[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 80 (Monday, June 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6023-S6050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

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

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

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America.
       Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit 
     the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational 
     agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of 
     America in providing equal access to school premises or 
     facilities.
       Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing 
     the sense of the Senate that there should be established a 
     joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to 
     investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the 
     country and to determine what is causing the increases.
       Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Department of Education program to promote access of Armed 
     Forces recruiters to student directory information.
       Bond modified amendment No. 476 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     strengthen early childhood parent education programs.
       Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No. 
     358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
     subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.
       Reed amendment No. 431 (to amendment No. 358), to provide 
     for greater parental involvement.
       Dodd/Biden further modified amendment No. 459 (to amendment 
     No. 358), to provide for the comparability of educational 
     services available to elementary and secondary students 
     within States.
       Clinton modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health 
     and

[[Page S6024]]

     learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school 
     buildings on children and to establish the Healthy and High 
     Performance Schools Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Missouri is recognized to call up amendment No. 476 on which there will 
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, could I take 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I think most people understand generally 
what the plans are. It will be, as I understand, approximately 30 
minutes on the Bond amendment, after which we will be proceeding to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. This 
afternoon, sometime after 5 o'clock, we will proceed to vote, as I 
understand it, on the Landrieu amendment, followed by the Bond 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield time as necessary to the Senator 
from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Amendment No. 476

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the acting manager. I thank the 
Chair.
  I want to talk about an amendment that I introduced some time ago and 
which we will vote on later this afternoon. The amendment itself is not 
very difficult and not very complex. It doesn't have a major change. 
But it represents a watershed development in education. Parents for a 
long time have marveled at how fast their children learn when they are 
very young and how they pick up things--not just things off the floor 
but how they learn language and how they learn many other things.
  Research has verified what all of us have known instinctively for a 
long time--that the first years of life are absolutely crucial in the 
development of a child's intelligence, habits, and the entire approach 
to life. The early years have a significant bearing on development and 
especially on the learning of each child. Infant brain development 
occurs very rapidly. The sensations and experiences of this time go a 
very long way towards shaping the baby's mind in a way that has a long-
lasting impact on all aspects of the child's life.
  You can think, if you have been a parent, or if you are parents, 
about how fast they learn in the first 3 years. A baby learns to walk, 
to talk, and to interact with others.
  As a matter of fact, an astounding figure I heard was that half a 
child's mature intelligence is developed by 3 years of age. During 
those first 3 years that a child learns, it absorbs so much that it is 
half of what he or she is going to know for the rest of their life.
  The early months of growth, understanding, reasoning, and learning 
can never be brought back or redone again. Once they are gone, they are 
gone. The early years of a child's development are not just rehearsal. 
That is the whole show. That is the opening act. That sets the stage 
and the pace of their entire life's path.

  Parents and families are key to the early development of a child. 
Through the amendment that I offer today, we seek to focus on support 
of parents and family education for young children.
  This amendment provides a clarification to title VI, part A of the 
substitute. It simply states that early childhood and early childhood 
parent education are eligible for funding and that early childhood 
means zero, or birth, to 5 years of age. The amendment is no new money, 
and it doesn't authorize any new program.
  People think learning begins at kindergarten. By kindergarten 
children are halfway through their learning process in their entire 
life. Who best to teach that child in the first 3 formative years than 
the parents? We must focus on the early years of a child's life as well 
as on the years of formal schooling. We can emphasize and champion this 
early involvement.
  My amendment proposes to do just that by supporting successful early 
childhood programs and initiatives that are working at local and State 
levels throughout this country.
  We spend so much time talking about how to improve our public 
schools, which we must do, and this bill attempts to do that. We talk 
about improving school performance for students, reducing violence in 
schools, and all of that we must do. But I think we can reduce the 
amount of time we spend trying to fix, repair, and cure these problems 
if we get the job done right at the first stage.
  A key to this successful prevention is parental involvement at the 
time most essential in the child's development. The organization, which 
in my State of Missouri has been doing an outstanding job--and it is 
being done nationwide--is something called Parents as Teachers. I will 
refer to it as PAT.
  It is an early childhood education program and family support program 
designed to empower all parents, regardless of their income levels, to 
give their child the best possible start in life. PAT is now in all 50 
States and 6 foreign countries.
  My involvement with Parents as Teachers began in 1979. Then 
commissioner of elementary and secondary education, Arthur Mallory, who 
worked for me the previous term when I had been Governor, came to talk 
to me about a very interesting and challenging program they had begun 
based on the work of some of the researchers and scholars who had 
looked at the Head Start Program. He said they were finding out that 
what a parent does in those first 3 years was vitally important as they 
stimulate the child's learning intelligence. Curiosity is the basis of 
it. That was 1979.
  I started talking about that and ran a successful campaign for 
Governor in 1980. In 1981, our first son was born. You talk about an 
old dog trying to learn new tricks. I had just bought a new car, and 
they gave me a manual about that thick of what to do with the new car. 
We came home from the hospital with a new baby. They gave us a supply 
of diapers and told us to be sure to use a child's seat. I said that is 
a little bit mistaken as to the emphasis we ought to put on preparing 
children and making sure that parents are ready for the challenge of 
raising a child.

  We had, fortunately, access to many initiatives that had been 
developed in this program, The program was not statewide at the time. 
It was, in fact, in the initial stages. The scholars, including Dr. 
Burton White, had written several thoughtful books. We read those 
books. We learned from them what was supposed to be happening. The 
interesting thing was it made it a lot easier for us to work with our 
son to understand what he was doing.
  I recommended it to the Missouri General Assembly. They did not pass 
it in 1981. They didn't pass it in 1982. They did not pass it in 1983. 
But being stubborn, I came back in 1984, and we pointed out to them 
that this not only prepared the child for learning--my director of 
corrections came before the committee giving testimony on the bill and 
said this was the most important thing we could do for the long-term 
future of our State: reduce the population of our corrections system by 
getting parents involved and making sure that children were off to a 
good learning start; making sure that parents were responsible for 
their children.
  In 1982, I set up something called the Children's Trust Fund 
Commission to help reduce child abuse. We had 25 eminent children's 
leaders from the ministry, education, and health around the State who 
studied how to prevent child abuse. They came back in 1984 with the 
unanimous recommendation to adopt Parents as Teachers to help the 
families know how to deal with the challenges of raising a child.
  I have always had a theory that if you have a toddler in your house, 
at some point if that toddler doesn't drive you absolutely nuts, 
either, A, the toddler is not normal, or, B, you are not normal. 
Parents as Teachers can teach how you can constructively use that 
curiosity, that enthusiasm, and that burgeoning intelligence and shift 
it in the right direction.
  Fortunately, after a bit of cajoling, a little wheeling and dealing, 
and a few side deals that I will not mention here, the Missouri General 
Assembly adopted Parents as Teaches as the statewide program in 1984.
  It has gone statewide. Each year it is a voluntary participation 
program, available in all 500-plus school districts in Missouri. And 
150,000 families, with 200,000 children, participate in the program.

[[Page S6025]]

  Now the program is working throughout the country. The State of 
Tennessee has 20 program sites, Massachusetts has 7 program sites, 
Nevada has 13 program sites, Mississippi has 32 program sites, South 
Dakota has 20 Parents as Teachers Program sites; our neighbors in 
Kansas have 222 program sites; Illinois has 132 program sites.
  As I said, PAT is a voluntary participation program. It is tailored 
to empower parents to know how to deal constructively with their 
children. Sometimes it is included as part of Even Start, another title 
1 program. PAT and Head Start in Missouri have a great partnership to 
ensure that all children get off to a great start.
  Some said at the beginning, why, this is a good program for people on 
Medicaid or people on TANF, and other programs. And that is true. But 
it is a program that works for every family, the so-called 
``successful'' family, with two working parents--two professionals, 
working full time, who never have enough time for their families. But 
with this program they know how to use that time constructively.
  As a father, I never looked forward to playing the typical father 
role, which is where somebody says: If you don't behave, when your 
father gets home, you're really going to get it. I did not intend to be 
a father so I could be the one to bring out the hairbrush. There was a 
paddle when I got home. But Parents as Teachers taught me what I could 
do constructively to help my child be more curious and begin the 
learning process.
  Studies and reports have shown that PAT children at age 3 are 
significantly more advanced than the comparison children in language, 
problem solving, and social development. Often, through participation 
in PAT, learning problems or developmental delays or disabilities are 
identified and treated early.
  This is one of the great things. They have screening in the program, 
and they identify minor hearing defects which can, if not corrected, 
put a child behind as much as a year by the time that child reaches 
first grade.
  I had an eyesight problem when I was little. It wasn't identified 
until I was in the sixth grade. It was too late to help it then. Each 
year the program has been in effect, they have identified that eye 
problem; they have been able to correct it because they identified it 
before the child reached 2 years of age.
  Some people, when opposing Parents as Teachers, say it is subversive; 
that the Government is trying to come in and take over the children. 
The Government is not trying to come in and take over the children. But 
there is a subversive element that I have learned; that is, once you 
teach a parent how to do a better job with the child's learning 
intelligence, you get that parent hooked on the child's education. A 
parent goes in thinking: Gee, this will help me control my child. The 
parent comes out being involved, supporting and participating in the 
child's education. And most people will tell you that the most 
important thing a parent can do is to stay involved with the child's 
education.
  We all know we can have all the programs in the world and can provide 
all the funding possible, but one of the main ingredients on which we 
must focus to assure a child's success in school is parental 
involvement.

  Earlier this year I received a copy of a report from the Missouri 
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The report was 
entitled ``School Entry Assessment Project.'' Some of the findings 
really piqued my interest.
  The findings of the report are as follows:
  No. 1, when Parents as Teachers is combined with any other 
prekindergarten experience for high-poverty children, the children 
score above average on all scales when they enter kindergarten.
  No. 2, the highest performing children participate in PAT and 
preschool or center care. Among children who participate in PAT and 
attend preschool, both minority and nonminority children score above 
average. Children in both high-poverty and low-poverty schools who 
participate in PAT and attend preschool score above average when they 
enter kindergarten.
  No. 3, among children whose care and education are solely home-based, 
those whose families participate in PAT score significantly higher.
  No. 4, special needs children who participate in PAT and preschool, 
in addition to an early childhood special education program, are rated 
by teachers as being similar in preparation to the average child.
  Finally, Head Start children who also participate in PAT and other 
preschool activities score at average or above when they enter 
kindergarten.
  These findings sum it all up. PAT works. PAT works for children 
raised in households of all income levels. PAT works for children who 
are homeschooled, children who have special needs.
  My amendment, which I urge my colleagues to support, makes certain 
that priority is given to programs such as PAT and other early 
childhood and parent education programs.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen seconds.
  Mr. FRIST. Thirteen seconds. I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
speak in favor of the amendment for about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Tennessee withhold?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Tennessee needs part of our time, he is 
welcome to 8 minutes of it. Senator Kennedy has approved that.
  Mr. FRIST. That will be fine. I will proceed under the time from the 
other side of the aisle, and we will be able to stay on schedule, I 
think, for our next amendment that is coming up in about 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment put 
forward by the Senator from Missouri. I think it concentrates on two 
important areas, and both of them include involving parents in the 
education of their children.
  It really concentrates, at least to my mind, on two points. No. 1, 
nobody really cares more about a child than the parents of that child. 
When we talk about local control and big government, where decisions 
should be made, and educational choice, I think the people who care the 
most should be most involved in making the decisions and in 
participating in the child's education. That is what this amendment 
does. It shines that spotlight as local as you can go: on the child and 
parental involvement.

  No. 2, the amendment, again, shines an important spotlight on the 
science of education. Medical science in some ways reveals how people 
learn: how children learn, how adults learn. As the Senator from 
Missouri has outlined so well, the early development of the brain, as 
we have recently discovered, is an important factor in determining how 
we learn in grades 1-3, grades 3-8, and, in truth, how we learn the 
rest of our lives.
  So I think, very appropriately, the amendment points that spotlight 
on those two things: No. 1, parents care the most about their child and 
therefore should be involved, and, No. 2, it takes into account the 
fact that we know more about how people learn from a scientific 
physiologic anatomic standpoint than we did before.
  The amendment of the Senator from Missouri looks at an underlying 
part of the BEST bill, the bill that sits on each Member's desk. This 
bill already contains an important section on parental involvement. 
However, this amendment brings greater focus on parental involvement.
  There are basically two changes. First of all, it does not involve 
new money. It does not involve the authorization of a new program. It 
addresses title VI, part A, as the Senator said, for those people who 
would like to actually look at the underlying bill. It says, funds 
provided under this section can be used for early education and for 
encouraging greater parental involvement through the Parent's as 
Teachers Program or other early childhood parent education programs. 
The Senator from Missouri is the father of the Parent's as Teachers 
Program which has

[[Page S6026]]

been enacted in all 50 States; as he said, 20 such programs exist in 
Tennessee; it has a proven track record.
  A very important part of the amendment is the science of education. 
Though some regard this aspect as technical, I believe it is an 
important clarification. The language is changed so instead of simply 
stating that parents of preschool-aged children should be involved, the 
language is changed to include parents of children from birth through 
the age of 5.
  This is important because, when referring to preschool-aged children, 
most people and much of the literature which is written on this subject 
focus on children who are 3 to 5 years of age. The Bond amendment 
extends the definition of preschool-aged to the birth of the child.
  This is very important because we now know from recent scientific 
findings the importance of early brain development through educational 
experiences and involvement during the early years. I personally, as a 
physician and scientist, appreciate that.
  Further, the Bond amendment allows at least half of the funds 
provided for part A to be used for the Parents as Teachers or other 
early childhood parent education programs. The Parents as Teachers 
program is used in all 50 States and has a proven track record. Let's 
focus on that program and invest in that program, but also recognize 
that it alone isn't the answer. As we learn more, other programs will 
come along. This amendment allows up to 50 percent of the money to be 
used in those other programs as well.
  I applaud the Senator from Missouri for granting states flexibility 
in implementing these programs. We should not assume that we have all 
the answers in the programs we have supported. Let's give State and 
local schools the flexibility they need to meet their individual needs.
  To put it all in perspective, the Census Bureau in 1995 told us there 
were 14.4 million children under the age of 5 who were in some kind of 
child care arrangement program. Between 1991 and 1999, the percentage 
of 4-year-olds enrolled in some kind of pre-primary, either center-
based or kindergarten, education program increased from 60 percent up 
to 90 percent. For 3-year-olds, participation rates between 1991 and 
1999 were relatively unchanged. Clearly there is a lot of work to do.
  At the same time--again, the Senator from Missouri spelled this out 
for us--the data indicates that some children need more assistance to 
get ready to learn when they enter kindergarten than is presently being 
provided today.
  As we go forward and look at the whole education arena from the year 
2001 forward, we must be forward-thinking and focus on the problems of 
early childhood education and development.
  In closing, President Bush's Early Reading First Program, which 
intends to leave no child behind, focuses on this same concept. 
Children must be taught pre-reading skills and pre-math skills during 
the entire preschool period so they will be ready for reading and 
mathematics. Again, this is all centered on preparing people how to 
learn.
  The President's Early Reading First Program, now part of this bill, 
S. 1, permits States to receive funding to implement research-based 
reading programs in existing preschool programs and Head Start Programs 
that feed into participating elementary schools.
  I commend the Senator from Missouri for introducing this amendment. 
It expands and improves our underlying early education programs. It 
takes the initiative put forth on early learning by the President of 
the United States and improves it.
  The amendment itself is not a new program and will not require new 
funds. It clarifies that early childhood and early childhood parent 
education is important and needs to be emphasized even more in title 
VI, part A of this bill.
  I look forward to supporting the amendment which will be voted on 
later this afternoon, sometime after 5 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my two friends will remain on the floor 
for a unanimous consent request, I have checked with both managers of 
the bill, Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist. We would like to reverse 
the order of the votes this afternoon. The way the unanimous consent 
agreement is written, it provides for the Bond vote being second. We 
would like to have the Bond vote first and Senator Landrieu second.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would be honored.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, are we going to try to do the vote at 5:15? 
Are we going to stick with that?
  Mr. REID. Give or take a few minutes.
  Mr. President, I make that unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from New Mexico will yield 
for a unanimous consent request--not a unanimous consent--we just want 
to make sure that all the time on the Bond amendment has been yielded 
back. We had time remaining so it is now yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. We yield that back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back. The Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Reid are located in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 will in a moment have an opportunity 
to listen to the Senator from Louisiana on a very important amendment, 
but I want to add my voice of support for Senator Bond's amendment, the 
Parents as Teachers Program, to the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  One of the things we have tried to do in this legislation is 
encourage efforts that are taking place locally that have demonstrated 
success. Parents as Teachers has been an enormous success in my State 
of Massachusetts. I was not here when Senator Bond commented favorably 
about the programs in Massachusetts. I am grateful for his recognition 
of those programs. I underline to my colleagues how valuable and 
important these programs are and what a difference they make to so many 
children in this country.
  We have 20 programs in Massachusetts, as Senator Bond has mentioned, 
and they provide training and support to new mothers. We need to take 
advantage of the potential for learning during a child's early years, 
whether it is part of Head Start or a stand-alone program. This program 
gives families the support they need to help the children meet their 
true potential.
  As we have seen in the most recent studies by the Academy of Sciences 
this last year about a child's development in the very early years, 
this is a time of enormous potential, encouraging development of the 
brain and also character that will suit them in academic achievements.
  The Carnegie Commission studies in this area are enormously powerful 
and persuasive, the basis of some of the work that has been done to 
encourage Congress to support the early learning programs which were 
adopted last year. We have seen the results in support of the Head 
Start Program. It only spends a small fraction of its money on this 
kind of support, but there have been very important results.
  The Early Start Program, which is the first 3 years of Head Start, 
only has about 10 or 12 percent of the total Head

