this is where 
these issues ought to be debated and discussed and also examined. When 
we do have that opportunity, as we saw during the debate on campaign 
financing--the fact that there are a lot of discussions in the back 
rooms and in the corridors and behind closed doors--when they finally 
get it into the openness of the floor of the Senate, you get a 
different reaction.
  I daresay we will have a very encouraging reaction when we vote on 
this measure this afternoon, and we should have. I think it is very 
regrettable that we have the use of the Senate rules to deny a clear 
process in this legislative undertaking, where this legislation had 
passed and still there has not been the passing of the papers. We have 
seen other actions such as that in denying this body the opportunity to 
address key issues even currently. For example, on the increase in the 
minimum wage, we were denied the opportunity of getting a fair vote. 
Even though a majority of this body is committed to a Patients' Bill of 
Rights, we have seen this.
  On this measure, which is of such importance to our good leaders 
here, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, they deserve credit and 
support. I join in congratulating them.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, have we determined a time yet as to when this vote will 
take place?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I do not. As far as the floor managers are concerned, 
the earlier the better. I don't know about what the timing is on the 
other side. The leader on our side is familiar with it, and I hope we 
will do it at an early time.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. DOMENICI. 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 New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 884 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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, we are awaiting Senators who desire to 
offer their amendments. I believe Senator Boxer will be here shortly, 
and also Senator Harkin, perhaps just after that, depending on the 
desire of the other side.
  While I have a moment and prior to the time they come, I want to 
review where we are on a very important aspect of this debate, and that 
is the funding for this legislation.
  As I mentioned on a number of occasions, and I am going to continue 
to mention it, we cannot expect to educate our children on a tin cup 
budget. It cannot be done on the cheap. Money is not the answer to 
everything, but it is a very clear indication of a nation's priorities.
  In this legislation, we are looking for investments in America's 
future. When we are talking about America's future, we are talking 
about America's children. We believe we have an effective blueprint 
that can make an important difference in the quality of education for 
children in this country.
  As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not going to be this 
legislation in and of itself. It is going to be the cumulative efforts 
of parents, teachers, communities, principals, school administrators, 
and school boards all working together. It is also going to be the 
support we provide in the early learning programs that will

[[Page S4924]]

reach children of the 0-to-3 age. It is important we invest in these 
efforts. It is a biological fact that development of a child's brain 
reaches its maximum at the age of 5. All the development takes place 
prior to that time. It is enormously important the child have, up to 
that time, as many positive influences as possible.
  We are going to battle the issues of funding for early intervention 
of children--the Early Start Program--the Head Start Program, which are 
only funded at about 40 percent, and the child care programs as well. 
We have had a good debate on funding IDEA, and we had a very powerful 
bipartisan vote in the Senate that put us clearly on record that we 
want to meet our responsibilities to the families and local communities 
by funding 40 percent of the education of the children.
  I want to review where we are on the question of funding this 
legislation and what we understand will be the administration's 
position on funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This 
includes not only title I but professional development programs, 
technology programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, afterschool 
programs, and related programs that are part of the whole Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
  I pointed out at the time we had the last debate in the Senate last 
week what was going to be in the budget for this country, what was 
going to be available for funding. We have seen now that the Republican 
leadership, with the support of the administration, has effectively 
sucked up all of the available resources that can be used for education 
with the $1.25 trillion tax reduction.
  As a result of that, as a result of the document that we had, when it 
came back from the conference, there was virtually no guarantee or 
assurance for funding for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 
2009, 2010. In fact, a careful reading of that legislation would mean 
there would actually be a reduction in the funding from current 
services during that period of time. That is a matter of enormous 
concern--and it should be--to the families of this country.
  I expect the families in this Nation would say if we are going to 
have a tax cut, you ought to be able to get--as a matter of fact, I am 
stating what about 75 percent of the American families say. They say: 
If we are going to have a tax cut we are going to have a tax cut, but 
first let's fund education, investing in the children of this country.
  What we have seen under the administration's program is they have 
reached a different conclusion. Under that proposal, as I pointed out 
when we had that debate, the measure was very clear and precise in the 
instructions to the Finance Committee about what they ought to come 
back with, within what period of time. Even though we passed that bill 
last week, as I understand it, we may very well be considering the 
budget tomorrow. Can you imagine that? We passed it last week. It will 
be out of the Finance Committee and we may be considering it tomorrow. 
We can see what happens when the majority, in this case the Republican 
majority, and in this case the President, want to get something done. 
They can get it done virtually overnight; over $1 trillion that will go 
into effect in terms of tax reductions for wealthy individuals. They 
can get it done overnight.
  But what was included in this proposal? Over the period of the life 
of this legislation, the 10-years, up to $6 billion may be used for 
education. I think everybody understands there were very precise 
instructions on tax reduction, very precise instructions on defense, 
very precise instructions on agriculture, and virtually no instructions 
with regard to education. That is the fact. That is indisputable. Now 
we are going to see what the result of that will be.
  I think it is instructive to look at what this increase would mean in 
terms of past years: proposed ESEA budget increases, Clinton versus 
Bush administration.
  We heard the President wants this to be the first priority. As I say, 
if we compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, grapefruits to 
grapefruits, Clinton to Bush, over recent years, in terms of elementary 
and secondary education budget increases, this chart indicates from 
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and what the Clinton 
average was over that period.
  The Clinton average over that period from 1994 to this last year was 
8.67 percent. Under President Bush, it is 3.6 percent. There it is, the 
Clinton average--2001, 22 percent; 2000, 4.7 percent; 15.7 percent in 
1999; 6.8 percent in 1998; 9.4 percent in 1997; 6.4 percent in 1996; 19 
percent in 1995; 4.5 percent in 1994. Average: 8.67.
  There is the 3.6 percent. We want to point out that is without the 
changes and without the reforms. We have done a lot of giving and 
taking. There has been chiding on both sides about whether the 
administration, the President, gave up too much, whether others gave up 
too much. That is what compromise is all about. This is not the bill I 
would have written and this is not the bill President Bush would have 
written, but it represents a legitimate compromise and I am satisfied. 
I believe the great majority of our Members are satisfied. If this bill 
had full funding, we would have virtually every vote on our side. We 
may not, if it is not funded, and that is what we are saying.