[[Page S6027]]

Start Program funding. Again, it is very limited. Nonetheless, the 
benefits that come from it are profound. This program is one I am 
hopeful can be replicated not only in my State but around the country 
because it has a very dramatic impact on the children and has a very 
positive impact on the parents as well. It well deserves our support 
and inclusion in the bill.
  As has been pointed out by my colleague and friend, Senator Frist, 
this is not a new program; it is one that has been out there working 
and has very broad support. We encourage it. We hope other communities 
will take advantage of it and that the children will be the 
beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                 Amendment No. 475 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment will be set aside. Under 
the previous order, the Senator from Louisiana is recognized to call up 
amendment No. 475 on which there shall be 2 hours of debate equally 
divided.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, is the amendment at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 475 to amendment No. 358.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 ensure adequate funding for targeted grants to local 
  educational agencies under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
                    Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of part A of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 120D. ADEQUACY OF FUNDING OF TARGETED GRANTS TO LOCAL 
                   EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES IN FISCAL YEARS AFTER 
                   FISCAL YEAR 2001.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The current Basic Grant Formula for the distribution of 
     funds under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.), often does 
     not provide funds for the economically disadvantaged students 
     for which such funds are targeted.
       (2) Any school district in which at least two percent of 
     the students live below the poverty level qualifies for 
     funding under the Basic Grant Formula. As a result, 9 out of 
     every 10 school districts in the country receive some form of 
     aid under the Formula.
       (3) Fifty-eight percent of all schools receive at least 
     some funding under title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, including many suburban schools with 
     predominantly well-off students.
       (4) One out of every 5 schools with concentrations of poor 
     students between 50 and 75 percent receive no funding at all 
     under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (5) In passing the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, 
     Congress declared that grants under title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 would more sharply target 
     high poverty schools by using the Targeted Grant Formula, but 
     annual appropriation Acts have prevented the use of that 
     Formula.
       (6) The advantage of the Targeted Grant Formula over other 
     funding formulas under title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 is that the Targeted Grant 
     Formula provides increased grants per poor child as the 
     percentage of economically disadvantaged children in a school 
     district increases.
       (7) Studies have found that the poverty of a child's family 
     is much more likely to be associated with educational 
     disadvantage if the family lives in an area with large 
     concentrations of poor families.
       (8) States with large populations of high poverty students 
     would receive significantly more funding if more funds under 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     were allocated through the Targeted Grant Formula.
       (9) Congress has an obligation to allocate funds under 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     so that such funds will positively affect the largest number 
     of economically disadvantaged students.
       (b) Limitation on Allocation of Title I Funds Contingent on 
     Adequate Funding of Targeted Grants.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the total amount allocated in any 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 2001 for programs and 
     activities under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) may 
     not exceed the amount allocated in fiscal year 2001 for such 
     programs and activities unless the amount available for 
     targeted grants to local educational agencies under section 
     1125 of that Act (20 U.S.C. 6335) in the applicable fiscal 
     year is sufficient to meet the purposes of grants under that 
     section.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge before I begin the 
fine work my colleague from Massachusetts has done on this bill and on 
education in general. His leadership in this area has been 
extraordinary and breathtaking in terms of the energy and enthusiasm he 
puts forward year after year on this issue.
  I join with him in thanking our colleague, Senator Bond, for offering 
his amendment that will help to provide some of the resources for early 
childhood education. I also join with Senator Kennedy in suggesting it 
would be a very wise expenditure of our dollars to move them at the 
very early end when children are so impressionable, young children, 
particularly between the ages of 0-3, helping them to come into this 
world healthy, helping their parents or their one parent to be as 
responsible, caring, loving, and nurturing as possible so that family 
unit gets off to a very good start.
  As a parent--and you know this as a parent, Mr. President--I believe 
all parents want to be good parents. I really believe that. I believe 
all of us have an innate sense of wanting to do the best for our 
children. But some adults who have not had a good example in their own 
parents or some adults who have suffered abuse and gross neglect 
themselves, some adults who have been oppressed and have very low self-
esteem have a very difficult time trying to be that responsible parent.
  With these early childhood initiatives so we can perhaps reach out 
through our elementary and secondary bill, as well as other efforts in 
this Congress, I believe we can identify some wonderful community-
based, statewide national organizations that are sprouting up 
everywhere recognizing this and for the Federal Government to be a real 
partner.
  In my State, we have created Steps to Success which is the first 
statewide effort but community based, community built but networked, 
working with hospitals and other agencies in the private sector in 
Louisiana and, as Senator Kennedy has mentioned, in 
Massachusetts. While this is not the topic of my short remarks on the 
floor today, I lend my support to this area of early childhood 
education and thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, for his 
remarks.

  I come to the floor today to offer an amendment related to title I, 
that has to do not with spending more money, necessarily, but spending 
the money we are already spending better--spending whatever new money 
we can negotiate in this new approach, this new accountability system, 
this new system of real consequences for students and their families, 
teachers, and the schools that fail to meet the new accountability 
standards for whatever that new money is, to target it so we hit our 
target, so we hit a bull's eye.
  We have been spending money for education at the Federal level for 
over 30 years. We have been spending, in some people's minds, a lot of 
money. We have been creating program after program after program for 35 
years. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many who offer this 
amendment today, including Senator Lieberman, Senator DeWine, Senator 
Bayh, Senator Carper, and many others, we have not targeted this money 
well enough to meet the challenges of yesterday, today, and most 
certainly not of tomorrow.
  What do I mean by that? It is as if we shot our quiver of arrows, we 
continue to shoot arrows, but we are not hitting the bull's eye; we are 
not hitting the target. That target, as far as the Federal Government 
is concerned, based on the initial concepts of Federal aid to 
education, is to use our resources--which represent only about 7 
percent of the total dollars spent for elementary and secondary 
education--to reach the students who need the most help. Who are those 
students? Those students are from poor areas or students in poverty 
themselves, students who find themselves in schools with high 
concentrations of poor students.
  This is where the Federal resources should be directed. I am sad to 
report to all of my colleagues, this is not where our resources are 
going. In fact, there was a startling and wonderfully written article 
called ``How the U.S. Tax Code Worsens the Education Gap.'' I ask 
unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S6028]]

                       [From the New York Times]

            How the U.S. Tax Code Worsens the Education Gap

                         (By Richard Rothstein)

       Congress will soon debate the government's biggest 
     education program, Title I, which has origins in President 
     Lyndon B. Johnson's war on poverty and sends nearly $9 
     billion a year to schools with low-income children.
       While some dismiss Title I as a failure, no one disputes 
     its intent to aid needy children. Yet few recognize that over 
     all, the federal government exacerbates inequality in 
     education, giving more money to districts with affluent 
     children than to those with poor ones.
       It does so with a tax system that subsidizes school 
     spending in home-owning communities, many of them upper 
     middle class or even wealthy. Homeowners who itemize 
     deductions reduce their federal income taxes by a portion of 
     their property tax payments. A family in the 28 percent 
     bracket that pays $1,000 in local property taxes for public 
     schools can deduct that payment on its income tax returns. Of 
     the $1,000 going to schools, the family pays only $720 out of 
     its earnings. The federal government contribute the $280 
     balance.
       Economists term these subsidies ``tax expenditures,'' 
     because they have the same effect as direct government 
     spending. Yet the federal education budget highlights only 
     direct outlays, perhaps because tax expenditures would be 
     politically indefensible if widely publicized.
       The property tax subsidy aids affluent families more than 
     lower-income ones. It helps only those who itemize 
     deductions, and itemizers have higher incomes on average than 
     taxpayers who take the standard deduction. Nearly all 
     families with annual incomes of $100,000 itemize, as against 
     fewer than a third of families with incomes of $35,000.
       And because the subsidy is tied to a family's tax bracket, 
     even among itemizers the subsidy grows as income rises. 
     Families in the 28 percent bracket get a $280 subsidy for 
     each $1,000 in property taxes, but those in the 15 percent 
     bracket get only $150.
       Dr. Susanna Loeb, a Stanford University economist, notes 
     that this system spurs school spending in wealthy 
     communities, both in total dollars and relative to spending 
     in less wealthy districts. When larger shares of property 
     taxes are under-written by the federal government, families 
     become more willing to raise levies for better schools. 
     Districts in wealthier communities can raise property taxes 
     more easily, knowing that Washington picks up more of the 
     tab.
       There are some offsetting factors. One is the alternative 
     minimum tax, paid by those who claim so many tax breaks that 
     they would otherwise pay little or nothing in income taxes; 
     this effectively reduces the property tax subsidy. On the 
     other hand, many other, less affluent taxpayers do not 
     itemize deductions at all, mostly out of ignorance. A 
     community's schools get no benefit if its residents are 
     lower-middle-income homeowners who take the standard 
     deduction instead of itemizing.
       Another countervailing factor is state income taxes, also 
     deductible on federal forms. If a state uses its income tax 
     revenue to equalize school spending, the federal system helps 
     it do so. But this effect is limited. A homogeneous 
     affluent community can more easily respond to federal tax 
     incentives by voting to increase its property levy than a 
     state as a whole can respond by increasing its income tax 
     rates.
       On balance, direct federal education outlays are mostly for 
     poor children, while indirect spending mostly benefits the 
     affluent. And federal tax expenditures for schools exceed 
     direct spending.
       Dr. Loeb has calculated federal per-student education 
     spending for 1989. (Calculations for recent years must await 
     data from the 2000 census.) She found that federally 
     stimulated inequality occurs both among and within states.
       In New Jersey, federal tax expenditures were $1,257 per 
     student, but direct spending was only $237. In Alabama, tax 
     expenditures were $165, while direct spending was $371.
       Among districts within states, the differences were just as 
     stark. Because tax expenditures are so high in wealthier 
     districts, Princeton, N.J., got $2,399 in total per-student 
     federal aid. But Camden, despite high Title I grants, got 
     only $1,140.
       Other tax expenditures increase inequality further. For 
     example, the mortgage interest deduction also subsidizes 
     homeowners' costs, lifting property values. This, in turn, 
     disproportionately adds to the income of wealthy school 
     districts, because tax rates are a percentage of assessments.
       Politically, it is hard to imagine that either Democrats or 
     Republicans will meddle with these upper-middle-class tax 
     benefits, or appropriate enough Title I aid to outweigh them. 
     But there is something perverse about both parties' 
     proclaiming that they wish to leave no child behind, when the 
     federal government plays so big a role in pushing affluent 
     children farther ahead.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. The author is supporting my point but with a different 
approach. He is saying not only, basically, are Senator Landrieu and 
others right to say that title I is underfunded--and I am 
paraphrasing--but we are also not giving as much direct aid to poor 
students as to more affluent students. To make the matter even worse, 
the Tax Code itself, which is indirect aid, helps to underwrite 
education in more affluent, middle-income districts throughout 
Louisiana, Texas, California, and throughout our Nation. The 
combination of not getting the title I money to the poorest districts, 
together with the Tax Code that subsidizes home ownership to a degree 
proportionately greater in more affluent neighborhoods, is a 
combination of giving Federal resources to middle-income, affluent 
students, which is fine, but we are not reaching the poor students, and 
we should reach them first. With what is left over, in addition, we can 
reach more middle-income and affluent students.
  I think the Federal Government should try to help all students. We 
want every school to be excellent. We want every child to have an 
opportunity to enjoy a technology lab, a science lab, a math lab. We 
want to be in partnership with the affluent districts, with middle-
income districts, but we must be in partnership with poor districts. 
They are short on partners. Those children are short in their future. 
Their dreams are cut short. We have to meet them more than halfway and 
then do our very best to be partners with our other districts. We can 
do that. We can adopt this amendment which will help target the funding 
to these poor students.
  Let me show ``A Tale of Two Schools.'' I will give some specific 
information for the Record. We picked a couple of States for this 
discussion. People might be interested to hear about Mississippi, or 
Pennsylvania, California as one of our largest States, and then, of 
course, Louisiana. I begin with Mississippi.
  Before I get into the specifics, 35 years ago, in 1965, President 
Johnson created title I for this express purpose. He said when he 
created this program: ``By helping some, we will increase the 
prosperity of all.'' President Johnson put forward that providing a 
quality education for every child, regardless of whether they were a 
child in poverty, a child in a difficult situation, was not only the 
right thing to do, not only the fair thing to do, but it was the smart 
thing to do for our Nation.
  If we are a nation blessed with natural resources, clearly the 
greatest resource is our own people. That is even more true today than 
it was in the agricultural age or the industrial age. Today, as we 
build a society based on intelligence and skill and comprehension, 
building those skills inside of each human and developing them is more 
important to help strengthen our economy. Any businessperson in this 
Nation--whether with the Chamber of Commerce or the Business Council, 
which have been supportive in many of these areas--will say that. 
President Johnson had this idea 35 years ago.
  He went on to say that ``in the future, as in the past, this 
investment will return its costs manyfold to our entire economy.'' He 
was right.
  What we have done from that initial ``birthing'' of this idea is we 
have allowed this child, this teenager of ours, ``title I,'' to go off 
in a different direction than we first intended. We need to pull this 
back and get back to its basics, as it was created 35 years ago. Let me 
explain why.
  Taking ``A Tale of Two Schools,'' in Mississippi, Taconi Elementary 
School in Ocean Springs, the poverty rate in Ocean Springs is 27 
percent. They are receiving $546 per title I child. However, across the 
State of Mississippi, in Jackson, there is a school, Brown Elementary, 
with a poverty rate of 99.5 percent for children. In this school, there 
are only a handful of households with parents working. These are 
parents who were working because we have welfare reform. People work at 
minimum wage jobs, but 100 percent of these children have households 
with a parent or parents bringing in less than $13,000 a year. Because 
we are not funding our targeted grantees, each child doesn't receive 
$546; they receive $268. The children who need the most help are 
getting less money in Jackson.
  The principal to whom we spoke yesterday, Hazel Shield, when we told 
her of this situation, said: That is ridiculous. We are talking about 
my kids who need the most attention.
  She says her top priority for the funds is reading and math supplies, 
but she said: We run out of paper, pencils, and their parents don't 
have them, crayons, just the basic tools.

[[Page S6029]]

  I suggest if we expect all our students at Brown Elementary School to 
master this new test that this underlying bill is requiring, to be able 
to compete in math and English and language, to be able to be computer 
literate, they are going to need more than crayons. They are going to 
need more than pieces of paper and pencils and crayons. Mr. President, 
$268 is not going to do it.
  Let's go to Pennsylvania. This is two schools in Pennsylvania. I know 
our Senators from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum and Mr. Specter, will be 
very familiar with these schools. No doubt both of those Senators who 
worked so hard in education have visited these or other schools similar 
to them. Rolling Hills Elementary only has 3 percent poverty. It is in 
Holland County. It is a very wealthy district. You can see, $2,361 is 
received for each child under the poverty level in Holland. But in 
Aliquippa Middle School in Aliquippa County, where the poverty rate is 
85 percent, these children who need the most help are only receiving 
from the Federal Government $878 per child.
  These children in Aliquippa need help; they need a partner; and the 
Federal Government must be their partner. They do not have a tax base 
as Holland does. They don't have Fortune 500 companies in Aliquippa, as 
perhaps Holland does, there or close by. If they do not have the 
Federal Government as their partner, they do not have a partner, and 
these children will fail, not because they are not talented, not 
because they are not smart, not because their parents don't love them, 
not because they do not try but because they simply do not have the 
resources to compete. It is a shame and we need to fix it.
  Let's now go to California, which is one of our largest States. I 
thought it would be interesting, since most everybody knows where 
Beverly Hills is, to show the Beverly Hills situation which, of course, 
includes Beverly Vista, a wonderful school where the poverty rate is 
only 10 percent. This is a fairly well off community. Many people have 
seen Beverly Hills on television or visited there. We send to each of 
these children in Beverly Hills $1,100.
  But on a little different side of Los Angeles, which is a big city, 
there is a little school called Sixth Avenue Elementary where the 
poverty rate is 100 percent. There is not one child in this school 
whose family earns a little more than $20,000--I am just assuming it is 
a little higher than it would be in Mississippi. But if anybody has 
tried to live in Los Angeles on $18,000 a year for a household income, 
that is very hard. It is hard to live on that anywhere but particularly 
in a big city. We help these children with $270. We help them but we do 
not help them enough.
  We spoke to the principal and a teacher there at Sixth Avenue 
Elementary. The principal says her greatest need is teacher 
development. At this school, Sixth Avenue Elementary, 66 percent of the 
staff is not certified. In our bill, if I am not mistaken, there is 
either an amendment on the bill or there is going to be an amendment 
adopted which is going to say schools with 50 percent of teachers who 
are not certified have 3 years to get them certified.
  At $270 a child, I, for the life of me, do not know, even with the 
greatest principal in the world and the most active parent association 
possible, how they, in Sixth Avenue Elementary, are going to reach that 
goal when we are only helping them at $270 per child.
  The average fourth grade student at Sixth Avenue Elementary is 
reading at the third or below third grade level, and the pupil-teacher 
ratio in fourth and fifth grades is 35 to 1.
  Let me repeat, the fourth and fifth grade students are now reading 
below the third grade level, and the pupil-teacher ratio is 35 to 1. We 
are contributing $270 per student to help them pass these new tests 
that they are now going to have to take every year, which I support--
new accountability standards which I have supported. The cosponsors of 
this amendment have been some of the strongest on the floor for 
accountability. But if we do not step up to the plate on this, if we do 
not target our resources, we are setting our children up for failure.
  As a mother of two children, I hate to see my own children fail. But 
I realize some failure is part of life and you cannot be successful 
without some failure. But my children wake up every day knowing they 
will succeed because I tell them so. I don't set them up for failure. I 
don't put them in places where they will be consistently failing. I 
give my children opportunities to succeed even in the small things 
because I want to build them into a sense of accomplishment, a sense of 
well-being, a sense that they can do it.
  What in heavens name are we doing if we set up our children in this 
Nation so they can fail and fail and fail and then say it is their 
fault. They are not living up to their responsibilities when we are not 
living up to our responsibilities--at $270.
  Two people who go out to eat in LA--I know because I have been 
there--at one restaurant one night could spend $270 on a meal. But that 
is all we do at Sixth Avenue Elementary in Los Angeles to help these 
children for a year of learning. It is, in my estimation, a crime and a 
travesty.
  Let me talk a minute about Louisiana. I see my colleague, Senator 
DeWine. I am going to try to wrap up in about 10 minutes because I know 
he is here to speak. But let me go through three examples at Capdau 
Middle School in New Orleans, right in my hometown. I want to show you 
some pictures. We did not go out of our way to find the worst pictures. 
They couldn't get much worse than this. But we thought this was an 
interesting picture because on the front--I don't know if the camera 
can pick it up--it says: ``You are about to enter a learning zone.''
  The artist had to airbrush off the graffiti that was here because it 
was not appropriate to show on the camera. So after we polish up this 
picture, it still doesn't look very good. This is the learning zone--a 
very attractive entrance, as you can see. I am being sarcastic here. It 
is not a very attractive entrance for children to walk into in the 
morning.
  If a child got thirsty somewhere out in the playground, I don't think 
they would be very interested in drinking the water that would come out 
of this faucet, if water could come out of it. We have seen many 
comparable slides on the need for school construction. It is not only 
spending more money but also managing our schools well so the 
maintenance keeps up. I venture to say you cannot just pour in money 
and solve these problems. It has to be a maintenance effort and good 
management of the schools.
  I want to show you what the school looks like so you can get the 
sense that this school has an 83-percent poverty rate. But the 
unbelievable thing I want to share with you is that this school in New 
Orleans doesn't get any title I money. At least the Sixth Avenue 
Elementary School in Los Angeles got $278. Why? Because we don't fund 
the targeted grants at all and never have. They are in the law but they 
are not funded.
  The amount of money in title I is not enough to reach all poor 
children. Even in New Orleans, the school with 83 percent of the 
children in poverty is not receiving one dollar of title I money. And 
the principal says they need basic supplies and textbooks. There is 
simply not enough to go around. Half the staff is not certified. This 
is one of the low-performing schools in our parish.
  We are in an accountability system right now. Louisiana has adopted 
one of the leading accountability systems in the Nation. Despite the 
fact these children have no water to drink on the playground, despite 
the fact they don't have enough textbooks, despite the fact they have 
to walk every day into this place that is called a learning zone--it 
surely doesn't look like one--these kids are doing better on their 
tests. Why? Because they want to succeed. Why? Because their parents 
want a better life for them. They are doing their best. They are not 
where they need to be. If I were in a school such as this, I might not 
be where I needed to be either. But we can do better.
  Let me show you Johnson Elementary School. Johnson Elementary School 
in Lake Charles was forced to cut its summer program to just 3 weeks. 
Three percent of the students are at the poverty rate. Last summer I 
think they were able to provide 6 weeks of summer school to the 
children who were behind so they could catch up and so they would have 
a safe place to play in those hot summer months.

[[Page S6030]]

  Lake Charles, unfortunately, with this hurricane, is having a lot of 
problems, as in southwest Louisiana. This school, in addition to these 
pressing and chronic problems, may be in a flood zone at this moment. 
There may not be any summer school, but if there is, they will just 
have enough money for 3 weeks.
  At Greenlawn Terrace Elementary in Jefferson Parish, there are 33 
students for each teacher in the fourth and fifth grades. The ratio is 
1 to 33. The principal says, obviously, these students need more 
individual attention. It is hard to teach a fourth grader and fifth 
grader. It is not the easiest grade to teach. The students are at a 
very interesting age, shall we say, at a time I think in their life 
where they need extra special attention. These are 10-, 11-, and 12-
year-olds at this particular age in the fourth and fifth grade. That 
school does not receive any title I.
  Finally, at Scotlandville Middle School in Baton Rouge, our capital 
city, 68 percent of eighth graders fail to pass the math portions of 
their statewide exams. People would say: Why? How could 68 percent of 
the students fail their exams? One of the reasons is the school has a 
math lab and it is fully equipped, but they don't have enough money to 
hire a teacher to teach the math class. They have the laboratory; they 
have the best software; they have the computers; but because they do 
not have the extra title I money, they do not have the instructor. So 
it sits empty, and 68 percent of eighth graders have failed their math 
portion.
  Let me share with you some successes. Despite the fact we have not 
targeted our money, despite the fact we have never allocated enough 
money, there are some successes with title I. That is the point of my 
message. This is an amendment with hope. This is a story that could 
have a happy ending. This is an exercise where if we did what we could 
we could most certainly hit that target. When we hit it, it would make 
a big difference for these children.

  In Baton Rouge, they were able to use the title I dollars they 
received last year to hire one additional teacher. They took their 
third grade class size down from a ratio of 32 to 1 to 21 to 1. Now you 
are talking; now kids are learning; now there is teaching going on, and 
students will be able to meet these high standards we have set for 
them.
  When a school that we contacted in Lake Charles used their title I 
funds, they extended their schoolday. They went to a year-round 
learning program. The students in that school, within just a short 
period of time--I think less than 1 year--showed clear and drastic 
improvement on their State tests.
  The great thing about funding title I is that it is in some way the 
perfect block grant. The locals have total flexibility as to how they 
would like to spend it. It is tied to student achievement. Senator 
Feinstein has an amendment on this subject to tie title I to student 
achievement so the locals can decide if they want to have afterschool 
care, learning, and extended days. How about Saturday school for some 
kids who would need the extra help? Alternative schools, extra reading, 
extra math, tutoring, computers, textbooks, software, special teachers, 
guidance counselors, and even nurses I think should be encouraged to be 
funded under title I, because students who are not healthy have a hard 
time learning.
  Students who have a learning disability are perhaps victims of child 
abuse at home. Perhaps they have been exposed to a tremendous amount of 
violence and they are just unable to learn. They are sad children. They 
are despondent. They don't see joy in their house. They see violence in 
their house. Guidance counselors cannot substitute for that, but they 
most certainly can help to get a child mentally to a place where they 
can learn. Yes, nurses and guidance counselors, there are successes. 
That is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in title I because we 
are not mandating to the local governments. We are giving them complete 
flexibility. They can use it to meet these new accountability 
standards. I most certainly know they would take full advantage of this 
in making improvements.
  Let me end with the example of the research that has been done. There 
is a study which talks about funding for poor students.
  When we have been able to fund and target our dollars, the scores of 
poor students in high concentrations of poverty increase. The research 
shows this. We don't have to be the least bit worried about this money 
being put to good use. As we march forward on our accountability 
standards and new tests --and there are real consequences for failure--
the local governments now have a tremendous incentive. If they didn't 
have it before, they now have a tremendous incentive to put their money 
to good use and to get their test scores up and to create the kind of 
atmosphere in their schools of which we would all be proud.
  The Prospects study was done on the performance of seventh graders in 
high and low poverty districts. This shows the discrepancy between the 
way students perform in schools that have low-poverty rates and the way 
students can't perform in schools that have high-poverty rates.
  Again, let me stress that children who are born into poverty have as 
much talent and as many God-given gifts as children who are not. God 
really is very fair in his allocation of gifts. He doesn't reserve them 
to one group. He generously bestows gifts on children from many 
different walks of life. It is not a talent deficit that exists here. 
It is not an ability deficit that exists here. It is a political will 
deficit that exists. We need to correct it with this and other similar 
amendments.
  These are math grades for the seventh grade. You can see the low-
poverty schools. These are more affluent schools and not very high-
poverty rates. These are A students--who are getting A's in their 
tests. The pass rate for their math tests was 87 percent. A students, 
with the same ability--they are straight A students--but they are 
students in high-poverty schools, their average pass rate was 36 
percent, a 50-percentage-point difference.

  For B students, it is the same: 56 percent pass, but in the poverty 
schools only 34 percent pass. For C students, 41 percent pass but in 
the poverty schools only half of that--22 percent--pass.
  Let's go to reading where it is even more dramatic. For A students in 
low-poverty schools, 81 percent of the students pass their reading 
proficiency test. But A students--bright students, good students--who 
are poor but are trying hard, they only pass at 36 percent based on 
this study.
  As you can see from the chart, for the B students, the ratio of low-
poverty students to high-poverty students who pass is 49 percent to 19 
percent; for C students, it is 23 percent to 13 percent; and for D 
students, it is 23 percent to 14 percent of the students. The pattern 
is set and the pattern is troublesome.
  The pattern shows that when students are in low-poverty schools, they 
tend to do better on their testing and excel at their studies. The 
studies show that even smart kids--good kids, kids who are trying hard, 
who are getting good grades--when they find themselves in high 
concentrations of poverty, which, unfortunately, exists in our country 
because of prejudice, because of unequal opportunity, because of past 
discriminations, even though they are trying, continue to fall short of 
the mark.
  In closing, let me just say one thing about reading. If we in this 
country do not help every child read--I know we cannot do everything; I 
know money does not grow on trees; I know taxpayers work hard for it; I 
know people do not like to pay a lot of taxes to any government--local, 
State or Federal, but paying taxes is an important thing to do when it 
comes to education.
  Supporting the education of our children is so crucial. It is 
important for every businessperson. It is important for everybody 
building a future in our Nation. It is important to our country. If we 
could just do one thing, it would be to get children reading well at 
that magic age of 8 or 9 because when a child masters that skill, a 
child begins to think positive about themselves. Even if their parents 
are not literate, even if their parents are having difficulty, that 
child can then take the role of educating the whole family. That child 
will think well of himself or herself and then can master math and 
science and social studies.
  When we have large numbers of children concentrated in high-poverty 
schools, and when we have our money

[[Page S6031]]

so dispersed throughout the country, we are missing the target. And 
that target is poor children who need to learn to read early so that 
they can succeed in their studies and be part of their community and 
part of our Nation.
  Under this amendment, the funding would hold every school district 
harmless so no school district would lose money. But all the new money 
that was added, whether it was for Ohio or for Louisiana, would go to 
helping children who need the most help.
  Let's hit the bull's-eye. Let's be that partner that these children 
so desperately need. And I can promise you, they will do more than 
their share. I know the children. I know their energy. We have all seen 
them: our own and our neighbors' and our friends'. If we just help 
them, they will meet us more than halfway and succeed, not fail. They 
will be proud; their parents will be proud of them; their communities 
will be proud of them, and the Nation will prosper from their education 
and their efforts.

  I ask the Senator from Ohio, how many minutes would the Senator like?
  Mr. DeWINE. I think my colleague from Tennessee will proceed for a 
couple minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time, but I think we 
have 2 hours reserved for this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. I think we will be talking for another hour and 15 
minutes. We can take the time for the Senator from Ohio off our time. 
We will be going back and forth.
  Mr. President, I very briefly want to say that much of the debate 
over the last several weeks has been on how we can best improve the 
system, modernize the system, reform the system, and consolidate, 
streamline local control, and have more accountability. That is one 
element.
  The other element that we keep referring to is the whole element of 
money, of how many Federal dollars should be injected.
  This particular amendment really asks a much different question than 
those two. Basically it says, given the dollars that are out there--
whatever they might be--how can we best invest those and reform the 
system to accomplish what we all want to do. And that is to leave no 
child behind.
  I say that only because so many of the amendments have to do with new 
dollars or new programs. This really puts that aside and says, given 
whatever dollars we are going to allocate, how can we best invest those 
specifically as they apply to title I or low-income students?
  I believe the principle in this amendment is that the money we, as a 
Congress, intend to invest in title I, or intend to invest in low-
income students, needs to get there--or needs to get close--and that in 
spite of good intentions since the 1995 reform--and going back to 
1965--the money has not arrived.
  Again, it is not new money. It is not a new program. It is really 
dealing with a more prudent use of it to make sure that, once 
implementation takes place, those dollars go to the low-income 
students, which is where the money was intended by the will of Congress 
to go.

  I congratulate my colleague from Louisiana, and also her cosponsor, 
the Senator from Ohio, in bringing forward the underlying principle in 
the amendment itself.
  I yield time, as necessary, to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Tennessee 
for his very excellent comments. I also thank my colleague from 
Louisiana for her great leadership in this area. It has been a pleasure 
to work with her on this amendment, as it is a pleasure to work with 
her on so many other issues relating to our children. She is a real 
champion for our Nation's children. And I think this amendment is a 
good reflection of that compassion and how much she cares about our 
children.
  This amendment is aimed specifically at helping children in those 
districts most in need of Federal assistance. Our amendment would 
simply ensure that any increases in title I funding above fiscal year 
2001 levels would be directed to grants for school districts with the 
highest concentrations of poverty. In other words, our amendment 
directs the limited and finite Federal education resources to the 
schools where they can do the most good, to the schools that are in 
most need, the kids who are in most need.
  A little history: Title I dates back to 1965 when the Congress and 
President Johnson created this act. The Federal Government, through 
title I, stepped in and created a program in an effort to help address 
the needs of children in low-income areas, where the districts simply 
could not meet the basic needs of the children. That was the rationale 
for title I.
  Understandably, over the course of the last 3\1/2\ decades, the 
Federal role in education has broadened. Often that broadening role of 
the Federal Government in those programs has been driven more by 
politics than by the needs of low-income students. So in an attempt to 
get back to the original intent of title I, the original Federal 
mission in education--to direct dollars to those districts and those 
kids most in need--the 1994 reauthorization legislation created a 
separate title I grant program. This new program that was created 7 
years ago was supposed to address the unique needs and challenges of 
students in communities with extremely high concentrations of 
impoverished children. That is what we intended to do and said we were 
doing 7 years ago.
  However, though authorized in 1994, to this day not a single Federal 
dollar has been appropriated to fund this grant program. This simply 
must change. As a result of this failure to appropriate any money, 
thousands of children in the very highest poverty communities are not 
getting the attention they deserve from this Government. The money that 
was supposed to reach the most impoverished districts is simply not 
getting there.

  Actually funding these grants is a necessary part of any plan to help 
improve our Nation's neediest schools. While our amendment is very 
simple, I believe it will have a big impact. Quite frankly, it is an 
amendment whose time has come. Once and for all, it is time to get 
serious about the children in those districts most in need. It is time 
to stop paying lipservice to these kids and to focus some money on 
them.
  We have an obligation in this Congress and in this country to ensure 
that every single child in America receives a good, solid, quality 
education. Ultimately, a quality education for a child today is the key 
to that child's quality of life in the future; tragically, though, not 
all children are getting the quality education they deserve.
  Our society today is divided, divided along economic and educational 
lines. This division is nothing new. Scholars and sociologists have 
been warning us for years that this was where our Nation was heading, 
particularly if we did not properly educate our children. 
Unfortunately, we did not heed the warnings. As a result, our Nation 
today is a Nation split into two Americas--one where children get 
educated and one where they do not. The gap in educational knowledge 
and economic standing is entrenching thousands upon thousands upon 
thousands of children into an underclass, a permanent underclass, and 
into futures filled with poverty and little hope, little opportunity, 
and little room for advancement.
  That is exactly what is happening in my home State of Ohio. 
Tragically, that is what is happening all across our great country. 
Ohio is generally a microcosm of the rest of our country. When we look 
at this growing gap, the development of the two Americas, what we see 
in Ohio is also what we see in our Nation. There now exist two Ohios; 
there now exist two Americas.
  In Ohio, growing income and educational disparities are creating our 
very own permanent underclass. Most of Ohio is doing very well 
economically and doing well from an education point of view. The 
children in most of Ohio are doing very well and have a great future. 
However, when we look across our entire State, we see two areas where 
that is not the case, areas where our children are not being educated 
as well as we would like. One place is in rural Appalachia, the 20 to 
25 counties that comprise our Appalachian counties. The other area is 
in our core cities, our inner cities. It is in these areas where

[[Page S6032]]

we as a State--and also as a country--face our greatest challenges.
  This is a problem that is not unique to Ohio. Rather, it is a huge 
societal problem which is pushing society further and further apart to 
create the two Americas of which I spoke.
  Tragically, it is the children who are suffering the most. According 
to the National Center for Children in Poverty, between 1979 and 1998 
the national child poverty rate increased by 15 percent, rising from 3 
million children in poverty to over 13 million, or 19 percent. In Ohio, 
during that same period, the rate increased by over 50 percent. We in 
Ohio went from over 164,000 children in poverty to over a half a 
million today, or 18 percent.
  These children are at risk, every single one of them. The structural 
conditions of poverty make it very difficult for these children to 
succeed in life and move up and out of their impoverished 
circumstances. The fact is that with poverty often come drugs, crime, 
broken homes, unemployment, violence, and lower educational levels. In 
fact, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 
1999 young adults living in families with incomes in the lowest 20 
percent of all family incomes were five times as likely to drop out of 
high school as their peers from families in the top 20 percent of the 
income distribution--five times more likely to drop out.