  If we are talking about the future of this country and talking about 
the importance of investing in children, and we have seen the changes 
which have been brought back as a matter of additional accountability 
and how this legislation has been put together, the consolidations of 
various programming, holding schools accountable, holding the children 
accountable as well, the changes that have been made in holding 
schoolteachers accountable and strengthening the assurance we have 
well-qualified teachers, that we have a professional mentoring program, 
professional development over the years, none of that was out there. We 
had some accountability in the previous bill. We had some 
reconstitution, actually, of schools under the last elementary and 
secondary education bill.
  But this goes further and is more comprehensive as a package, 
bringing together the funding of IDEA, bringing together the additional 
resources for professional development and the way they are structured, 
bringing together the outreach for good quality teachers, bringing 
together consolidation of the technology component, and with a strong 
emphasis that we are going to get curriculum reform, well-trained 
teachers, and a more thoughtful process in examining children to find 
out what they don't know. We do that so we can provide the 
supplementary services, reaching out to the communities in a much wider 
way than we have before to use the resources within the communities to 
help and assist children who might need that extra help with 
supplementary services in a very expansive way that we had not done 
before--and to recognize we are only reaching a third of the children.
  How are we going to achieve what this legislation effectively states, 
and that is that we will bring every needy child in this country up to 
proficiency within 10 years, if we are only reaching a third of them 
now? It is going to be difficult enough--if we were reaching all of 
them--to try to help with the additional resources in bilingual 
education, for example. The number of children who need those services 
has virtually doubled in our school-age population.
  As I mentioned on other occasions, but it bears repeating, the 
challenges that schools are dealing with are much more complex today. 
We have many more families divided so children are growing up in 
divided homes. We see what has happened in terms of violence in many of 
the homes, in inner cities as well as in rural communities, the 
problems with substance abuse and physical abuse. All that has taken 
place. Plus, we have seen an increasing number of children who are 
homeless--more than 800,000 homeless children, 800,000 migrant 
children, sweeping from California all the way to Washington in the 
west and from Florida to the State of Maine in the east. We have about 
1.5 million children.
  Then we have about 700,000 immigrant children who are going to be 
citizens of the United States who need help and assistance as they move 
along. They are going to be American citizens. They are on the way to 
being American citizens. We want to invest in those children.
  These are the kinds of challenges we were not facing 20 years ago, 
for the

[[Page S4925]]

most part. So we have a more complex situation at the grassroots level. 
We have parents, teachers, and schools attempting to cope with this 
under extraordinary circumstances. They need help, they want help, and 
they are counting on us to help.
  The way that we can do that is to make sure with this legislation and 
with the accountability that we are going to invest in children who 
need the help. That is for what we are fighting.
  When you look at this chart, the comparison with what this 
administration is requesting, 3.6 percent this year versus the 8.6 
percent average over the previous 8 years and understand that of that 
3.6 percent, money is taken from other pots--that is not new money. 
Half of that is in job training. Two-hundred million dollars of that is 
from the National Science Foundation. Another couple hundred million 
dollars is from the EPA.
  Look at this: $54.1 million from job training; $20 million from the 
early learning opportunities--that is the program that reaches the 
children in the 0-to-3 programs; pediatric graduate medical education 
to try to assure that we are going to have the best in terms of 
pediatric training for children. They have taken $30 million out of 
that; clean water State fund, $497 million. That is a vital resource in 
terms of many of the States, including my State of Massachusetts where 
you have so many of the communities under court order to clean up their 
water systems in what which are basically blue-collar, working-class 
communities.
  They have high taxes as it is. They don't have the resources to be 
able to draw on a State fund. To help them is absolutely essential. We 
are cutting that program.
  As to the renewable energy programs, we have the great debate and 
discussion about these energy programs. The administration takes out 
$156 million; NASA and National Science Foundation, $200 million; FEMA 
disaster relief, $270 million; and community policing, one of the most 
successful programs, they cut.
  What we see is a difficult situation over the period of the next 5 
years out I fear for the outyears, the fifth year to the tenth year, 
because we know what is going to be in this tax package which is going 
to be heavily weighted, or backloaded. That is the word which is used. 
As we all understand around here, the reason it is backloaded is 
because it conceals its purpose.
  Make no mistake about it; if it was frontloaded, there would be a 
clear indication of the amounts we could evaluate for the first 5 
years; that is, the Joint Tax Program, the Congressional Budget Office, 
and the OMB estimates the first 5 years--not the back 5 years.
  As a result, we find the backloaded tax bill. That is going to mean 
that education resources will remain scarce--not just for the next 
decade covered by the budget resolution but for the next decade as well 
when the enrollments are expected to expand dramatically.
  I think this is a clear indication if you look at the broader issue. 
You say, OK, that is ESEA, but maybe much more will be done in the 
other areas of education; that is, in the Pell grants or other kinds of 
help and assistance in higher education, such as the Department of 
Education, or maybe we are looking at research to find out what really 
works out there so we can help.
  But we have the same story. This administration fails in the 
education budget in investments in education. If we look on the chart, 
the total increase for the title I program was $669 million, 3.5 
percent, even though if you look through the book that has the budget 
figures, that is effectively where it comes out. There was a great 
hoopla about how it was going to be 11.9 percent. It is $669 million, 
and the appropriation for the year 2001 was $3.6 billion.