  Moreover, most of the research concerning high school dropouts 
generally concludes that socioeconomic status is the most important 
single factor in student dropout rates. Just look at the class of 2000 
graduation rates for cities in Ohio, for those school districts.
  In Akron, 72 percent of the city's high school students graduated 
that year. That is actually a high rate for an urban area. In Toledo, 
only 67 percent graduated. In Columbus, it was only 62 percent. And in 
Youngstown, it was 59 percent. Dayton, OH, graduated that year 57 
percent of its students; Canton, 53 percent; Cincinnati, only 51 
percent. In Cleveland, OH, in the year 2000, only 34 percent of the 
students who started high school actually finished. That is right, 34 
percent. Two-thirds of those kids did not graduate.
  It is not surprising that 32 percent of Cleveland City schoolteachers 
have fewer than 5 years' experience, giving the district one of the 
largest percentages of inexperienced teachers in the State.
  Those figures in Cleveland are not unusual. You will find such 
statistics in major cities across our country. The simple fact is that 
the more experienced teachers with better training, more practice, are 
being lured away from our city schools to the suburbs by more money 
and, many times, simply better working conditions.
  Before anyone becomes too complacent or thinks maybe they don't have 
this problem in their State, let me remind my colleagues in the Senate 
that what is happening in Cleveland and other Ohio cities is not 
unusual, nor is it only happening in our State. What is happening in 
Ohio is typical of many urban areas.
  My guess is that if we look at the other major cities in this 
country, we will find similar disturbing statistics, similar rates of 
poverty, and similar rates of high school dropout. I believe the best 
way we can get to these children before we lose them is through a 
quality education.
  Horace Mann, former president of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, 
OH, the community where my wife Fran and I grew up, and who is known as 
the father of public education, once said the following:

       Education, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the 
     great equalizer, the great equalizer of the conditions of 
     man--the balance-wheel of the social machinery.

  This is exactly what education can and should do. It should provide 
all children, regardless of their economic circumstances or family 
backgrounds, with the tools they need to make it as adults in our 
society, with the tools necessary to rise above individual situations 
of poverty and instability, individual situations of hopelessness and 
despair.
  As my colleagues in the Senate know, today's educational system is 
not always meeting this goal. Don't get me wrong. I am not blaming the 
schools, and I am not blaming the teachers for all of society's and 
education's ills. Rather, I am suggesting that we, as a society, are 
failing to use the awesome power and potential of our schools to the 
maximum extent to help give these poor children the future they deserve 
and the future they need.
  No matter where a child lives, whether in Portsmouth, OH, or New York 
City, every one of the 1.8 million children in the Ohio public school 
system and every one of nearly 47 million children in public schools 
nationwide deserve the opportunity to learn and to become educated.
  Let's face it: Our schools have our children in their care 7, 8 hours 
a day, 5 days a week. That is not a lot of time, but it is time our 
schools and our country simply cannot afford to waste.
  I am reminded of a line from a 1970s song that said: ``Your dreams 
were your ticket out.''
  For all too many children--children living in poverty--dreams alone 
are not enough. For those children, a dream and a solid education is 
their ticket out.
  This is not a new concept. Historically, our schools have been the 
best opportunity for children to move out, to move up, to advance, to 
change their lives. Education has built our Nation. We are truly a 
nation of immigrants who, because of public schools, because of 
education, escape ignorance, illiteracy, and lives of poverty. A strong 
education tradition in this country kept entire generations from being 
marginalized and left behind. For them, education was their ticket out 
of despair and toward opportunity.
  For the children in this country today who are growing up under very 
difficult circumstances, education should be their ticket out as well. 
I believe that we in this body and in this Federal Government, in 
deciding how to spend the finite money we are going to put into 
education, have an obligation to target those children who are most in 
need, to target those children for whom an education will make the most 
difference. That is what the amendment that has been offered by my 
colleague, Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, Senator Lieberman, myself, and 
others, will do.
  When education is not working to give our kids the tools they need to 
move ahead in life, those children suffer. We can't always fix broken 
homes; we can't always fix every societal problem; but we can use the 
finite Federal dollars that we have and that we are going to spend on 
education to at least help close the education gap in America. That is 
exactly what this amendment will attempt to do. It targets money to 
those kids who are most in need.
  Let me conclude my remarks by referencing an editorial that ran in 
the Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 28 of this year. The editorial 
talked about the importance of restoring the original mission of the 
title I program. The editorial said the following:

       The most important and valuable suggestion [in education 
     reform] regards the targeting of Federal dollars to poor 
     students. Over the years, the program designed to meet this 
     need, title I, has become so diluted that more than 90 
     percent of all districts now receive support from it. It 
     would be far more effective if Federal officials insisted 
     that title I money go to students who truly need it.

  That is exactly what this amendment does. It directs our limited 
Federal resources to the children most in need. It seeks to close the 
educational gap in our Nation and, in the process, help narrow the 
economic gap. This amendment will use education dollars and will use 
education to equalize the environment for our children. That is the 
right thing for us to do.
  Ultimately, the Federal role in education accounts for only about 8 
percent of the money that a typical school district gets. And even 
though the bill before us will significantly increase the Federal 
dollars that are going into education, we know it is still going to be 
a very small percentage of the money a typical school district gets. 
Knowing that, doesn't it make sense to prioritize some of this 
additional money--all the additional money, actually--that we are going 
to put into title I, to our children most at risk and most in need?
  I believe we must be prudent and wise in allocating those limited 
Federal resources. That means we should direct those dollars, first and 
foremost, to America's neediest school districts, to its neediest 
children. It makes sense to do that. It is the right thing to do.

  Mr. President, I see several colleagues on the floor. I want to, 
again,

[[Page S6033]]

compliment my colleague from Louisiana for this very strong and 
powerful amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 15 minutes.


Amendments Nos. 469 As Modified, 519, 634 As Modified, 635 As Modified, 
           and 440 As Modified, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, we are in a position to 
clear amendments by consent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that it 
be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, that any 
modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed 
to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 469 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To provide for local family information centers, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 773, strike lines 20 through 24, and insert the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 6106A. LOCAL FAMILY INFORMATION CENTERS.

       ``(a) Centers Authorized.--The Secretary shall award grants 
     to, and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, 
     local nonprofit parent organizations to enable the 
     organizations to support local family information centers 
     that help ensure that parents of students in schools assisted 
     under this part have the training, information, and support 
     the parents need to enable the parents to participate 
     effectively in their children's early childhood education, in 
     their children's elementary and secondary education and in 
     helping their children to meet challenging State standards.
       ``(b) Definition of Local Nonprofit Parent Organization.--
     In this section, the term `local nonprofit parent 
     organization' means a private nonprofit organization (other 
     than an institution of higher education) that--
       ``(1) has a demonstrated record of working with low-income 
     individuals and parents;
       ``(2)(A) has a board of directors the majority of whom are 
     parents of students in schools that are assisted under this 
     part and located in the geographic area to be served by the 
     center; or
       ``(B) has a special governing committee to direct and 
     implement the center, a majority of the members of whom are 
     parents of students in schools assisted under this part; and
       ``(3) is located in a community with schools that receive 
     funds under this part, and is accessible to the families of 
     students in those schools.

     ``SEC. 6107. PARENTAL ASSISTANCE AND LOCAL FAMILY INFORMATION 
                   CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose of carrying out this 
     part, there are authorized to be appropriated $80,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(b) Reservation.--Of the amount appropriated under 
     subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall reserve $50,000,000 to carry out 
     this part, other than section 6106A; and
       ``(2) in the case of any amounts appropriated in excess of 
     $50,000,000 for such fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     allocate an amount equal to--
       ``(A) 50 percent of such excess to carry out section 6106A; 
     and
       ``(B) 50 percent of such excess to carry out Parent 
     Information and Resource Centers under this part.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 519

  (Purpose: To authorize the School Security Technology and Resource 
Center and to authorize grants for local school security programs, and 
                          for other purposes)

       On page 577, line 2, strike the double quote and period.
       On page 577, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 4304. SCHOOL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE CENTER

       ``(a) Center.--The Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Education, and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
     agreement for the establishment at the Sandia National 
     Laboratories, in partnership with the National Law 
     Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center--Southeast and 
     the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas, of a center to be known as the `School Security 
     Technology and Resource Center'.
       ``(b) Administration.--The center established under 
     subsection (a) shall be administered by the Attorney General.
       ``(c) Functions.--The center established under subsection 
     (a) shall be a resource to local educational agencies for 
     school security assessments, security technology development, 
     evaluation and implementation, and technical assistance 
     relating to improving school security. The center will also 
     conduct and publish school violence research, coalesce data 
     from victim communities, and monitor and report on schools 
     that implement school security strategies.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $2,750,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be for Sandia National Laboratories in each 
     fiscal year, $2,000,000 shall be for the National Center for 
     Rural Law Enforcement in each fiscal year, and $750,000 shall 
     be for the National Law Enforcement and Corrections 
     Technology Center Southeast in each fiscal year.

     ``SEC. 4305. LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Grants authorized.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants on a 
     competitive basis to local educational agencies to enable the 
     agencies to acquire security technology for, or carry out 
     activities related to improving security at, the middle and 
     secondary schools served by the agencies, including obtaining 
     school security assessments, and technical assistance, for 
     the development of a comprehensive school security plan from 
     the School Security Technology and Resource Center.
       ``(2) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require, including 
     information relating to the security needs of the agency.
       ``(3) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to local educational agencies 
     that demonstrate the highest security needs, as reported by 
     the agency in the application submitted under paragraph (2).
       ``(b) Applicability.--the provisions of this part (other 
     than this section) shall not apply to this section.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--there is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

     ``SEC. 4306. SAFE AND SECURE SCHOOL ADVISORY REPORT.

       ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Education and the Secretary of Energy, or their designees, 
     shall--
       ``(1) develop a proposal to further improve school 
     security; and
       ``(2) submit that proposal to Congress.''
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 634 as modified

       On p. 881, line 22, strike ``and'', and on page 881, insert 
     the following new subsections after line 25:
       ``(J) remedial and enrichment programs to assist Alaska 
     Native students in succeeding in standardized tests;
       ``(K) education and training of Alaska Native Students 
     enrolled in a degree program that will lead to certification 
     as teachers;
       ``(L) parenting education for parents and caregivers of 
     Alaska Native children to improve parenting skills (including 
     skills relating to discipline and cognitive development), 
     including parenting education provided through in-home 
     visitation of new mothers;
       ``(M) cultural education programs operated by the Alaska 
     Native Heritage Center and designed to share the Alaska 
     Native culture with schoolchildren;
       ``(N) a cultural exchange program operated by the Alaska 
     Humanities Forum and designed to share Alaska Native culture 
     with urban students in a rural setting, which shall be known 
     as the Rose Culture Exchange Program;
       ``(O) activities carried through Even Start programs 
     carried out under part B of title I and Head Start programs 
     carried out under the Head Start Act, including the training 
     of teachers for programs described in this subparagraph;
       ``(P) other early learning and preschool programs;
       ``(Q) dropout prevention programs such as Partners for 
     Success; and
       ``(R) Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement program.''
       On page 882, strike lines 16 through 19 and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section the 
     same amount as the authorization provided for activities 
     under the Native Hawaiian Education Act in section 7205 of 
     this Act for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(d) Availability of Funds.--Of the funds appropriated and 
     made available under this section for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make available not less than $1,000,000 to 
     support activities described in subsection (a)(2)(L) not less 
     than $1,000,000 to support activities described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(M), not less than $1,000,000 to support activities 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(N); not less than $2,000,000 
     to support activities described in subsection (a)(2)(Q); and 
     not less than $2,000,000 to support activities described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(R).''
       On page 884, after line 7, insert the following new part:
       ``PART D--Educational, Cultural, Apprenticeship and 
     Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and 
     Their Historical Whaling and Trading Partners in 
     Massachusetts.

     ``SEC. 7401.--SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Alaska Native and Native 
     Hawaiian Education Through Cultural and Historical 
     Organizations Act'.

[[Page S6034]]

     ``SEC. 7402.--FINDINGS.

       ``Congress finds the following;
       ``(a) Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians have been linked 
     for over 200 years to the coastal towns of Salem, MA and New 
     Bedford, MA through the China Trade from Salem and whaling 
     voyages from New Bedford;
       ``(b) Nineteenth century trading ships sailed from Salem 
     around Cape Horn up the Northwest coast of the United States 
     to Alaska, where they traded with Alaska Native people for 
     furs, and then went on to Hawaii to trade for sandalwood with 
     Native Hawaiians before going on to China;
       ``(c) During the nineteenth century, over two thousand 
     whaling voyages sailed out of New Bedford to the Arctic 
     region of Alaska, and joined Alaska natives from Barrow, 
     Alaska and other areas in the Arctic region in subsistence 
     whaling activities;
       ``(d) Many New Bedford whaling voyages continued on to 
     Hawaii, where they joined Native Hawaiians from the 
     Neighboring Islands;
       ``(e) From these commercial and whaling voyages, a rich 
     cultural exchange and strong trading relationships developed 
     among the three peoples;
       ``(f) In the past decades, awareness of these historical 
     trading, cultural and whaling links has faded among Alaska 
     Natives, Native Hawaiians and the people of the continental 
     United States;
       ``(g) In 2000, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Alaska, 
     the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and the Peabody-Essex Museum in 
     Massachusetts initiated the New Trade Winds project to use 
     twenty-first century technology, including the Internet, to 
     educate schoolchildren and their parents about historic and 
     contemporary cultural and trading ties which continue to link 
     these diverse cultures;
       ``Congress finds the following;
       ``(a) Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians have been linked 
     for over 200 years to the coastal towns of Salem, MA and New 
     Bedford, MA through the China Trade from Salem and whaling 
     voyages from New Bedford;
       ``(b) Nineteenth century trading ships sailed from Salem 
     around Cape Horn up the Northwest coast of the United States 
     to Alaska, where they traded with Alaska Native people for 
     furs, and then went on to Hawaii to trade for sandalwood with 
     Native Hawaiians before going on to China;
       ``(c) During the nineteenth century, over two thousand 
     whaling voyages sailed out of New Bedford to the Arctic 
     region of Alaska, and joined Alaska natives from Barrow, 
     Alaska and other areas in the Arctic region in subsistence 
     whaling activities;
       ``(d) Many New Bedford whaling voyages continued on to 
     Hawaii, where they joined Native Hawaiians from the 
     Neighboring Islands;
       ``(e) From these commercial and whaling voyages, a rich 
     cultural exchange and strong trading relationships developed 
     among the three peoples;
       ``(f) In the past decades, awareness of these historical 
     trading, cultural and whaling links has faded among Alaska 
     Natives, Native Hawaiians and the people of the continental 
     United States;
       ``(g) In 2000, the Alaska Native Heritage Center in Alaska, 
     the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and the Peabody-Essex Museum in 
     Massachusetts initiated the New Trade Winds project to use 
     twenty-first century technology, including the Internet, to 
     educate schoolchildren and their parents about historic and 
     contemporary cultural and trading ties which continue to link 
     these diverse cultures;
       ``(h) The New Bedford Whaling Museum, in partnership with 
     the New Bedford National Historical Park, has developed a 
     cultural exchange and educational program with the Inupiat 
     Heritage Center in Barrow, Alaska to bring together the 
     children, elders and parents from the Arctic region of Alaska 
     with children and families of Massachusetts to learn about 
     their historical ties and about each other's contemporary 
     cultures;
       ``(i) Meaningful educational and career opportunities based 
     on traditional relationships exist for Alaska Natives, Native 
     Hawaiians, and for low income youth in Massachusetts, within 
     the fast-growing cultural sector;
       ``(j) Cultural institutions can provide practical, 
     culturally relevant, education-related intern and apprentice 
     programs, such as the Museum Action Corps at the Peabody-
     Essex Museum and similar programs at other institutions, to 
     prepare youths and their families for careers in the cultural 
     sector; and
       ``(k) The resources of these five institutions provide 
     unique opportunities for illustrating and interpreting the 
     contributions of Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, the 
     whaling industry and the China Trade to the economic, social, 
     and environmental history of the United States, for educating 
     schoolchildren and their parents, and for providing 
     opportunities for internships leading to careers in cultural 
     institutions.

     ``SEC.7403.--PURPOSE.