  If you look at the total Department of Education, 6.5 percent 
appropriations last year; the total for the Department of Education is 
$2.5 billion.
  This is not only elementary and secondary education, but it is in the 
higher education as well.
  I know many of our colleagues have the opportunity to go back as I do 
and talk with people in our States. If I go back to Massachusetts and 
have a town meeting, I ask people in that hall, say you have $1 that 
represents the Federal budget. Let's think through about how that ought 
to be spent. You ask people for a show of hands. They want national 
security. They want defense. They understand the importance of national 
security. They want to make sure whatever is necessary is there, and 
that is something certainly that we ought to support.
  While we are talking about national security, is there anyone in this 
body who doubts that within the next 3 or 4 weeks after we pass their 
tax cut on tomorrow, or the next few days, that within a 4-week period 
we will have the requests from the Department of Defense as a result of 
Secretary Rumsfeld's total Bottom-Up Review, and the best estimate is 
anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion over the next 5 years. That 
is going to be on track. We are not hearing about it now. We are not 
talking about it. But does anybody really doubt that? Does anybody in 
the defense community really question that? Not that I have heard. We 
are just not going to be able to do this.
  As I say, if you are in that room and asking people what they think, 
they say: Oh, yes. We need Social Security and we need to have 
Medicare. They understand that. Maybe some will say we will start 
talking about it.
  What about education? What about prescription drugs? Where do they 
fit? Some will mention that we have to pay an interest on the debt. 
Then you ask them: What do you think we are spending on education? 
First of all, what do you think we should spend? After they begin to 
understand that it is maybe 5 cents in terms of the defense and maybe a 
little less than that on the interest on the debt, you get probably 2.4 
or 2.5 in terms of the Medicare programs. You include Medicaid in 
there, and you have Social Security. That is figured in the budget. 
They see that going up.
  But at the end of the day when you start talking about education, 80 
percent of Senators will say that we ought to at the minimum spend 10 
cents or 8 cents out of that dollar on education. Ninety percent will 
say certainly 5. Would you believe that it is less than 2? And under 
this administration, it will be less than 1 cent. Does that reflect the 
American families' priorities in terms of education?
  We understand it is a local responsibility and a State 
responsibility, and the Federal participation has been focused 
primarily on the higher education. But I think most families would say 
we want a partnership with local, State, and Federal. We want a 
partnership because we recognize that we need the resources.
  In many different communities where they have the greatest kind of 
pressure, particularly in the poorest of the poor, they do not have the 
resources to be able to sort of deal with this.
  We made a decision in the early 1960s that we were going to reach out 
to try to provide resources and recognize as a matter of national 
commitment that we were going to deal with the neediest students in 
this country.
  That is what this title I program is really all about. It provides 
resources for those communities--not a great deal of resources. We have 
had some successes and failures. But we are in a new day and period.
  But the idea that we are providing a penny out of that dollar in 
terms of education, which is really another word for talking about our 
future--children are our future. Investing in our children is investing 
in our future. Is there anyone who doubts that if you have an eighth 
grade class and the children don't learn algebra that those children 
are not going to college? It is simple, plain, finished, conversation 
ended. You have to make sure you have people in there who are going to 
be able to teach them. That is going to take upgrading.
  We don't expect to solve all the problems, but we have made a 
commitment at least in this bill that the teachers who are going to 
teach the children--better than 50 percent of the title I children who 
are going to be educated within 4 years--will be well qualified. We 
have made our commitment. We have to have the resources to be able to 
do it.
  So this is about our future. This is about our priority. It is about 
the key element in terms of a nation and our fundamental values. Are 
they going to be in terms of the future, which is our

[[Page S4926]]

children, or are we going to be presented with a future tax reduction 
for the wealthy individuals in this country? I think that is how it is 
going to be.
  Let me make it clear that I have every intention of offering 
amendments to let the American people understand how this body wants to 
vote in terms of a reduction in the top rates for the wealthiest 
individuals, or fund education.
  This body will have a chance to make a judgment decision on that. Are 
we going to go from the 39.6 down to 36, and then further reductions in 
many other areas or are we going to fund our children's education in 
the future? What is in the national interest? What is in the interest 
of these children? Do we want this Nation to invest in our children or 
do we want to find out that we are going to provide additional benefits 
to people who have done very well in the last few years?
  What we have seen in the most recent times has been this 
extraordinary kind of dichotomy where the wealthier have grown so much 
wealthier and the poor have grown so much poorer. I remember those 
charts. I do not have them here. But if you look at what has happened 
in terms of American income, broken into fifths, from the time of the 
war to 1972, you will find each group went up; they grew together. 
Virtually all of them grew together. Not now. You now find the bottom 
fifth is going down--yes, going down. The second fifth is going down 
just a little bit. And the top fifth has gone up through the ceiling. 
We have these enormous disparities. By failing to invest in the 
children, that is going to continue, as sure as we are standing here.
  So we will have the chance to come back and visit this as soon as the 
Finance Committee reports out its bill. We will welcome the opportunity 
to have the Members of this body vote on these measures.
  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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 tonight the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 477. I further 
ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendment 
prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. 525 To Amendment No. 358

       (Purpose: To provide grants for the renovation of schools)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 525.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Kerry, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Biden, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 525 to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent 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 and Proposed.'')
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know there is a unanimous consent 
agreement pending for a vote to occur at 5:30, so my statement on the 
amendment will be interrupted at 5:30--if I go on that long--for the 
vote at that time.
  Mr. President, our children deserve the best when it comes to 
education--all children; not just a few but all. It is not right that 
some kids get the best in schooling and the best of teachers and the 
best of school buildings and other kids are put into rundown, 
dilapidated, old buildings that are not even safe as far as fire and 
safety codes go.
  Children deserve modern school buildings with access to technology. 
They deserve small classes so they can get the teacher's attention when 
they need extra help. It is not just our kids who deserve this, it is 
the future of our country that deserves this, cries out for it, demands 
it.
  As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is 
a picture of a modern elementary school classroom. This is Cleveland 
Elementary in Elkhart, IN. If I am not mistaken, there are 17 or 18 
kids in this well-lit, well-appointed, roomy classroom. That is what a 
modern school ought to look like. That is sort of what we think about 
as an elementary school in all of our minds. This is what we conjure 
up. We conjure up a nice, well-ordered classroom with a class small 
enough for the teacher to pay attention.
  Or how about this? This is South Lawrence East School in Lawrence, 
MA. There are 12, maybe 13 kids here. This is the library and media 
center. Now how about that as the kind of an ideal library and media 
center for all of our elementary schools around the country?
  I ask any parent: Wouldn't you like to have your child go to this 
school? Wouldn't that be wonderful, to think that your kid was in a 
school like this every day with the latest technology, all hooked up to 
the Internet? That would be nice.
  I am afraid most schools look like this. That is not bad. That is not 
a dilapidated school. The average school building in the United States 
is 42 years old. This is where most of our kids go to elementary 
schools. They are over 50 years old. They have air-conditioners 
sticking out of the windows. This was added later because the schools 
were not air-conditioned in those days. Many of them have roofs that 
leak and are kind of rundown schools.
  It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our children see are 
shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown 
place they see is the public school. What kind of a signal are we 
sending them about the value we place on them and their education and 
their future? How can we prepare kids for the 21st century in schools 
that don't even make the grade in the 20th century?
  The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued a report card 
for America's infrastructure. This is their report card. As we can see, 
the condition of our national infrastructure is poor. All of them are 
poor: energy, waterways, solid waste, wastewater, drinking water, 
airports, bridges, roads--all in pretty bad shape. This is the second 
time they put out this report. The lowest grade of all goes, once again 
to public schools.
  Seventy-five percent of our Nation's school buildings are inadequate. 
The average cost of capital investments needed to upgrade and replace 
our schools is $3,800 per student. Since 1998, the total need has 
increased from $112 billion to $127 billion. That is just to bring the 
existing public schools, elementary and secondary schools we have in 
America, up to fire and safety code and to upgrade them in terms of the 
latest technology.
  It does not refer to the amount of money we are going to need to 
build the new school buildings. That is going to require a lot more 
money in the future. Right now we have an all-time high of $53.2 
million. This will grow. Over the next 10 years, it is going to be 
necessary to build an additional 6,000 schools. That number is not even 
reflected here. This $127 billion is needed now to repair and modernize 
existing schools.

  I have been advocating this for about a decade now, starting back in 
1991, that the Federal Government begin to meet some of its 
responsibilities. All one has to do is read Jonathan Kozol's book 
``Savage Inequalities'' to understand why it is necessary for the 
Federal Government to be involved.
  A little history may be in order. I always ask the question: Where 
does it say in the Constitution of the United

[[Page S4927]]

States that our public school system in America has to be based on 
property taxes? You will look in vain, and you won't find it anywhere 
in the Constitution. Why is that the basis of funding for our public 
schools?
  The reason is, in the early days of the founding of our Republic, it 
was decided we would have free public education for everyone. At that 
time it was free public education for white males, but with the 
adoption of the Bill of Rights and with the ensuing concept that we are 
all one Nation, we broadened that to women and minorities and everyone 
else.
  Really, we have ingrained this idea of free public education for all. 
But at that time we didn't have income taxes. We didn't have corporate 
taxes. We didn't have all these kinds of taxes. All we had were 
property taxes and excise taxes. So to fund the public schools, the 
only tax base they had to go to was the property taxes people paid. 
Thus the whole system sort of built up over the centuries that way.
  It literally was not until 1865, under Republican President Abraham 
Lincoln, that the Federal Government got involved in public education. 
That was with the passage of the Morell Act that set up the land grant 
colleges of the United States. That was the first time the Federal 
Government really got involved at all in public education.
  Then for about 100 years, the Federal Government was involved only on 
that level, through land grant colleges, through some research, and 
with the adoption of the GI bill after World War II, mostly focused at 
higher education from the Federal Government standpoint.
  Then, with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, the progeny of which we are now debating, the Federal 
Government got involved with trying to equalize a little bit the great 
disparities in education to meet the needs of lower income students, 
special needs students, and to help the States and local governments 
meet their constitutional requirement that if they did indeed provide a 
free public education, they couldn't discriminate.
  Again, no State in this Union has to provide a free public education 
to the kids in the State. But if they do, if a State decides to provide 
a free public education, then the Constitution kicks in and says: You 
can't have a free public education for whites but not for African 
Americans, for men but not for women, for Catholics but not Jews, 
Protestants but not Catholics. It has to be free for everyone.
  Of course, as my dear friend and colleague from Vermont knows, this 
was later expanded under a couple of court cases in the early 1970s to 
also say that you can't discriminate on the basis of disability. Kids 
with disabilities under our Constitution also must receive a free, 
appropriate public education.
  Since 1965, the Federal Government has been providing support and 
funds for elementary and secondary education. Thus, that is the bill we 
are debating.
  As we have looked at the concept of what the Federal Government ought 
to do in terms of helping elementary and secondary education, we have 
title I programs.
  We had the Eisenhower math and science programs and a variety of 
different efforts where we have come in and targeted the funds to 
address a national need, whether it was a lack of science or math, 
under the Eisenhower math and science program, to try to help needy 
students who perhaps did not have any early childhood education or 
support, and title I programs, remedial math programs, to get these 
kids to catch up, get ready to learn. That is what these were all 
designed to do.
  I forgot to mention one other aspect of our involvement in elementary 
and secondary education, and that was the free school lunch program, 
and later, the school breakfast program; both targeted not only 
nutritional needs but were to help kids learn better in school. I have 
been advocating for a long time--at least since I read Jonathan Kozol's 
book ``Savage Inequality''--that the Federal Government needs to be 
involved in helping to rebuild and modernize our public schools. Why? 
In many areas you have poor schools, and the property-tax payers are 
overburdened as it is. We need to help them build these schools. It is 
a national problem, not just local.
  So I believe this is a proper role for the Federal Government. As I 
said, I have been advocating this for over a decade. In fiscal year 
1995, I did secure $100 million in the appropriations bill as sort of a 
downpayment to get us started on this. I was disappointed when those 
funds were later rescinded. But, then, as the years went by, we made 
real progress, and last year we passed a $1.2 billion initiative to 
make emergency repairs to our schools. This was a bipartisan agreement, 
hammered out with Congressmen Goodling, Porter, and Obey on the House 
side, and Senators Jeffords, Specter, myself, and the White House, who 
all got involved in that and we hammered out this agreement. That was 
passed last year. That money is now going out to the States.
  In about 2 months, that $1.2 billion will be made available to the 
States on the basis of the incidence of poverty, basically following 
the title I program. So those States with a high incidence of poverty 
tend to get more of the money. This is a busy chart, but it shows you 
the distribution on July 1 for school renovation grants. It goes from 
California, with $138 million; New York gets $105 million; North 
Carolina gets $21 million; North Dakota gets $5 million; Ohio gets $37 
million; Pennsylvania, also another big player in this, gets $44 
million; Texas gets $94.9 million to help modernize and rebuild its 
schools; Louisiana gets $24.9 million; Vermont gets $5.4 million, about 
the same as Iowa, which gets $6.4 million. So this money is all 
contributed on the basis of the incidence of poverty as to the 
population in those States.
  We can't solve the whole problem in one year. This will make a 
difference, but the bill before us eliminates this program at a 
critical time, just when it is getting off the ground, the first year. 
We will get the money out to the States; they will be able to use some 
of this to get up to fire and safety code in some schools and modernize 
some schools, and this bill will pull the rug out from underneath them.
  We must continue this program to repair and renovate our Nation's 
public schools. That is why I am proposing this amendment on behalf of 
myself and Senators Kerry, Levin, Reid of Nevada, Biden, Corzine, 
Johnson, Cantwell, Torricelli, Bingaman, Clinton, and Dodd. They are 
the cosponsors.
  This amendment reauthorizes the school renovation program that we 
created last year and increases the authorization level from $1.2 
billion to $1.6 billion. The amendment continues to split between 
school modernization and the needs of kids with disabilities under 
IDEA, which we negotiated in last year's bill. Seventy-five percent of 
the funds will finance urgent repairs, such as fixing a leaky roof, 
replacing faulty wiring, or making repairs to bring schools up to local 
safety and fire codes. That is 75 percent of the $1.6 billion. The 
remaining funding will support activities related to the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, part B, or for technology activities 
related to school construction.