       ``The purposes of this part are to--
       ``(l) authorize and develop innovative culturally-based 
     educational programs and cultural exchanges to assist Alaska 
     Natives, Native Hawaiians and children and families of 
     Massachusetts linked by history and tradition to Alaska and 
     Hawaii to learn about shared culture and traditions;
       ``(2) authorize and develop internship and apprentice 
     programs to assist Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and 
     children and families of Massachusetts linked by history and 
     tradition with Alaska and Hawaii, prepare for careers in 
     cultural institutions; and
       ``(3) supplement programs and authorities in the area of 
     education to further the objectives of this part.

     ``SEC. 7404.--PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) General Authority.--
       ``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants to, or enter into contracts with, the Alaska 
     Native Heritage Center in Anchorage, AK, the Inupiat Heritage 
     Center in Barrow, AK, the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, the 
     Peabody-Essex Museum in Salem, MA, the New Bedford Whaling 
     Museum and the New Bedford Historical Site in New Bedford, 
     MA, other Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian cultural and 
     educational organizations, cultural and educational 
     organizations with experience in developing or operating 
     programs which illustrate and interpret the contributions of 
     Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, the whaling industry and 
     the China Trade to the economic, social, and environmental 
     history of the United States, and consortia of such 
     organizations and entities to carry out programs that meet 
     the purposes of this part.
       ``(2) Permissible activities.--Activities provided through 
     programs carried out under this part may include--
       ``(A) the development and implementation of educational 
     programs to increase understanding of cultural diversity and 
     multicultural communication among Alaska Natives, Native 
     Hawaiians and the people of the continental United States, 
     based on historic patterns of trading and commerce;
       ``(B) the development and implementation of programs using 
     modern technology, including the internet, to educate 
     schoolchildren, their parents, and teachers about historic 
     and contemporary cultural and trading ties which continue to 
     link the diverse cultures of Alaska Natives, Native 
     Hawaiians, and the people of Massachusetts;
       ``(C) cultural exchanges of elders, students, parents and 
     teachers among Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and the 
     people of Massachusetts to increase awareness of diverse 
     cultures among each group;
       ``(D) the sharing of collections among cultural 
     institutions designed to increase awareness of diverse 
     cultures and links among them;
       ``(E) the development and implementation of internship and 
     apprentice programs in cultural institutions to train Alaska 
     Natives, Native Hawaiians and low income youth in 
     Massachusetts for careers in cultural institutions;
       ``(F) other activities, consistent with the purposes of 
     this part, to meet the educational needs of Alaska Natives, 
     Native Hawaiians, and children and their parents in 
     Massachusetts.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2002 there is authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000, and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(2) Availability of funds.--Of the funds appropriated and 
     made available under this section for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make available--
       ``(A) not less than $2,000,000 each to the New Bedford 
     Whaling Museum in partnership with the New Bedford National 
     Historical Park in Massachusetts, and the Inupiat Heritage 
     Center in Alaska to support activities as described in 
     subsection (a)(2).
       ``(B) not less than $1,000,000 each to the Alaska Native 
     Heritage Center in Alaska, the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and 
     the Peabody-Essex Museum in Massachusetts for the New Trade 
     Winds project to support activities as described in 
     subsection (a)(2); and
       ``(C) not less than $1,000,000 each to the Alaska Native 
     Heritage Center in Alaska, the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and 
     the Peabody-Essex Museum in Massachusetts for internship and 
     apprenticeship programs, including the Museum Action Corps of 
     the Peabody-Essex Museum, to support activities as described 
     in subsection (a)(2).

     ``SEC. 7405.--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No grant may be made under 
     this part, and no contract may be entered into under this 
     part, unless the entity seeking the grant or contract submits 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     determine to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     part.
       ``(b) Local Educational Agency Coordination.--Each 
     applicant for a grant or contract under this part shall 
     inform each local educational agency serving students who 
     will participate in the program to be carried out under the 
     grant or contract about the application.''
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 635 as modified

        (Purpose: To Establish the Close-Up Fellowship Program)

       On page 383, after line 21, add the following:

     SEC. 203. CLOSE UP FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), as amended by section 202, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

                 ``PART E--CLOSE UP FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

     ``SEC. ____. FINDINGS.

       ``Congress makes the following findings:
       ``(1) The strength of our democracy rests with the 
     willingness of our citizens to be active participants in 
     their governance. For

[[Page S6035]]

     young people to be such active participants, it is essential 
     that they develop a strong sense of responsibility toward 
     ensuring the common good and general welfare of their local 
     communities, States and the Nation.
       ``(2) For the young people of our country to develop a 
     sense of responsibility for their fellow citizens, 
     communities and country, our educational system must assist 
     them in the development of strong moral character and values.
       ``(3) Civic education about our Federal Government is an 
     integral component in the process of educating young people 
     to be active and productive citizens who contribute to 
     strengthening and promoting our democratic form of 
     government.
       ``(4) There are enormous pressures on teachers to develop 
     creative ways to stimulate the development of strong moral 
     character and appropriate value systems among young people, 
     and to educate young people about their responsibilities and 
     rights as citizens.
       ``(5) Young people who have economically disadvantaged 
     backgrounds, or who are from other under-served 
     constituencies, have a special need for educational programs 
     that develop a strong a sense of community and educate them 
     about their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the 
     United States. Under-served constituencies include those such 
     as economically disadvantaged young people in large 
     metropolitan areas, ethnic minorities, who are members of 
     recently immigrated or migrant families, Native Americans or 
     the physically disabled.
       ``(6) The Close Up Foundation has thirty years of 
     experience in providing economically disadvantaged young 
     people and teachers with a unique and highly educational 
     experience with how our federal system of government 
     functions through its programs that bring young people and 
     teachers to Washington, D.C. for a first-hand view of our 
     government in action.
       ``(7) It is a worthwhile goal to ensure that economically 
     disadvantaged young people and teachers have the opportunity 
     to participate in Close Up's highly effective civic education 
     program. Therefore, it is fitting and appropriate to provide 
     fellowships to students of limited economic means and the 
     teachers who work with such students so that the students and 
     teachers may participate in the programs supported by the 
     Close Up Foundation. It is equally fitting and appropriate to 
     support the Close Up Foundation's `Great American Cities' 
     program that focuses on character and leadership development 
     among economically disadvantaged young people who reside in 
     our Nation's large metropolitan areas.

     ``Subpart 1--Program for Middle and Secondary School Students

     ``SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants in accordance with provisions of this subpart to 
     the Close Up Foundation of Washington, District of Columbia, 
     a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation, for the purpose of 
     assisting the Close Up Foundation in carrying out its 
     programs of increasing understanding of the Federal 
     Government among economically disadvantaged middle and 
     secondary school students.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Grants under this subpart shall be 
     used only to provide financial assistance to economically 
     disadvantaged students who participate in the program 
     described in subsection (a). Financial assistance received 
     pursuant to this subpart by such students shall be know as 
     the Close Up Fellowships.

     ``SEC. ____. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No grant under this subpart 
     may be made except upon an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Content of Application.--Each such application shall 
     contain provisions to assure--
       ``(1) that fellowship grants are made to economically 
     disadvantaged middle and secondary school students;
       ``(2) that every effort shall be made to ensure the 
     participation of students from rural and small town areas, as 
     well as from urban areas, and that in awarding fellowships to 
     economically disadvantaged students, special consideration 
     will be given to the participation of students with special 
     educational needs, including students with disabilities, 
     students with migrant parents and ethnic minority students; 
     and
       ``(3) the proper disbursement of the funds received under 
     this subpart.

     ``Subpart 2--Program for Middle and Secondary School Teachers

     ``SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants in accordance with provisions of this subpart to 
     the Close Up Foundation of Washington, District of Columbia, 
     a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation, for the purpose of 
     assisting the Close Up Foundation in carrying out its 
     programs of teaching skills enhancement for middle and 
     secondary school teachers.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Grants under this subpart shall be 
     used only to provide financial assistance to teachers who 
     participate in the program described in subsection (a). 
     Financial assistance received pursuant to this subpart by 
     such students shall be know as the Close Up Teacher 
     Fellowships.

     ``SEC. ____. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No grant under this subpart 
     may be made except upon an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Content of Application.--Each such application shall 
     contain provisions to assure--
       ``(1) that fellowship grants are made only to teachers who 
     have worked with at least one student from such teacher's 
     school who participates in the program described in section 
     ____(a);
       ``(2) that no teacher in each school participating in the 
     programs provided for in section (a) may receive more than 
     one fellowship in any fiscal year; and
       ``(3) the proper disbursement of the funds received under 
     this subpart.

                 ``Subpart 3--Program for New Americans

     ``SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     make grants in accordance with provisions of this subpart to 
     the Close Up Foundation of Washington, District of Columbia, 
     a nonpartisan, nonprofit foundation, for the purpose of 
     assisting the Close Up Foundation in carrying out its 
     programs of increasing understanding of the Federal 
     Government among economically disadvantaged secondary school 
     students who are recent immigrants.
       ``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this subpart, the term 
     `recent immigrant student' means a student of a family that 
     immigrated to the United states within five years of the 
     students participation in the program.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Grants under this subpart shall be 
     used only to provide financial assistance to economically 
     disadvantaged recent immigrant students who participate in 
     the program described in subsection (a). Financial assistance 
     received pursuant to this subpart by such students shall be 
     know as the Close Up Fellowships for New Americans.

     ``SEC. ____. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Application Required.--No grant under this subpart 
     may be made except upon an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Content of Application.--Each such application shall 
     contain provisions to assure--
       ``(1) that fellowship grants are made to economically 
     disadvantaged secondary school students;
       ``(2) that every effort shall be made to ensure the 
     participation of recent immigrant students from rural and 
     small town areas, as well as from urban areas, and that in 
     awarding fellowships to economically disadvantaged recent 
     immigrant students,special consideration will be given to the 
     participation of those students with special educational 
     needs, including students with disabilities, students with 
     migrant parents and ethnic minority students;
       ``(3) that activities permitted by subsection (a) are fully 
     described; and
       ``(4) the proper disbursement of the funds received under 
     this subpart.

                    ``Subpart 5--General Provisions

     ``SEC. ____. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Accountability.--In consultation with the Secretary, 
     the Close Up Foundation will devise and implement procedures 
     to measure the efficacy of the programs authorized in 
     subparts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in attaining objectives that include: 
     providing young people with an increased understanding of the 
     Federal Government; heightening a sense of civic 
     responsibility among young people; and enhancing the skills 
     of educators in teaching young people about civic virtue, 
     citizenship competencies and the Federal Government.
       ``(b) General Rule.--Payments under this part may be made 
     in installments, in advance, or by way of reimbursement, with 
     necessary adjustments on account of underpayments or 
     overpayments.
       ``(c) Audit Rule.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States or any of the Comptroller General's duly authorized 
     representatives shall have access for the purpose of audit 
     and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records 
     that are pertinent to any grant under this part.

     ``SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out the provisions of subparts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this 
     part $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--Of the funds appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (a), not more than 30 percent may be used for 
     teachers associated with students participating in the 
     programs described in sections ____ and ____.''.

     ``SEC.   . NATIONAL STUDENT/PARENT MOCK ELECTION.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to the National Student/Parent Mock Election, a 
     national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to 
     promote voter participation in American elections to enable 
     it to carry out voter education activities for students and 
     their parents. Such activities may:
       ``(1) include simulated national elections at least five 
     days before the actual election that permit participation by 
     students and parents from all 50 States in the United States 
     and its territories, Washington, DC and American schools over 
     seas and
       ``(2) consist of--
       ``(A) school forums and local cable call-in shows on the 
     national issues to be voted upon in an `issues forum';

[[Page S6036]]

       ``(B) speeches and debates before students and parents by 
     local candidates or stand-ins for such candidates;
       ``(C) quiz team competitions, mock press conferences and 
     speech writing competitions;
       ``(D) weekly meetings to follow the course of the campaign; 
     or
       ``(E) school and neighborhood campaigns to increase voter 
     turnout, including newsletters, posters, telephone chains, 
     and transportation.
       ``(b) Requirement.--The National Student/Parent Mock 
     Elections shall present awards to outstanding student and 
     parent mock election projects.

     ``SEC.   . AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out the provisions of this part $650,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     six succeeding fiscal years.''
                                  ____



                     amendment No. 440 as modified

 (Purpose: To ensure that seniors are given an opportunity to serve as 
         mentors, tutors, and volunteers for certain programs)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENIOR OPPORTUNITIES.

       (a) Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers.--
     Section 1609(a)(2) (as amended in section 151) is further 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (G), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) if the organization plans to use seniors as 
     volunteers in activities carried out through the center, a 
     description of how the organization will encourage and use 
     appropriately qualified seniors to serve as the 
     volunteers.''.
       (b) Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; Governor's 
     Programs.--Section 4114(d) (as amended in section 401) is 
     further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (14), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (15), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(16) drug and violence prevention activities that use the 
     services of appropriately qualified seniors.''.
       (c) Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; Local Drug 
     and Violence Prevention Programs.--Section 4116(b) (as 
     amended in section 401) is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``(including mentoring by appropriately qualified seniors)'' 
     after ``mentoring''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (ii) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) drug and violence prevention activities that use 
     the services of appropriately qualified seniors;'';
       (2) in paragraph (4)(C), by inserting ``(including 
     mentoring by appropriately qualified seniors)'' after 
     ``mentoring programs''; and
       (3) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``, which may involve 
     appropriately qualified seniors working with students'' after 
     ``settings''.
       (d) Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities; Federal 
     Activities.--Section 4121(a) (as amended in section 401) is 
     further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``, including projects 
     and activities that promote the interaction of youth and 
     appropriately qualified seniors'' after ``responsibility''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``, including 
     activities that integrate appropriately qualified seniors in 
     activities'' after ``title''.
       (e) Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; 
     Formula Grants.--Section 7115(b) (as amended in section 701) 
     is further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) activities that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Indian children, and 
     incorporate appropriately qualified tribal elders and 
     seniors.''.
       (f) Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; 
     Special Programs and Projects.--Section 7121(c)(1) (as 
     amended in section 701) is further amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (K), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (L), by striking ``(L)'' and inserting 
     ``(M)''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (K) the following:
       ``(L) activities that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Indian children, and 
     incorporate appropriately qualified tribal elders and 
     seniors; or''.
       (g) Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; 
     Professional Development.--The second sentence of section 
     7122(d)(1) (as amended in section 701) is further amended by 
     striking the period and inserting ``, and may include 
     programs designed to train tribal elders and seniors.''.
       (h) Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; 
     Native Hawaiian Programs.--Section 7205(a)(3)(H) (as amended 
     in section 701) is further amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (iii), by inserting ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) programs that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Native Hawaiian children, 
     and incorporate appropriately qualified Native Hawaiian 
     elders and seniors;''.
       (i) Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native Education; 
     Alaska Native Programs.--Section 7304(a)(2)(F) (as amended in 
     section 701) is further amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) may include activities that recognize and support 
     the unique cultural and educational needs of Alaskan Native 
     children, and incorporate appropriately qualified Alaskan 
     Native elders and seniors;''.

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the 
pending amendment which is based on my bill S. 231, the Seniors as 
Volunteers in Our Schools which I introduced on January 31, 2001. I am 
pleased that Senators Grassley, Akaka, Inouye, Craig, Baucus and Inhofe 
are cosponsors of that bill.
  Under this amendment, school administrators and teachers are 
encouraged to use qualified seniors as volunteers in federally funded 
programs and activities authorized by the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, ESEA.
  Studies show that guidance by a caring adult can help reduce 
substance abuse and youth violence. Because every child deserves a safe 
learning environment, this amendment is an important step in ensuring 
that our schools provide a safe and caring place for our children to 
learn and grow. It will help build lasting partnerships between our 
local school systems, our children and our senior citizens.
  Seniors have practical knowledge and wisdom gained from experience. 
They are as important a part of our national future as are our young 
ones in school. Improving the opportunities for learning for all 
Americans has been the focus of recent debate. We have faced weighty 
and costly decisions about education and the role the federal 
government ought to play in the education of our children.
  But, there are also many practical opportunities we can offer in this 
endeavor that don't come at a high cost. My amendment offers such an 
opportunity. By making better use of all the gifts senior Americans 
have to offer, we can provide a framework to connect schools with 
appropriate seniors. My amendment does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to support prompt passage of this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for just a few 
minutes about my safe schools amendment to S. 1, the Better Education 
for Students and Teachers Act of 2001. My amendment, the Safe School 
Security Act of 2001, addresses an element that has not been given 
enough attention in the debate over ESEA, school security.
  In recent years, we have witnessed too many tragic shootings that 
have resulted in the deaths of students and teachers. While these 
school shootings are shocking and disturbing, and have received much 
attention, it is the everyday school violence and crime that plagues 
most students and teachers and interferes with their ability to learn 
and teach.
  Today I offer an amendment that is designed to assist schools in 
reducing school violence and campus crimes. This legislation would 
establish the School Security Technology and Resource Center, SSTAR, in 
New Mexico to work in partnership with the Rural Law Enforcement Center 
in Arkansas and the National law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
Center in South Carolina.
  In the 106th Congress, I introduced similar legislation to establish 
the School Security Technology and Resource Center, SSTAR, at Sandia 
National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. While the bill was accepted 
by the Senate, and became part of the Juvenile Crime Bill in May 1999, 
the conference committee failed to produce a conference report and the 
bill never came before the full Congress for a vote.
  Nonetheless, over the past 3 years, SSTAR has pursued its mission and 
has provided assistance to hundreds of schools across the country. In 
1999, Sandia worked with the National Institute of Justice to publish 
what became

[[Page S6037]]

the most widely requested document from NIJ last year: The Appropriate 
and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools. Last year, 
SSTAR put on a National School Safety Conference in Dallas, TX, for 
hundreds of school administrators and safety personnel from across the 
country. In the last 2 years, with limited resources, SSTAR provided 
tailored school security assessments for schools in Texas, 
Massachusetts, and the Navajo Nation.
  The Texas project came about when SSTAR was contacted by the 
administration at Permian High School in Odessa, TX. Although Permian 
had not experienced any major acts of violence, the Columbine shootings 
made the administrators rethink the risks facing their large population 
of 2,200 students. Like most schools, Permian was also interested in 
reducing the everyday problems such as fights, theft, vandalism, 
graffiti and intruders on campus. In the end, the security upgrades and 
policy changes were well received by the school administration, parents 
and students.
  The idea for SSTAR started in 1997 with a local initiative in New 
Mexico involving Sandia National Laboratories and a local high school 
that was experiencing a high number of student car break-ins, vandalism 
and theft of school property. Sandia Labs partnered with the community 
and local businesses to implement a wide variety of security upgrades 
at Belen High School, just south of Albuquerque. In the year after they 
implemented the Sandia-designed plan, Belen experienced a 75 percent 
reduction in school violence, a 30 percent reduction in truancy, an 80 
percent reduction in theft from vehicles, and a 75 percent reduction in 
vandalism. Interestingly, the drop in automobile break-ins seemed to 
reduce the level of conflict among students and provided many students 
with ease of mind. The drop in truancy, vandalism and violent crime 
convinced me that this was a program that should be available to all 
schools.