  The need to help schools make these repairs is clear. The Healthy 
Schools Network has reported many problems around the Nation.
  Several parents complain that their children were getting sick at a 
large city school near Albany, NY. The county inspected the school and 
found unsafe levels of lead and mold in the school. The school has not 
been able to correct the problem, citing a lack of funding for repairs. 
But the children continue to go to that school.
  A child in North Carolina missed several days of school suffering 
from headaches and stomach aches. During summer break, the child's 
illness abated. But when school started and they came back, he got sick 
again. The child attends class in an old trailer that has poor 
ventilation and bad odor problems.
  In Southern California, a teacher was forced to quit teaching after 
she suffered hearing and voice loss from, again, lack of proper 
ventilation and mold in her fourth grade classroom.
  A Virginia parent said her son felt sick at school and was doing very 
poorly. An inspection of the classroom found nonfunctioning 
ventilators, water stains, mold in the ceiling tiles. Leaky roofs, 
peeling lead paint, poor plumbing, not meeting fire and safety codes 
aren't just an inconvenience, they are a hazard to our children.

[[Page S4928]]

  In my State of Iowa, the State fire marshal reported that fires in 
Iowa schools have increased fivefold over the past several years, from 
an average of 20 per year in the previous decades to over 100 per year 
in just the last decade. I asked why that was. Well, the schools are 
getting older, the wiring is in disrepair, and thus the fires are 
started. What happens is they don't have proper wiring, and maybe they 
put more things in the classroom, and they expand the number of plugs 
going in the sockets, and they overload the circuits and fires start.
  So there is a clear need to help school districts improve the 
condition of their schools to ensure the health and safety and 
education of our children.
  States and local communities are struggling to renovate existing 
schools and build new ones to alleviate overcrowding. School 
construction modernization is necessary to equip classrooms for the 
21st century and improve learning conditions, end overcrowding, and 
make smaller classes possible.
  Our school buildings are wearing out. Nearly three-quarters of all 
public schools in America were built before 1970; 74 percent were built 
before 1970. In fact, almost 1 out of every 3 schools in America was 
built before World War II, in the last century.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, when a 
school is between 20 and 30 years old, frequent replacement of 
equipment is necessary. When a school is between 30 and 40 years old, 
all of the original equipment should have been replaced, including the 
roof and the electrical system. After 40 years of age, a school 
building begins to deteriorate rapidly, and most schools are abandoned 
after 60 years. Yet before World War II, over 60 years ago--and 1 out 
of 3 schools functioning today were built over 60 years ago--the 
average school building was 42 years old, as I noted.
  Technology is placing new demands on schools. As a result of the 
increased use of technology, many schools must install new wiring, new 
telephone wires, new electrical systems, and the demand for the 
Internet is at an all-time high. But in the Nation's poorest schools, 
only about a third have Internet access.
  The need to modernize our Nation's public schools is clear, and yet 
the Federal Government lags in helping our local school districts 
address this critical problem. Because of increasing enrollments and 
aging buildings, local and State expenditures for school construction 
have increased dramatically--by 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. Let me 
repeat that. Local and State expenditures for school construction has 
gone up 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. However, this still has not been 
sufficient to address the need.
  Those taxes come from property-tax payers which--not in every case 
but in most cases--is one of the most unfair, unsound ways of taxing to 
raise money for our public schools. Again, if you live in an area where 
there is high income and pay high property taxes, you have good 
schools. If you live in an area that is low income with low property 
taxes, you have poorer schools.
  Is that any way to run the educational system of America based upon 
property taxes or where you live? If you are lucky and are born in 
suburban Northern Virginia, you have great public schools, but if you 
are born in southern Maryland or maybe even in the southern part of 
Iowa--I can speak about my own State--where we have low property 
values, a lack of a good property tax base, you simply do not have the 
good schools that you need.
  This amendment will help school districts make the urgent repairs 
needed to make schools safer for our children, but we have to do more.
  Some buildings have simply outlived their usefulness. As I mentioned, 
we have to build an additional 6,000 schools in the next decade. We are 
not even talking about that here.
  In the near future, the Senate will act on a tax bill. I will be 
working with my colleagues, Senator Kerry and others, to provide school 
modernization tax credits to help underwrite the nearly $25 billion of 
new school facilities that are needed.
  Mr. President, you might ask: Will this approach work? It will work. 
We have had an experiment going on in Iowa. We are in the third year of 
a school modernization demonstration project. Over the past 3 years, 
$28 million in Federal funds have gone to my State of Iowa to rebuild 
and modernize schools to bring our schools up to safety and fire codes, 
to make sure these schools are meeting the needs of the 21st century.
  Twenty-eight million dollars have gone to Iowa, but it has leveraged 
$311 million in repair and new construction projects. For every dollar 
the Federal Government has invested in Iowa, it has leveraged over $10 
of State spending to help repair our schools.
  The Iowa construction grant program shows what can happen if we put 
this money out nationally. If we put this money out nationally, the 
$1.2 billion that we did last year, I guarantee it is going to leverage 
money all over this country to rebuild and modernize our schools. That 
is why with $1.2 billion, I would be shocked if we come in at less than 
$7 billion or $8 billion of additional money leveraged in the States to 
meet this requirement. That is what this amendment is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it my understanding that we will be 
voting at 5:30 p.m.; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from 
Iowa for bringing up this amendment. We will have an opportunity to 
address this issue perhaps later this evening and tomorrow.
  As we have worked on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
there have been five major components. A well-trained teacher in every 
classroom is enormously important. Smaller class sizes for the early 
grades are enormously important. Afterschool supplementary services are 
enormously important. Having newer computers and technologies to avoid 
a digital divide are enormously important. But to have a schoolroom 
that is going to be safe and secure and free from the conditions which 
the Senator described is absolutely essential as well.
  I thank him very much. I will have more to say about this when the 
time comes. We are going to be voting in a few moments.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the amendment that 
the Senator from Iowa and I, and others, have offered to deal with the 
oft-discussed issue of overcrowded and dilapidated schools.
  As many of my colleagues know, for this is an issue that we have 
talked about before and even addressed in a bipartisan fashion last 
year, the need for school construction assistance is great. Three-
quarters of the public schools are in need of repairs, renovation, or 
modernization. More than one-third of schools rely on portable 
classrooms, such as trailers, many of which lack heat or air 
conditioning. Twenty percent of public schools report unsafe 
conditions, such as failing fire alarms or electric problems.
  At the same time the schools are getting older, the number of 
students is growing, up 9 percent since 1990. The Department of 
Education estimates that 2,400 new schools will be needed by 2003 and 
public elementary and secondary enrollment is expected to increase 
another million between 1999 and 2006, reaching an all-time high of 
44.4 million and increasing demand on schools.
  I have come to the floor on more than a few occasions and made clear 
my feeling that Democrats need to acknowledge that bricks and mortar 
alone are not the answer for our public schools; I think the reforms on 
accountability, local control, and tough standards that our party has 
embraced make clear that we have heard that message, but it does not 
for a minute dilute the fact that it's increasingly difficult to have 
meaningful reform in schools that are falling apart at the seams. 
Research does show that student and teacher achievement lags in shabby 
school buildings, those with no science labs, inadequate ventilation, 
and faulty heating systems. Older schools are also less likely to be 
connected to the Internet than recently built or renovated schools. 
Facilities are vital to implementation of research-based school reform 
efforts. We know, for example, that students learn more effectively in 
small classes, but school districts cannot create smaller classes or 
hire more teachers unless there is a place to put them.

[[Page S4929]]

  Many schools are trying to offer more robust curricula, including 
music, physical education and classes in the arts, but their ability to 
provide these programs is hampered if there is no space to house them.
  Almost every State in the Nation has implemented curriculum 
standards, calling for advanced work in science and technologies, but 
some schools are so old that their electrical wiring cannot support 
enough computers for the students and their science facilities are so 
antiquated that students cannot perform the experiments required to 
learn the State's curriculum.
  Some school districts are looking to implement universal preschool--a 
service that we know enhances children's school preparedness and which 
a study published in last week's Journal of the American Medical 
Association confirmed makes children more likely to complete high 
school, less likely to need special education or grade retention 
services while in school, and more likely to avoid arrest as young 
adults--but the lack of available facilities is often prohibitive. If 
we are serious about encouraging research-based, meaningful, effective 
education reforms--and if we are serious about doing our part to help 
local districts run safe schools--a commensurate investment in school 
facilities is imperative.
  I have listened to the debate today and have heard some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the Federal 
Government overstepping its bounds into what is a State and local 
issue. I agree with their sentiment that the Federal Government should 
not go into local communities and decide what to build or decide what 
to repair. I also agree, to a certain extent, that the burden of 
building and renovating schools should be borne by localities.
  But what we have seen very clearly over the past several years is 
that States and local school districts are investing in school 
construction, but they still need our help. Annual construction 
expenditures for elementary and secondary schools have been growing. 
But local and State budgets have not been able to keep up with demand 
for new schools and the repair of aging ones. Unless school leaders can 
persuade their wary voters to pass such bond referendums or raise local 
taxes, though, there's often little hope of change. Until the last few 
years, the plight of State and local leaders had not received much 
attention from Washington. Last year we came together to respond to 
their call by funding a $1.2 billion grant program and this year we 
should come together again and pass legislation that continues our 
commitment to help local districts with their repair and renovation 
needs.
  The amendment that we are offering will provide $1.6 billion in 
grants to local education agencies to help them make urgently needed 
repairs and to pay for special education and construction expenses 
related to upgrading technology. And this amendment builds upon the 
bipartisan emergency school modernization initiative that passed into 
law as part of the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS-Education bill.
  Under this amendment, States will distribute 75 percent of the funds 
on a competitive basis to local school districts to make emergency 
repairs such as fixing fire code violation, repairing the roof or 
installing new plumbing. The remaining 25 percent will be distributed 
by State competitively to local school districts to use for technology 
activities related to school renovation or for activities authorized 
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  I know that my friend from Iowa has seen this school modernization 
program work. Earlier he talked about the demonstration program in his 
State, which leveraged $10.33 for each federal dollar invested in the 
demonstration program. This amendment is a partnership between the 
Federal Government and districts and it does constitute a legitimate 
role of the Federal Government.
  It is a tragedy that so many of our Nation's students attend schools 
in crumbling and unsafe facilities. According to the American Institute 
of Architects, one in every three public schools in America needs major 
repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers found school facilities 
to be in worse condition than any other part of our Nation's 
infrastructure.
  The problem is particularly acute in some high-poverty schools, where 
inadequate roofs, electrical systems, and plumbing place students and 
school employees at risk. Last month I visited the Westford Public 
School District in Massachusetts. School facilities were a big concern 
for this semi-rural town which has seen its student population sky 
rocket in recent years, but has not experienced comparable property tax 
revenues. In order to meet the fiscal demands of new school 
construction, the town is foregoing replacement of large, drafty 
windows from the early 1950s and is relying on pre-fab trailers to 
serve as an elementary school.
  The Wilson Middle School in Natick, MA, was built for approximately 
500 students and currently houses 625. The school has no technical 
infrastructure, it has no electrical wiring to allow the integration of 
computers in the classroom. The classrooms are 75 percent of the size 
of contemporary classrooms and were built with chairs and desks fixed 
to floor. Classrooms like these make it near-impossible for teachers to 
use modern-day teaching methods which rely heavily on student 
collaboration and interaction. The school also lacks science 
laboratories, making it impossible for students to do hands-on work and 
experiments.
  Natick High School, like many aging school buildings around the 
Commonwealth, needs to have its basic infrastructure updated: 
electrical wiring, heating, plumbing and intercom systems are among the 
many components of the school in need of modernization. Also, the 
science labs are presently unable to meet the demands of updated State 
curricula. Natick put in place a prototype lab, and saw remarkable 
changes in students' interest and ability to experiment in science.
  The urgent repair funding that passed the Congress last year provided 
$1.2 billion for repairs in high-need schools. In fiscal year 2001, 
this important program will help repair some 3,500 schools across the 
country and Massachusetts is slated to receive $19.5 million. But that 
will be the only money that my State receives unless we pass this 
important amendment and ensure that every student has a safe learning 
environment.
  The ESEA bill that we have been debating for the past several weeks 
represents a true coming together of the parties. This body worked 
tirelessly to hammer out an agreement on the outstanding issues that 
have separated us in the past and which prevented us from completing 
work on this reauthorization during the last Congress. It is my sincere 
hope that we can come together again on the issue of school 
construction and pass legislation that addresses this nation's critical 
need for school repairs and renovation, and that we can do it as a part 
of a broader package of honest and tough reforms which focus, above all 
else, on the goal of empowering our schools to raise student 
achievement.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Harkin's 
amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act, 
S. 1, that would restore the critical school repair program. I commend 
Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue, and I thank Senators 
Kennedy and Jeffords for the work that they have done on the overall 
elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill before us 
today.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Communities across 
the country like many in my home State of South Dakota are struggling 
to address critical needs to build new schools and renovate existing 
ones. School construction and modernization are necessary to address 
urgent safety and facility needs, to accommodate rising student 
enrollments, to help reduce class sizes, and to make sure schools are 
accessible to all students and well-equipped for the 21st century.
  In South Dakota, it has become increasingly difficult to pass school 
bond issues, given the fact that real estate taxes are already too high 
and our State's agricultural economy has been struggling. The result is 
an enormous backlog of school construction needs, and the costs of 
repair and replacement only increase with each passing year. A report 
by the General Accounting Office found that in my home State of South 
Dakota, 25 percent of schools