  Because of Sandia's expertise in evaluating and designing security 
for our Nation's nuclear sites, Sandia is well suited to evaluate the 
security of our Nation's schools and advise school administrators on 
how to create safer learning facilities. This transfer of experience to 
a school setting has proved beneficial in many pilot projects around 
the country. SSTAR, when fully operational, intends to offer workshops 
to train school personnel in school security, provide security 
assessments for public schools, and test existing security technologies 
so schools do not spend precious resources on equipment that doesn't 
work or doesn't suit their needs.
  The amendment I am introducing today also establishes a $10 million 
grant program under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to assist 
schools in implementing security strategies. These grants will enable 
school to purchase high tech security equipment or implement low tech 
security upgrades. While our children's safety is of paramount concern, 
we should also aim to protect the significant investment by America's 
taxpayers in expensive computer equipment and other high-tech teaching 
tools prevalent in many schools today.
  If students do not feel safe in their own schools, they cannot focus 
and perform to the best of their ability. If teachers do not feel safe 
in their classrooms, they cannot fully concentrate on teaching. I 
believe we have a responsibility to do what is in our power to make our 
children and teachers safe at school so they can focus on learning and 
educating. While we have invested in our national laboratories so they 
can protect our nuclear arsenal, and we have invested in our Federal 
buildings to protect our Federal employees and the general public, we 
have failed to adequately invest in our Nation's schools so they can 
protect our Nation's most valuable assets--our youth. SSTAR can fulfill 
this responsibility if given the proper resources.
  Therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation. I 
thank Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas for partnering with me on this 
bill two years ago and for sticking by this worthwhile legislation. I 
also want to thank Senators Hollings and Corzine for their willingness 
to cosponsor this bill. The services provided by SSTAR and the Rural 
law Enforcement Center have benefitted many students, teachers, parents 
and law enforcement and I believe these services should now be shared 
with the entire country.


                           amendment no. 519

  Mr. KENNEDY. Those amendments are: Senator Wellstone's on family 
information centers, Senators Bingaman and Hutchison's on school 
security, Senator Stevens' on cultural exchange, Senator Landrieu's on 
Close-up, Senator Campbell's on senior opportunities.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, and Senator DeWine. We have title I grant 
discrepancies for two reasons. The first is legitimate. The second is a 
reflection of insufficient funds. Each State receives a different title 
I grant because it has different numbers of poor children and different 
per pupil expenditures. Since 1965, we have keyed the title I formula 
to the number of poor children in a State multiplied by State per pupil 
expenditure. The use of the per pupil expenditure is intended to 
reflect the different costs of education in different States and is 
intended to encourage States to increase their own education spending.
  Those are worthy policies that we have had for many years. The reason 
we see discrepancies within the States is that districts have a great 
deal of flexibility in determining per child grants. Districts have to 
serve schools in rank order of poverty. So it goes through the States 
and then to the districts, and then they have to distribute funds on 
the rank order of poverty. But they can limit the size of the grants to 
serve many schools that are eligible.
  Low poverty districts often have only one or two eligible schools. 
Those schools see all of a district's title I money, and have large per 
child grants accordingly. High-poverty large districts often have many 
schools eligible for title I funds, and these high-poverty districts 
often spread out their title I money among many eligible schools. Those 
schools, accordingly, see small per child grants.
  I support the pending amendment to target limited funds. But the best 
thing we can do is to grow the total title I pot of funding so that 
districts do not have to spread limited funding among many poor 
schools. That is the bottom line.
  There are four different formulas for title I. There are the basic 
grants, concentration grants, targeted grants, and education finance 
grants. They all have different bases for support--they benefit 
different numbers of poor children in different States and in different 
communities. There is great flexibility within the local school 
districts and the amounts they are going to give per school. Therefore, 
you have the kinds of disparities we have heard talked about this 
afternoon.
  The way to address that is to do what the Senate has done, and that 
is to support full funding for the title I program. When you have full 
funding of the title I program, these kinds of aberrations, as the two 
Senators pointed out, don't exist.
  That is the best way to do it; otherwise, poor children will be 
fighting over scraps. We have the resources to address this issue. The 
Senate is on record supporting full funding of title I. I am strongly 
in support of that program.
  As I have pointed out, we have a good bill. It is not the bill I 
would have written. It is not the bill I am sure my colleagues, Senator 
Frist, Senator Gregg, and others would have written, or the President 
would have written, but it is a good bill. It can make an important 
difference for the children who are going to benefit from it. The fact 
is though that only a third of the children are going to benefit from 
this legislation because of the current level of insufficient funding.
  I have behind me a chart which indicates increases in the ESEA budget 
since 1994. The ESEA is inclusive of the title I program. This chart 
reflects from 1994 to the year 2001. During the previous 
administration, we had a 8.6-percent increase in the ESEA budget, but 
under President Bush it is 3.6 percent.
  If we look at it more closely, under the Administration's budget, in 
the outyears--2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010--there 
is virtually no increase. It is flat funded. There will not be an 
increase of funding for these

[[Page S6038]]

needs. We are still going to have these extraordinary disparities. We 
can remedy that with the funding which this Senate has gone on record 
in a bipartisan way to support.
  The next chart shows under the Title I program, which is part of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there are 3.7 million children 
who are going to be reached, out of 10.3 million eligible poor 
children.
  In fiscal year 2008, under the President's budget, it is 3.7 million. 
I do not know what happened to the pledge of leaving no child behind.
  The Senator from Louisiana, in her excellent presentation, pointed 
out the number of children who are being left behind in those schools, 
as did the Senator from Ohio as well.
  Under the bipartisan amendment offered by Senator Dodd and Senator 
Collins, which was accepted in fiscal year 2002, we move up the number 
of children served to 5.7 million. We have important reforms, and we 
have important accountability--accountability for the schools, 
teachers, students, parents, accountability within the community, and 
we provide that for 5.7 million children.
  We do state that at the time of the expiration of this legislation in 
the fiscal year 2008, no child will be left behind. Every one of those 
children who are missing out will be covered under the amendment of the 
Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from Ohio. They will be able to 
get supplementary services and inclusion in summer school programs. 
They will have the opportunity of attending perhaps another public 
school if that is necessary. They will be able to go to afterschool 
programs and get supplementary services. That is under the proposal we 
have.
  This is a question of resources. I believe we have a strong bill that 
can benefit the children for the reasons I have tried to outline. For 
many schools across this country that need it, there will be assistance 
with improvements. We are going to have reconstitution of schools where 
necessary. We have had a good debate and have taken strong action to 
make sure the evaluations of our children are going to be effective.
  I have one more chart, and this illustrates what is happening in 
title I schools. The best estimate from the Education Commission of the 
States is that 10,000 schools at the present time are failing schools. 
Under the Bush budget, 2,440 of those schools will have some relief.

  The average cost of turning schools around has been estimated at 
about $180,000. Some do it for less. I have some examples. I will come 
back to those later in the debate. Some have required more. This is the 
best judgment about what will be necessary.
  We are saying we ought to use $1.8 billion of the $6.4 billion 
increase for which this Senate has voted and turn the 10,000 schools 
around. We can do it. We know how to do it. The difference today is we 
know what works. We know how to educate children. We know what to do, 
and we know how to give them the support they need.
  This legislation is crafted to create a sense of expectation for 
those children, to give them the support so they can reach that 
expectation, to give them the best trained teachers and modern 
curriculum, support for supplementary services, afterschool programs, 
new technology--all of those together is what we are committing.
  We have a good bill which also includes funding for meeting our 
responsibilities for special needs children under IDEA.
  We have an opportunity to address the very tragic circumstances the 
Senator from Louisiana has outlined in her excellent presentation, and 
the unfair circumstances and the disparities about which the Senator 
from Ohio talked. We have a way of doing it with the targeted resources 
for the new money. We can do it in that way, and I certainly support 
using additional resources and targeting the way her amendment has been 
devised. But still even with that, we ought to be prepared to make the 
commitment to the children of this country that no child is going to be 
left behind.
  That is what I thought the President wanted in his statement on 
education and what we can do.
  With the passage of this legislation fully funded, we address the 
challenge the Senators from Louisiana and Ohio have put before us. We 
include funding for IDEA which will make the difference in local 
communities that are hard pressed to provide for the special needs 
children.
  Over the next 5 to 7 years, the progress we have seen in local 
communities that utilize what we have included in this legislation will 
result in an important upgrading of the educational capabilities for 
the neediest children in this country.
  I thank the Senator from Louisiana for bringing this to our 
attention. No one can look at the illustrations the Senator presented 
and not believe this is grossly unfair. Also, no one can listen to the 
Senator from Louisiana talk about the progress that is being made in 
these classrooms when children are given the support they need, which 
they ought to receive, which we can do, but which they are being denied 
because we are not giving the funding.
  We will miss an extraordinary opportunity if we fail to respond in a 
positive way to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana and to the 
broader issue raised by her amendment, and that is the funding for 
title I and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 22 minutes 23 seconds. The 
opposition has 25 minutes 32 seconds.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield myself 10 of those minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see some of my colleagues coming to 
the Chamber to speak on this amendment. Let me follow up, if I can, 
some of the points Senator Kennedy made. He is absolutely right.
  We have made in the last several weeks in this debate a tremendous 
amount of progress, taking some of the best ideas offered by our 
colleagues on the Republican side, some of the best ideas offered on 
the Democratic side. The President himself has come forward with a 
number of good ideas that have now been weaved into this underlying 
bill. We are in the process of perfecting it. Some amendments offered 
on this floor have strengthened the underlying bill, including 
accountability, moving our money in a more targeted fashion.
  Hopefully, with this amendment, we will take a giant step toward that 
particular goal, encouraging our system to start rewarding success, to 
stop funding failure, expecting good things from our teachers and our 
schools, then providing resources. All of these elements are important 
to the underlying bill.
  Let me stress one thing I have said on the floor on many occasions: 
Investment without accountability is a waste of resources. 
Accountability without resources is a waste of time. We don't have a 
lot of time to waste. A childhood goes by so quickly. Those critical 
early years move quickly. These children cannot wait 3, 4, or 5 years 
to receive the training in reading and basic skills allowing for the 
foundation for an education that brings prosperity to themselves, 
wealth to their families, and hope to their children and to their 
grandchildren. We don't have a lot of time to waste.
  Adopting this amendment is one step. Whatever money is allocated can 
be targeted better, and these presentations have shown where the gaps 
are. Senator Kennedy is absolutely correct when he says this is just 
one step; without the funding to back up this targeting amendment, 
without the funding necessary so the Federal Government can live up to 
the responsibilities of funding special education, we will literally be 
passing a bill that might have a lot of fancy words, might even have a 
few wonderful quotes and thrilling lines; however, it will not have the 
power attached to change the lives of children if we do not match the 
resource to the rhetoric.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This will be a lost opportunity for millions of children 
if we fail to provide the investments in the future of our country. 
Isn't that what this is about, trying to make sure children will have 
the ability to read, to do basic math?
  Does the Senator agree, we have a good blueprint, but we are reaching

[[Page S6039]]

only so many children, and without further investment, we are failing 
to meet the opportunity out there; if we fund those programs and 
invest, it is a landmark achievement?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely. To further illustrate this point, the 
critics of Federal aid to education say money doesn't matter; the 
children can't learn, or it will not help.
  Studies have proven them wrong. I have tried to show in my 
presentation when investments are made, coupled with accountability, 
fantastic results are achieved.
  Another argument is we have spent so much money in 30 years and 
nothing is improving. Let me give the real facts for the record: Title 
I has barely kept pace with inflation. When it was created, 26 percent 
of our children were in poverty. Senator Johnson said: This is a 
shame. The Federal Government has a special role to play. These 
children don't live in communities with Fortune 500 companies. They 
don't live in wonderful homes with paved streets and running water and 
parks in which to play. There are districts, schools, places in 
America, rural and urban, where schools are having a hard time fixing 
the roof and turning the water on, let alone getting computers and 
learning. President Johnson said: let's step up to the plate. We put up 
some money. It was not enough then, and it is not enough now.

  To fault the children for not learning or the teachers--because they 
cannot teach 35 children in their class, or they cannot teach if there 
is a rainstorm because they have to move to another class, and we 
wonder why they lose a few hours of instruction--is beyond 
comprehension. It has barely kept pace with inflation. It has been a 
2.9-percent increase.
  When I care about something in my house in my budget, I spend more 
than 2 percent on it. I might invest 10 percent, 20 percent, or make 
investments. Barely 2 percent a year overall was spent on education. 
Some of the money we have added has been for education generally in 
many new programs but not targeted to those students in rural and urban 
areas who needed the most help.
  Let me close with one or two points. First, I commend President Bush 
for stating now on many occasions, in private meetings as well as 
publicly, that he supports targeting. He knows that in order to make 
his pledge real to not leave any child behind, the Federal Government 
must be a partner to those schools and to those children who 
desperately need someone to believe in them, to invest in them, and 
give hope.
  The second point: Not only does the President support targeting, and 
he should be commended for his leadership, but 5 years ago our own 
congressional commission said there was overwhelming evidence that 
while title I had proven to be effective, the title I resources were 
not being targeted to the children who needed it the most. There were 
too many gaps to be filled. The Federal Government was not filling 
those gaps because the original formula was not correct. So we crafted 
a new formula, but we never funded it.
  This amendment will, for the first time, help fund the formula we 
crafted, fund a formula the President supports. The only issue 
remaining, which I hope Senator Lieberman will address in his remarks, 
is the fact that the best formulas in the world, the best ideas in the 
world, aren't worth a hoot if you can't fund them and don't fund them 
to reach these children who want to learn, who can learn, and to help 
their parents and teachers help them meet their dreams.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, who is controlling the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is controlling the 
time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. How many minutes remain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes, and the opposition has 25 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Lieberman.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield additional time from the opposition, although I 
know the Senator is in favor of the proposal. How much time does the 
Senator desire?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. If the Senator has up to 10 minutes, I will be 
grateful for that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. And 10 minutes to the Senator from Delaware following 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am pleased to rise today to support the amendment 
offered by Senators Landrieu and DeWine, a bipartisan amendment. I 
particularly express my appreciation to the junior Senator from 
Louisiana for her persistent and principled pursuit of this ideal, 
which we believe is essential to the success of the sweeping reforms we 
have included in this measure and to our paramount goal of helping all 
of America's children, regardless of income, learn at the highest 
possible level.
  We have said this bill could be described in a phrase that might go 
like this: ``Invest in reform and insist on results.'' I think we have 
the insistence on results in the bill now. The question is whether we 
are going to invest in reform. And the question is whether we are going 
to not just put more money into the bill, but as Senator Landrieu has 
said, make sure it gets to the kids in America who need it most. That 
is what this amendment aims to do.
  The underlying bill has the potential to be truly transformational, 
to change not just the way we administer Federal programs but, more 
importantly, the way we educate our children to help close the 
persistent and pernicious achievement gap separating the haves and 
have-nots in our country and thereby help better realize the promise of 
equal opportunity, which is the ideal, the driving ideal of American 
life.
  All that potential in this bill will be squandered if we do not also 
change the way we distribute Federal education funding, to target our 
resources on the schools and particularly on the students with the 
greatest needs.
  As my colleagues know and Senator Landrieu just indicated, that was 
the original intent of the ESEA at its programmatic heart, to 
compensate for local funding inequities within States and help level 
the educational playing field for disadvantaged children. But the 
reality is that after all these years, 36 years since title I was 
adopted, it is not working in practice as it was designed in principle.
  The reality is that title I is not nearly as focused on serving high-
poverty communities and children as it is supposed to be and that many 
poor children, therefore, are not getting the aid and attention they 
deserve and need.
  Our amendment aims to fix that imbalance, to renew the true mission 
of title I, and do so in a way that will enable the bill before us to 
make good on its promise. Across party lines, as we have worked on this 
bill, we fought for the tough new accountability system included in the 
proposal to hold our educators responsible for meeting high standards 
and to impose real consequences for chronic failure--in fact, not to 
accept failure in the education of our children. But this engine of 
reform--accountability--could turn into a form of punishment for our 
children if we do not back up these demands with new dollars and 
channel those dollars to the most disadvantaged cities and towns, to 
the places that have the most ground to make up. That is exactly what 
this amendment would do.
  I suspect many people are under the impression this is already the 
case and wonder why this amendment is necessary. The fact is, we 
continue to spread title I dollars too thin and too wide. According to 
a report by the CRS, 58 percent of all schools in our country receive 
at least some title I funding, including many suburban schools with 
predominantly well-off students. Of the schools that receive no title I 
support at all, on the other hand, a disturbing number have a high 
concentration of poor students. In fact, one out of every five schools 
with poverty rates between 50 percent and 75 percent do not get a dime 
of title I funding--not any title I funding at all. That happens, of 
course, because of the formulas. We do not provide enough funding to 
serve every eligible student creating a zero-sum game played through 
formulas, and the formulas we use are poorly targeted to need.

  Most title I funds are distributed through the basic grants formula. 
In

[[Page S6040]]

the current year, 85 percent of the $8.6 billion appropriated went 
through that channel. But under that channel, any district with at 
least 2 percent of its students living below the poverty level 
qualifies for funding. That threshold is so low that more than 9 out of 
every 10 school districts in America receive some title I dollars. As a 
result, not nearly enough funding is left over to meet the burdens of 
the highest poverty districts.
  Congress recognized the problem and sought to begin to fix it in the 
reauthorization of this legislation in 1994 with broad bipartisan 
support. We adopted a new formula, the targeted grants formula, which 
is the only one of the four title I funding formulas that is 
specifically designed to address the unique needs of school districts 
with high concentrations of poverty. As an indication of the high 
priority we have placed on that formula, the 1994 reauthorization 
directed that all new funding above the fiscal year 1994 level be 
allocated under that formula. Unfortunately, we have not abided by that 
requirement and not one dime of funding has yet to pass through that 
targeted formula.
  In the first instance, the appropriators made that choice, but I 
would say to my colleagues, we are all complicit in it. We have all 
voted to approve those bills. We have all overlooked the inequities in 
the system. We are all responsible for the consequences of a funding 
system that promises one thing and delivers quite another.
  There is more than a matter of basic equity here because studies show 
us that poor children, living in areas with high concentrations of 
poverty, are at far more risk of educational failure than poor children 
living in more affluent areas. Therefore, those areas of concentration 
need more help.
  Thanks to my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, I 
think we have met half the challenge facing us. This bill, through the 
Dodd amendment, calls for funding of title I, full funding of title I. 
That is a very significant statement, which I hope the President will 
embrace as we continue to negotiate on appropriations levels. This 
amendment would meet the second half of the challenge and make the 
first half work as the bill originally was intended to do. It would put 
the Senate on record again in support of funding the targeted formula, 
but would do so with some teeth by saying that no new title I dollars 
could be allocated under this bill until we sufficiently fund the 
targeted formula.
  This is a matter not of parochial interest but of national interest 
because of the critical national interest we have in developing all of 
America's human capital to realize the promise of opportunity but also 
to benefit our society and our economy. That is why several prominent 
and diverse groups are joining in backing this amendment that we are 
offering, including: the United States Chamber of Commerce, the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the 
Education Trust, the American Federation of Teachers, the National 
Education Association, the National League of Cities, the National 
Urban League, and the National Alliance of Black School Educators. They 
have said publicly that they believe better targeting is critical to 
closing the achievement gap.
  We know some of our colleagues who may agree with us in principle may 
be reluctant to support this amendment, perhaps because they do not 
want to get the bill caught up in a formula fight. But without the 
formula debate, without guaranteeing that the funds flow to the most 
needy children, this bill will ultimately not mean very much.
  I would also say the fight occurred 7 years ago and Congress stated 
unequivocally that all new title I funding should be channeled through 
the title I formula. All we are doing with this amendment is trying to 
get us to abide by the agreement that was made and adopted 7 years ago.
  There is an important principle at issue here that I hope we do not 
forget. This bill is ultimately not about number runs or aggregate 
State dollars received. It is not about who wins or who loses in States 
and districts. This is about the lives of children across America who 
depend on us to do what is best for them. Ultimately, we do not fund 
States or districts, or even schools. We fund children and their 
education.
  At the Federal level it has been our special mission to help the 
Nation's poorest children, to see that they get a fair shot at the 
American dream.
  I appeal to my colleagues in this Chamber and in the other body not 
to judge this bill by how much it does for our particular States or how 
much it does for a particular House district but by how much it does 
for our neediest children. This amendment will take us a long way in 
that principal direction.
  I thank my fellow cosponsors. I thank President Bush who on numerous 
occasions--most recently in a bipartisan meeting at the White House 
last week on this underlying bill before us--said he understands that 
to realize the goal he has set, which is to leave no child behind in 
our education system, we can't just put the money out there, we have to 
target the money to the kids who need it most.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am happy to support Senator Lieberman, 
Bayh, DeWine, and Landrieu's targeting amendment today. This initiative 
symbolizes what the New Democrats stand for.
  Targeting ESEA money to the children most in need has long been one 
of our top priorities. It is commonly assumed that title I is already 
targeted to poor children.
  In reality, 85 percent of all title I funds are allocated according 
to the basic grant formula that does not take concentration of poverty 
into account.
  The remaining 15 percent, which last year was $1.2 billion, was 
distributed amongst two-thirds of our Nation's schoolchildren.
  Under this plan, districts with 15 percent poverty received the same 
proportional benefit as districts with 90 percent poverty. That's why, 
the last time we reauthorized ESEA, we created the targeted grants 
formula. It was an effort to direct the scarce resources to the areas 
of highest poverty. We had good intentions, but bad follow-through. The 
targeted grants formula has never been funded.
  I know that changing a funding formula is a detailed and complicated 
endeavor--whether it is transportation dollars, the Older Americans 
Act, or title I. But we must make the difficult decisions--and in 
essence, get more for our dollars. The more we are able to concentrate 
our resources in areas most in need, the more we can close the 
achievement gap in our Nation.
  This amendment should be even less complicated than I have described 
above, because we do not seek to change the formula, we only ask that 
we follow the formula that we established in law.
  Some of the debate during this reauthorization has been about the 
role of the Federal Government in K-12 education.
  What should the Federal Government be doing in this area that is so 
predominately in the jurisdiction of State and local governments. My 
view is that the federal role is to level the playing field in our 
nation of such diversity.
  Every child should have an equal chance to have a solid public school 
foundation on which to build their life. The Federal Government--
although only supplying about 7 percent of the funding for K-12 
education, should direct that money to those students most in need. 
Title I was created for the purpose of doing just that.
  This amendment, and the leadership of Senators Landrieu and 
Lieberman, get us closer to that level playing field. I am proud to 
join Senator DeWine and others, in supporting one of the Senate New 
Democrats' top priorities.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Landrieu 
and DeWine in offering an amendment that we believe is essential to the 
success of the sweeping reforms included in this reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA and to our paramount goal 
of helping all children learn at a high level.
  This bill has the potential to be truly transformational, to change 
not only the way we administer Federal programs but the way we educate 
our children across this country, to help close the persistent and 
pernicious achievement gap separating the haves from the have nots in 
this country, and in time to help realize the promise of equal 
opportunity for every American

[[Page S6041]]

child. But we are afraid that potential could be squandered if we do 
not also change the way we distribute Federal education funding to 
target our attention and resources on the schools and students with the 
greatest needs.
  As my colleagues know, that was the original intent of ESEA and its 
programmatic heart, Title I--to compensate for local funding inequities 
within states and help level the educational playing field for 
disadvantaged children. But the reality is, as we intend to show today, 
Title I is not working in practice as it was designed in principle. The 
reality is that Title I is not nearly as focused on serving high-
poverty communities as it is perceived to be, and that many poor 
children are not getting the aid and attention they deserve and need as 
a result.
  Our amendment aims to fix that imbalance, to renew the true mission 
of Title I, and to do so in a way that will make the bill before us 
make good on its promise. We as New Democrats fought for the tough new 
accountability system included in this proposal. We fought to hold our 
educators responsible for meeting high standards, and to impose real 
consequences for chronic failure. But this engine of reform for schools 
could turn into a form of punishment for children if we do not back up 
these demands with new dollars, and channel those funds to the most 
disadvantaged cities and towns, to the places that have the most ground 
to make up. And that is exactly what our amendment would do--target 
most of the new Title I dollars to the districts with the highest 
concentration of poor children.
  I suspect that many of our colleagues are under the impression that 
this is already the case and that our amendment is therefore 
unnecessary. But the fact of the matter is that we have and continue to 
spread Title I dollars thin and wide. According to a CRS report, 58 
percent of all schools receive at least some Title I funding, including 
many suburban schools with predominantly well-off students, from 
Beverly Hills in California to Greenwich in my home State of 
Connecticut. Of the schools that receive no Title I support at all, on 
the other hand, a disturbing number have high concentrations of poor 
students. In fact, one out every five schools with poverty rates 
between 50 percent and 75 percent do not receive any Title I funding at 
all.
  How does this happen? The answer lies in the fact that we do not 
provide enough funding to serve every eligible student, creating a 
zero-sum game played through formulas, and that the formulas we use are 
poorly targeted to need. Most Title I funds are distributed through the 
Basic Grants formula--in the current fiscal year, 85 percent of the 
$8.6 billion appropriated went through this channel. Under this 
formula, any district in which at least 2 percent of its students live 
below the poverty level qualifies for funding. This threshold is so low 
that more than 9 out of every 10 districts in America receive some 
Title I dollars. And, as a result, not nearly enough funding is 
leftover to meet the burdens of the highest-poverty districts.
  To dramatize the inequities of this distribution system, the 
Progressive Policy Institute prepared what it calls a tale of two 
cities, a comparison of the Title I profiles of Beverly Hills and 
Compton in South Central Los Angeles. On the one hand, Compton has 97 
percent of its children eligible for free and reduced lunch, compared 
to 8 percent in Beverly Hills; and Compton has 43 percent of its 
students from families on welfare, compared to 4 percent in Beverly 
Hills. On the other hand, Beverly Hills has a tax revenue base that is 
400 percent higher than Compton; Beverly Hills has 90 percent of its 
teaching force certified, while Compton has 37 percent; Beverly Hills 
students rank consistently in the 80th percentile on national math and 
reading tests in 4th and 8th grade, while Compton students hover around 
the 25th percentile. Yet when it comes to Title I funding, Beverly 
Hills receives $597 per eligible student, while Compton receives $720. 
Those figures just don't add up, logically or morally. How can we 
expect Compton to compensate for all its disadvantages with just $123 
more per student?
  Congress recognized this problem and sought to begin fixing it in the 
reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994. With broad bipartisan support, we 
adopted a new formula, the Targeted Grants formula, which is the only 
one of four Title I funding formulas that is specifically designed to 
address the unique needs and challenges of school districts with high 
concentrations of poverty. And as an indication of the high priority we 
placed on this new formula, the 1994 reauthorization further directed 
that all new funding above the FY 1994 level be allocated under this 
formula.
  Unfortunately, Congress has yet to abide by this requirement, and not 
one dime of funding has yet to pass through the Targeted formula. This 
is a choice that the appropriators have consistently made, but I would 
say to my colleagues that we are all complicit in it. We have all voted 
to approve these appropriations bills for the past seven years. We have 
all overlooked the inequities of this system. And we are all 
responsible for the consequences of this funding system that promises 
one thing and delivers another.
  We are speaking out today because those consequences are too serious 
and the stakes for this bill too high to tolerate the status quo any 
longer. We must realize that by spreading Title I funds so thin and 
wide, we are seriously diluting their impact, undermining the 
effectiveness of this critical program, and undercutting the promise of 
equal opportunity for all children. This dilution is evident in my own 
State, where in the 1999-2000 school year, 74 percent of Connecticut's 
school districts had student poverty percentages of less than 15 
percent, and received a combined total of about $8 million in Title I 
funds. In addition, 30 percent of the school districts had student 
poverty percentages of less than 5 percent and received a combined 
total of about $2.5 million in Title I funds.
  Our point is not that poor children living in those more middle class 
and affluent areas do not need help. They certainly do. We are simply 
saying that given our limited Federal resources, we have an obligation 
to focus first on those communities that have the greatest needs and 
the least capability to meet them on their own. The fact of the matter 
is that 40 percent of all students eligible for Title I live in the 
Nation's 200 poorest communities. It is those communities where the 
achievement gap is most pronounced. And it is those communities that 
must be our priority if we are going to ensure that no child is left 
behind.
  This is more than a matter of basic equity. Studies show us that poor 
children living in areas with high concentrations of poverty are at far 
more risk of educational failure than poor children living in more 
affluent areas. A comparison of Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, 
TAAS, results, for example, found that after controlling for income, 
low-income students in Alamo Heights Schools District, with only 17 
percent poverty, had much higher rates of passage than those in San 
Antonio, with 88 percent poverty. Sixty-one percent of Alamo Heights' 
low-income students passed the TAAS, versus only 39 percent in San 
Antonio. And looking more broadly, a study from the U.S. Department of 
Education concluded that ``the relationship between family poverty 
status and student achievement is not as strong as the relationship 
between school poverty concentrations and school achievement 
averages.''
  It is particularly in places like San Antonio and Compton that we are 
hoping to drive real change with the reform plan before us. Many of 
these disadvantaged districts are already making significant progress 
in turning around underperforming schools and turning up their academic 
achievement. I am particularly proud of what Hartford has accomplished 
since the State declared it an educational disaster area and took over 
the school system. We want to encourage other districts to pursue the 
same kind of bold reforms. We want to provide them with the resources 
and the freedom to make those reforms work. And at the end of the day, 
we are for the first time going to hold them accountable for producing 
results.
  But we have good reason to be skeptical about this bill's 
effectiveness if we do not target funding to those communities that 
need it most. Indeed, we may be setting up many poor students and 
disadvantaged schools to fail. This is basic math. We cannot 
realistically expect high-poverty schools, who have

[[Page S6042]]

the farthest to climb, to fill acute shortages of qualified math and 
science teachers, to invest in innovative curricula and teaching 
methods, and to do whatever else it takes to meet the ambitious goals 
set out in this new system without substantial additional support. That 
means not only more Title I funding, but far better targeting.
  Thanks to my friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, we 
have met half the challenge. This bill, through the Dodd amendment, 
calls for full funding of Title I, and that is a significant statement, 
which I hope the President will heed as we continue to negotiate on 
appropriation levels. Our amendment would meet the second half of the 
challenge. It would put the Senate on record again in support of 
funding the Targeted formula, by saying that no new Title I dollars can 
be allocated until we sufficiently fund the Targeted formula. We know 
this formula, like any formula, is far from perfect, and it is going to 
have its own quirks in equity. But it's the best we have got, and until 
we find a better way, which I hope we will, we need to fund it.