[[Page S4930]]

have inadequate plumbing, 21 percent of schools have roof problems, 29 
percent have ventilation problems, and 21 percent of schools are not 
meeting safety codes.
  Crumbling schools are not just an urban problem. They are a 
nationwide problem, and rural areas are no exception. In fact, 30 
percent of schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate 
building feature. Nationwide, the statistics are similarly ominous.
  The findings surrounding the condition of our Nation's schools is 
down-right frightening. Fourteen million children attend classes in 
buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. Nearly three-quarters of our 
Nation's schools are over 30 years old with 74 percent of schools built 
before 1970.
  According to the American Institute of Architects, one in every three 
public schools in America needs major repair. The American Society of 
Civil Engineers found school facilities to be in worse condition than 
any other part of our Nation's infrastructure.
  South Dakota's tribal schools also face very serious facilities 
problems and major construction backlogs. There are nine federally 
recognized tribes in South Dakota. At the same time, my State has 3 of 
the 10 poorest counties in the Nation, all of which are within 
reservation boundaries.
  With 56 percent of its people under the age of 24, the Native 
American population in this country is disproportionately young when 
compared the American population overall. This population strains 
existing school facilities. The BIA estimates that there is a 
construction backlog of $680 million in its 185 elementary, secondary 
and boarding schools serving Indian children on 63 reservations in 23 
States.
  However, after several years of debate on this issue, Congress made 
substantial progress last year on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations 
bill by including a bipartisan agreement to provide $1.2 billion for a 
new school urgent repair and renovation program. This important program 
will help repair some 3,500 schools across the country this year and 
assist schools with approximately $5.4 million in repair needs 
throughout the State of South Dakota.
  Under this program, funds are allocated to the States based on title 
I and States are to make competitive grants to Local Education 
Agencies, LEAs. 75 percent of the funds are to be distributed to LEAs 
to make urgent repairs such as fixing a leaky roof, replacing faulty 
wiring or making repairs to bring schools up to local safety and fire 
codes. The remaining 25 percent of the funds are to be distributed to 
LEAs for activities related to Part B of IDEA or for technology 
activities related to school renovation. $75 million is reserved for 
school districts with more than 50 percent of their students residing 
on Indian lands.
  Senator Harkin's amendment reauthorizes this critically important 
program and increases the authorization to $1.6 billion, continuing the 
split between school modernization and IDEA negotiated in last year's 
bill.
  It is no secret that crumbling schools are a problem of enormous 
magnitude. It is nearly impossible to measure the impact that these 
conditions have on students' ability to learn, but there is no doubt 
that the impact is severe.
  The school repair program is a key component in a dual strategy to 
modernize our Nation's schools. Some schools have simply outlived their 
usefulness and need to be replaced. In addition, the record enrollment 
in our Nation's public schools have caused overcrowding that can only 
be remedied by building new schools. Estimates are that we will need to 
build 6,000 new schools by the year 2006 if we want to keep class sizes 
the same as they are presently. That is why we also need to pass 
legislation to provide school modernization bonds that will finance at 
least $25 billion in new construction through a Federal-State-local 
partnership. South Dakota has a great many school districts which are 
not completely impoverished, but yet find it almost impossible to pass 
a bond issue and otherwise adequately fund their education programs. I 
strongly believe that there is a legitimate federal role in helping fix 
our Nation's crumbling schools, and we can do so without undermining 
local control of education.
  I applaud and support these efforts to invest a small portion of our 
Nation's wealth in improved educational opportunities and facilities 
for all--this investment now, will result in improved academic 
performance, better citizenship and a stronger economy for generations 
to come. I urge the Senate to pass Senator Harkin's amendment and 
invest in the health and well-being of our Nation's school children.


                           Amendment No. 477

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to state for the record that I 
will vote in opposition to the McCain position. I expect it will be an 
up-or-down vote. If not, I will vote to table. He is entitled to an up-
or-down vote. I want to explain my position.
  I indicated to colleagues that on this legislation I was going to 
resist nongermane amendments. I do not think the majority leader has 
the right to a pocket veto. Although it is a position which I strongly 
support, we have to be consistent if we are going to take the position 
that we are not going to support nongermane amendments. We cannot pick 
and choose with which ones we agree and differ.
  Even though I agree with this amendment, I indicated to colleagues 
that I would oppose nongermane amendments. Therefore, I feel compelled 
to oppose this amendment.
  Should there be an expression of overwhelming support for this, then, 
obviously, I will at that time interpret my vote perhaps in a different 
way. I have every intention now to vote in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I follow my good friend from 
Massachusetts in explaining that I, too, certainly agree with Senator 
McCain on the merits of his proposal and that we should send that very 
fine bill to the House, but I also made a commitment to oppose all 
nonrelevant amendments to the bill. Thus, I will vote against the 
McCain amendment, but I certainly support the advancement of campaign 
finance reform and was one of the principal sponsors and participants 
of that legislation of which I am very proud. I have made this 
commitment, and I will stick by it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. We are almost at the point of 
voting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  Under the previous order, the amendment under discussion is laid 
aside. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 477. 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 New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the 
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Allen 
     Baucus 
     Bayh 
     Biden 
     Bingaman 
     Boxer 
     Breaux 
     Byrd
     Cantwell 
     Carnahan 
     Carper 
     Chafee 
     Cleland 
     Clinton 
     Cochran
     Collins 
     Conrad 
     Corzine 
     Daschle 
     Dayton 
     DeWine 
     Dodd
     Dorgan 
     Durbin 
     Edwards 
     Feingold 
     Feinstein 
     Fitzgerald
     Graham 
     Harkin 
     Hollings 
     Hutchison 
     Inouye 
     Johnson 
     Kerry
     Kyl 
     Landrieu 
     Leahy 
     Levin 
     Lieberman 
     Lincoln 
     Lugar 
     McCain
     Mikulski 
     Miller 
     Murray 
     Nelson (FL) 
     Nelson (NE) 
     Reed 
     Reid
     Rockefeller 
     Sarbanes 
     Schumer 
     Snowe 
     Specter 
     Stabenow
     Thompson 
     Torricelli 
     Warner 
     Wellstone 
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Allard 
     Bennett 
     Bond 
     Brownback 
     Bunning 
     Burns 
     Campbell
     Craig 
     Crapo 
     Domenici 
     Ensign 
     Enzi 
     Frist 
     Gramm 
     Grassley
     Hagel 
     Hatch 
     Helms 

[[Page S4931]]


     Hutchinson 
     Inhofe 
     Jeffords 
     Kennedy
     Lott 
     McConnell 
     Murkowski 
     Nickles 
     Roberts 
     Santorum
     Sessions 
     Shelby 
     Smith (NH) 
     Smith (OR) 
     Stevens 
     Thomas
     Thurmond 
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka 
     Gregg 
     Kohl
  The amendment (No. 477) was agreed to.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, one reason I made campaign finance 
reform a centerpiece of my campaign and joined by colleagues Senators 
McCain and Feingold in working hard to pass campaign finance 
legislation, is because our current campaign finance system contributes 
to Americans' growing cynicism about government. And who can blame them 
for being cynical and believing that government really does not 
represent their interests, when procedural maneuvering causes a 
bipartisan bill passed by a wide majority to fail to be transmitted 
from the Senate to the House?
  The McCain-Feingold bill passed this body with 59 votes. Similar 
legislation has twice passed the House with 252 votes. The majority of 
both bodies clearly support campaign finance reform, and so do a 
majority of the American people. Yet leaders in both Houses are 
apparently determined to use every tool at their disposal to force this 
broadly supported bill into a divisive conference committee composed of 
the most vocal opponents of reform.
  The day we passed this bill in the Senate, I spoke on the floor about 
what an amazing feeling it was to have accomplished one of my primary 
legislative goals within 90 days of arriving in the Senate. While I 
never thought that day would be the end of the battle to pass this 
bill, I must admit that I certainly did not expect to be back on this 
floor because the bill, despite its comfortable margin of passage six 
weeks ago, continues to gather dust here in the Senate because the 
Republican leadership cannot reconcile itself to the most significant 
campaign finance reform in a quarter century. In an information age, we 
owe our citizens a government free of special interest influence. Not a 
system of expedient, special-interest based, decision making, and not a 
system that engages in byzantine maneuvering to delay and thwart the 
will of the majority.
  I hope that the leadership of both the House and the Senate will stop 
attempting to devise new ways to stonewall this bill and allow the 
Senate-passed version of this legislation to be debated and voted on in 
the House without further delay.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note that due to the 
need to fulfill a long-scheduled speaking engagement at a university 
made in the expectation there would not be votes, I unfortunately was 
not able to be here in the Senate last night to vote on two amendments 
to the education bill, S. 1. I would like to say for the record that I 
would have voted for both amendments and am pleased that they both 
passed with broad bipartisan approval.
  I support Senator Reid's amendment, #460 to expand the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers to include projects with emphasis on 
language and life skills programs for limited English proficient 
students. We know that assisting students to acquire English 
proficiency is becoming increasingly important as many of our 
communities are receiving immigrant children from many different 
countries. Limited English proficient students are at greatest risk for 
dropping out of school and are among some of our lowest performing 
subgroups of students. I have long been an advocate for investing 
increased Federal resources and greater attention on limited English 
proficient students. My own ESEA reauthorization bill, S. 303, calls 
for $1 billion in formula funds focused on increasing the English 
proficiency and raising the academic performance in all core subjects 
of our immigrant children. One of the primary risk factors for low 
academic performance and dropping out of school among immigrant 
students is their lack of English proficiency. Students that are 
proficient in English have a much greater chance to reach higher levels 
of academic achievement and fully participate in our society. The Reid 
amendment would help many immigrant children receive the extra help 
they need for English language acquisition through after-school 
programs. The Senate clearly recognized the value of this amendment by 
approving it 96 to 0.
  I also support Senator Cleland's amendment, #376 on school safety. It 
makes funds available to establish a center to offer emergency 
assistance to schools and local communities by providing information 
and best practices on how to respond to school safety crises, including 
counseling for victims, advice on how to enhance school safety and 
would operate a toll-free nationwide hotline for students to report 
criminal activity, threats of criminal activity and other high-risk 
behaviors. It also would provide grants to help communities develop 
community-wide safety programs involving students, parents, educators, 
and civic leaders. This amendment would further help to forge a crucial 
partnership between the Department of Education and the Attorney 
General so that these two departments may work together to ensure that 
our schools have the resources and tools they need to create safe 
learning environments for our nation's youth. In addition, the 
amendment would provide flexible funding, something that I have long 
fought for, to enable localities to design school safety programs that 
best meet their specific needs. For all of these reasons, I would have 
voted for the Cleland amendment and am pleased it passed by a strong 
vote of 74 to 23.
  (The original statement of Senator Feinstein which was delivered on 
Monday, May 14, but omitted is as follows:)


                           Amendment No. 443

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this 
amendment with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Cochran, Landrieu, Murray, 
and Corzine.
  Under current law, elementary and secondary teachers can receive up 
to $5,000 of their student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of 
teaching. Head Start teachers are not currently included in the federal 
loan forgiveness program. By offering Head Start teachers the same loan 
forgiveness benefit as that afforded to elementary and secondary school 
teachers, I believe, we will encourage more college graduates to enter 
the field.
  Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers 
to local school districts in part because the pay is better--
nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000 
compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher. 
Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary and secondary 
teachers are paid on average.
  Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real 
deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.
  Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher 
other than a child development associate (CDA) credential, requiring 24 
early child education credits and 16 general education credits. By 
2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at 
minimum an associate or 2-year degree.
  Under this amendment, a Head Start teacher who has completed at 
minimum a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 of their federal 
student loan forgiven provided they agree to teach for at least 5 years 
in a Head Start program.
  Clearly, we should recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field 
who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading, 
writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool 
curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Obtaining and 
maintaining teachers with such educational backgrounds will, I believe, 
improve the cognitive learning portion of the Head Start program so 
that our youngsters can start elementary school ready to learn.
  Several recent studies confirm the importance of investing in the 
education and training of those who work with preschoolers.
  The National Research Council has recommended that:

       . . . children in an early childhood education and care 
     program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's 
     degree with specialized education related to early childhood. 
     . . . Progress toward a high-quality teaching force will 
     require substantial public and private support and incentive 
     programs, including innovative education programs, 
     scholarship and loan programs, and compensation commensurate 
     with the expectations of college graduates.


[[Page S4932]]


  Last year, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel held fifteen 
national hearings and open forums. The panel found:

       . . . that despite increases resulting from Federal quality 
     set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non-
     existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain 
     qualified staff over the long term. . . . the quality of the 
     program is tied directly to the quality of the staff.

  Head Start is one of the most important federal programs because it 
has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when 
their cognitive skills are just developing. Many of our Nation's 
youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills 
necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers 
throughout their academic career.
  I believe we must continue to improve the cognitive learning aspects 
of the Head Start program so that children leave the program able to 
count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and to recite the 
alphabet. To ensure cognitive learning, we must continue to raise the 
standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar 
compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded 
to other teachers is one step to encouraging college graduates to 
become Head Start teachers.

                          ____________________