  Several prominent groups and advocates for disadvantaged children are 
joining us in this effort--Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, the American Federation of Teachers, Education Trust, 
National League of Cities, National Urban League, National Alliance of 
Black School Educators, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They have 
said publicly that they believe better targeting is critical to closing 
the achievement gap.
  We know some of our colleagues who may agree with our principle will 
be reluctant to support this amendment because they do not want to get 
caught up in a formula fight. To them I would simply say we already had 
this fight. It was settled seven years ago when Congress stated 
unequivocally that all new Title I funding should be channeled through 
the Targeted formula. All we are doing with this amendment is trying to 
get us to abide by that peace treaty. This is just restating what is 
already the law.
  But there is an important principle at issue here that we cannot 
forget. This is not about number runs or State aggregates, or who wins 
or who loses. This is about the lives of children who depend on us to 
do what is best for them, not our political fortunes. Ultimately, we do 
not fund States or districts or even schools. We fund children. And at 
the Federal level, it has been our special mission to help the nation's 
poorest children to see that they get a fair shot at the American 
dream.
  As of today that's not happening. Not when 63 percent of African-
American and 58 percent of Latino fourth-graders are reading below 
basic levels, according to the most recent NAEP results, compared to 27 
percent of whites. Not when 60 percent of disadvantaged fourth-graders 
are reading below basic, compared to 26 percent of advantaged. And not 
when African-American and Hispanic 12th-graders on average read and do 
math at the same level as 8th-grade white students.
  What we do today is not going to singlehandedly erase this 
achievement gap, which is a national disgrace. That is going to take a 
lot of hard work by dedicated educators, most of which will occur 
school by school, classroom by classroom. But it will make a real 
difference, and for that reason I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment and the larger cause of targeting.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been informed by Senator Kennedy that 
we have two final speakers before the vote. Senator Carper is going to 
speak for 10 minutes, and the Senator from Wyoming is going to speak 
for 15 minutes on an unrelated subject. I alert everyone that we will 
probably vote at about 5:20. I don't know who is first with these two 
Senators. After that, I believe that basically all time will be used. 
The opposition has been kind enough to yield time. But the time for 
Senator Carper is still controlled by the Senator from Louisiana. She 
has already yielded to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank both Senator Landrieu and Senator 
Lieberman for the leadership they have shown in getting us on the right 
track--I think the track we intended to be on.
  A friend of mine who used to be my education adviser when I was 
Governor of Delaware for a number of years used to say that all of us 
can learn but some of us learn differently. Some of us learn faster 
than others, but all of us can learn.
  We are talking about title I, which is a program the Federal 
Government introduced some 35 years ago to really make sure that young 
people in our schools--very young people and not so young people--who 
need extra help in learning to read are going to get it. If they need 
extra help in math, they are going to get it. Our job is to make sure 
they get that extra help which they need to enable them to be 
successful.
  We are seeking through the debate in the last couple of weeks, and 
certainly the debate through this week, to redefine the Federal role in 
education. Nobody here believes the role of the Federal Government in 
education is to run our schools in Delaware, Nebraska, or in any other 
State. The role of the Federal Government, as Senator Lieberman said, 
is to try to help level that playing field so that all kids have a real 
shot at meeting the academic standards that have been established in 
their States.
  In the course of the debate on this bill, we are agreeing on a number 
of important principles. One is that we ought to be investing more 
money and to transition Federal resources to raise student achievement. 
We ought to give that money to schools so that school districts have 
more flexibly with fewer strings, that we can provide more money and 
fewer strings, that we ought to require results and demand results. 
That means accountability and consequences for schools and students who 
do well, as well as for those who do not do well.

  Another thing on which we agree is the need for parents to have 
greater choices in where they send their kids to school--to have a 
public school choice and charter schools as well.
  During the course of this debate, one of the things I have learned--
and Senator Lieberman just said it again--is that for a lot of our 
schools around the country that have a fair amount of poverty, we don't 
fund title I. It is a strange thing. In a school where the level of 
poverty is over 50 percent, over half the kids are getting free or 
reduced-price lunches. That is a school where we can provide title I 
money and extra learning time for kids who need it. But in about 20 
percent of our schools, we don't do that at all.
  Nobody here is interested in throwing money at the problem. We are 
interesting in investing money in programs that work, especially where 
the need is the greatest.
  I have stood here on the floor in the last couple of weeks and talked 
about three programs that we know work where we don't invest the money 
we ought to be investing. The first is Head Start. We provide Head 
Start funding for fewer than half of the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds in 
this country. States such as Delaware and Ohio have provided extra 
money on their own to help make it possible for all 4-year-olds in 
Delaware, for example, to be in the Head Start Program. But nationally, 
the Federal Government provides Head Start money for fewer than half of 
the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds. We know it works. We just do not 
provide the money.
  Another program is the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
and Federal money for special education programs. We are supposed to, 
by agreement, provide up to 40 percent of the funds in States across 
America for students in special education programs. Do we do that? No. 
We don't provide 40 percent, or 30 percent, or 20, or even 10 percent 
of the funding. We know it works. But we don't invest the money.
  The third program we are talking about today with title I is the 
Extra Learning Time Program, which the Federal Government funds. We 
don't fund money for every child who is eligible for the program. We 
don't provide extra money and time for even half of the kids who are 
eligible. It is one out of three; that is all.
  In a situation where we know the program works and we know that if we 
invest the money we will raise student achievement, in the situation 
where we have a little more money in terms of

[[Page S6043]]

our budget surplus than we have had in recent years, having taken some 
of that money off the table through a tax cut--we don't have unlimited 
money--I think it is incumbent on us, as we increase the spending, to 
spend a little extra money in this title I for Extra Learning Time. 
Let's spend it where the kids are most needy. Let's target that money 
where it will make the most difference. It is really common sense.
  Let me close by saying this. I talk a lot about Delaware. That is the 
State I know most about, just as other Members know about Louisiana, 
Nebraska, or their respective States. I visited a little school in 
southwestern Delaware a week or so ago, West Seaford Elementary. I met 
with the principal, a number of the teachers, and an administrator or 
two. We talked about a variety of ways in which we are trying to raise 
student achievement. I will mention a couple of them.
  There is a State program in the department that provides services for 
children. Their emphasis is to put in that school a social worker--a 
family crisis therapist who is a go-between for that school and the 
families who are in a crisis to work; a go-between to help make sure 
whatever is going wrong at home gets fixed--the child has a better 
learning environment at home, and the parents will be able to work with 
the kids at school.

  I met with a woman who coordinates the mentoring program. She comes 
in every week and works with kids to help them in this school. There 
was also a teacher in the room funded by smaller classroom size 
appropriations. In other words, we provide money for smaller 
classrooms. They use that money to hire extra teachers. There was a 
lady there who was funded out of that. Finally, there was a title I 
teacher there who worked with kids, especially with their reading.
  These were part of the team that works very successfully at West 
Seaford to make it possible for just about every kid to reach the 
standards we set in our State in reading and writing and math.
  One of the best things we have done in this legislation is provide 
some extra money and provide more flexibly so that schools such as West 
Seaford can use those disparate sources of State and Federal and local 
moneys in ways that they know will work to help their kids do better.
  While I applaud the fact that we are providing extra money through 
this authorization bill--and we are going to provide that money with 
more flexibility--we demand accountability.
  Hopefully, tomorrow with the Carper-Gregg amendment, we will work a 
little more on poverty parents through public schools and charter 
schools. I think it is important, as we spend those extra dollars, to 
make sure they go to the schools where the need is the greatest.
  In this day and age where one out of every five schools and where 
well over half of the kids living in poverty don't have access to the 
help they get in title I, that is wrong. We can fix it here. My hope is 
that by agreeing to this amendment, we will do just that.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are debating education, and we are 
debating a new direction in education. That is what the overall 
difference is that I address in the amendment. The new direction we are 
talking about is increased flexibility so that the schools can use the 
money to the best advantage possible.
  I am really pleased to see a lot of funds come to Wyoming. But there 
was a small amount that we could not use. By the time we wanted to hire 
the required administrator, there was no money left in the program. Now 
we will be able to combine those programs and have fewer administrators 
and, hopefully, less paperwork.

  To listen to the debate, it grows more and more to sound as if the 
Federal Government should fund all of education. The States fund 93 to 
94 percent of education. What we are trying to do is to allow them to 
use the money--that little bit of money they get from the Federal 
Government--as effectively as possible.
  I had an intern who worked for me. He had been a principal at a 
school and he got a leave of absence. He came to Washington and did a 
little checking to see what happened to the paperwork he had to fill 
out for years and years. He was delighted to find that every piece of 
paper he sent back to Washington was well read. It was examined to make 
sure every t was crossed and every i was dotted. It was examined to 
make sure every blank was filled in, and that it was filled in 
properly.
  What he was disappointed to find out was that that was the end of the 
road for that piece of paper. We provide 6 to 7 percent of the money, 
depending on whose figures you use, and we force over 50 percent of the 
paperwork. How do we do that? We build a huge bureaucracy in 
Washington. Every time we do a new program or add more funding to a 
program, we hire more bureaucrats in Washington; the money does not get 
to the classroom.
  Throughout the debate, you will hear that we do not provide the money 
for--fill in the blank--or we do not provide enough money for--fill in 
the blank. Remember, what the Federal Government is doing is providing 
about 6 to 7 percent of the local funds. It is a State responsibility 
to provide education. They have been doing it. They have had the main 
role in doing it.
  In Wyoming, we have a provision in our State constitution that says 
all children will have an equal opportunity for education. We have had 
court cases over the years that have determined the money has to go to 
the State and the State has to distribute it on an equal basis, so that 
all kids get an equal education.
  That is a difficult thing to do. We have a lot of rural communities. 
When you have rural communities, they have different needs and 
different capabilities than a city. A big high school in a city might 
be able to provide a wide range of courses. A small rural area might 
only be able to offer the basic courses. Is that an equal education? It 
is very difficult to determine.
  But it sounds to me, from a lot of the discussion, that it is time we 
press the States to make sure they are providing an equal education. It 
has not been our fault that some schools get a lot more funding and 
some schools get a lot less funding. There are some exceptions, and we 
try to take care of those exceptions. But I do not think we are placing 
nearly enough pressure on the States to do the job of having equality 
that would solve a lot of the problems we are talking about in this 
Chamber.
  But today I mainly want to talk about the issue of technology. 
Senator Dorgan brought that up early this morning. He and I have an 
amendment on which we have been working. Senator Cantwell and I have 
been working on another amendment.
  Mr. President, as a former computer programmer and someone who is 
very interested in technology and all its applications, I am glad to 
know that increasing access to technology has been receiving national 
attention. While technology can never replace a caring, qualified 
teacher or involved parents, it can open a child's eyes to worlds they 
might otherwise never have a chance to experience. I firmly believe 
that the educational opportunities afforded by technology can and 
should be harnessed in a child's pursuit of academic success. There is 
also evidence that the need for skilled workers is rising and 
technology is becoming an increasingly valuable asset as students move 
from the classroom into the job market. I have been disappointed to see 
that over the past few years the Federal Government has tried to 
support educational technology through a fragmented set of programs 
with money flowing through multiple bureaucratic agencies. This kind of 
disorganized Federal funding has generated tremendous amount of 
bureaucratic redtape that has not helped States and local school 
districts ensure that all children have access to technology.
  The legislation that we are debating today, the overall bill, S. 1, 
the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, changes all this. 
It consolidates current technology programs authorized through the 
Elementary and secondary Education Act to create a targeted State 
formula program geared towards improving the use of technology in the 
classroom. This change in the structure of Federal technology programs 
is a great thing for small or predominantly rural States such as 
Wyoming, which may not receive enough money from a particular 
categorical program, as I mentioned earlier, to effectively achieve the 
goal of

[[Page S6044]]

increasing technology. When this legislation passes, Wyoming will have 
the ability to use Federal funds to implement the technology programs 
they believe will be most useful to students. This legislation also 
makes it easier for States that may not have the resources to hire a 
professional grant writer and are therefore at a disadvantage when it 
comes to applying for the competitive grants that have traditionally 
been used to allocate technology funding.
  Under this new formula, States will have the flexibility to implement 
technology to support and expand school reform efforts with a focus on 
improving student achievement and academic performance, provide ongoing 
professional development to help integrate technology into school 
curriculum, acquire hardware and software, and repair and maintain 
school technology equipment.
  The Better Education for Students and Teachers Act supports a 
comprehensive system to effectively use technology in elementary and 
secondary schools to improve academic achievement and student 
performance. Specifically, the goal of title II, part C of this 
legislation is to assist every student in crossing the digital divide 
by ensuring that every child is technologically literate by the time 
they finish the eighth grade.
  I am pleased to report that Senator Dorgan and I have completed work 
on an amendment that will help to give rural schools comprehensive 
assistance to make sure that our children have the technological 
background they will need to be successful in the 21st century. Senator 
Cantwell and I have also drafted an amendment that will help ensure 
that the findings of the Web-based Education Commission, of which I was 
a member, are used to allow States and local school districts to 
effectively implement technology in a variety of areas.
  With the increasing national focus on technology, I am pleased to 
report the State of Wyoming has determined that technology is so 
critical to their educational success that they have put considerable 
time and effort into the development, ongoing implementation, and 
revision of a comprehensive education technology plan. This plan does a 
great job of identifying Wyoming's needs, defining our infrastructure 
requirements, articulating goals for educational technology, and 
proposing strategies for achieving these goals. It was complied by 
teachers, school boards, communities, libraries, State agencies, 
businesses, and other interested citizens from around the State.
  Wyoming outlined some ambitious objectives in their technology plan, 
such as establishing educational partnerships among public and private 
entities, implementing improved professional development geared towards 
technology, integrating technology into instructional delivery systems, 
providing equal access to interactive information resources for all 
students, and creating an evaluation process to determine if their plan 
is working. As Federal legislators we must clear away any obstacles and 
unnecessary redtape that would slow or stop the implementation of the 
goals that so many people in Wyoming have worked so hard to develop.
  I would also like to stress that the appropriate use of technology in 
education can and should go beyond the classroom. For example, Wyoming 
has also done a great job of utilizing Federal technology funds in an 
innovative way by establishing a website--that is, 
www.wyoming.edgate.org_that provides services for students, teachers 
and parents. If you want to know how your child's school is doing, you 
can go to the web site and find out. This website also allows teachers 
to access innovative curriculum ideas, gain information about 
professional development options, or access the latest information on 
teaching techniques. Students can get help on their homework. They can 
view notes from their teachers, or even research a science project. 
Parents have the ability to check on their child's homework 
assignments, gain information on options for paying for college, get 
ideas about how to talk to their kids about drugs, or even check their 
school's test scores to ensure instant accountability. While Wyoming 
was able to use Federal funds for this program, current law required 
the State to expend valuable time and resources to get a waiver from 
the Federal Government.
  I am also very pleased with Wyoming's efforts to develop a distance 
education system that will allow kids in any high school across the 
State to participate in courses such as advanced placement English and 
calculus, Japanese, Russian, art history, sociology, anthropology, and 
on and on. It has made selection of classes in the very rural schools 
much greater than it was before.

  Considering the rural and sometimes geographically isolated nature of 
some of Wyoming's communities, it is a tremendous asset. This type of 
distance learning will allow an unprecedented level of educational 
equity in my State, where students in small schools that serve 20 
students or less will be able to receive the same diversity in course 
offerings as students in the much larger schools. It will also allow 
areas that have difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers to share 
in the teaching expertise of other areas of the State without traveling 
the miles and miles and miles.
  The same distance learning system also provides Wyoming with great 
opportunities for providing continuity in our professional development 
programs. Teachers from around the State will now have the chance to 
participate in proven and effective professional development that will 
improve the educational opportunities for all of our students.
  Speaking of professional development efforts that incorporate 
technology, I have been very impressed by the work of project WYO.BEST. 
This pilot program in Platte County School District No. 1 in Wheatland, 
WY, has been working to help teachers improve their ability to teach in 
a standards-based, technology-enriched environment geared towards 
improving student learning and achievement, and they have been doing 
this since 1997. Over 100 teachers in southeast Wyoming have received 
sustained training and mentoring in student-centered instructional 
approaches, in standards-based instruction, and in technology 
integration. All of this has been done under the guidance of their 
director of instruction, Roger Clark. I take this opportunity to 
commend him for his efforts.
  The progress that has been made by the State of Wyoming is 
impressive, but we are certainly not alone. States across the country 
have been making tremendous progress not only in incorporating 
effective uses of technology in the classroom but in preparing students 
to pursue technical careers after graduation.
  A good example of this is the PPEP TECH High School in Tucson, AZ, 
which I recently had a chance to visit. This school is part of a 
publicly financed statewide system that provides an alternative 
educational program for students age 15 through 21 in grades 9-12. The 
school's primary focus is on providing high academic standards and 
technological training for the children of migrant and seasonal farm 
workers in rural Arizona and for at-risk students, high school 
dropouts, or students who work. Each student is actively engaged in an 
individualized educational program that helps them obtain a high school 
diploma, improve their job skills, and continue on the postsecondary 
education.
  Laptop computers and 1-800 numbers allow the children of migrant 
workers to move frequently and still work with the same teachers. They 
submit their homework; they get their grades by using the Internet. 
Here is an effort to make sure that no child is left behind.
  I have also been very impressed with the efforts of an organization 
called the JASON Project. This organization offers students and 
teachers in grades 4-9 a comprehensive multimedia approach to enhanced 
teaching and learning in science, technology, math, geography, and 
associated disciplines. Included in the project's components are State-
aligned curricula, video programming, satellite transmissions, on-line 
activities, and professional development training. Hands-on learning is 
provided for the visual learners, while sounds help oral learners to 
achieve. I am pleased to report that 35 teachers in Freemont County, 
WY, are currently preparing to receive training that will enable them 
to participate in this program.

  The JASON Project provides a new program topic each year. For 
example,

[[Page S6045]]

the 2001-2002 school topic of ``Frozen Worlds'' will take students and 
teachers on a virtual adventure of some of the colder regions of our 
planet and solar system, such as Alaska and the polar regions. Students 
will then examine research questions such as what are the dynamic 
systems of earth and space; how do these systems affect life on earth; 
what technologies do we use to study these systems; and why.
  As you can see, there are many options that allow teachers and 
students to integrate technology into the classroom. Our first 
responsibility as Federal legislators is making sure States and local 
school districts have the ability to implement the programs they feel 
are most effective.
  Once again, I commend my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor 
and Pensions Committee on their hard work on this legislation. I intend 
to support S. 1 and any other legislation that helps States such as 
Wyoming by giving them the flexibility they need to determine the best 
way they can help their own students gain access to technology.
  I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for 3 additional minutes: 1 minute 
for the Senator from Louisiana, I would like 1 minute, and 1 minute for 
the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will 
yield, would the Senator also ask en bloc for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to ordering the yeas and 
nays with a show of hands? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to say that I am looking forward 
to supporting the Landrieu amendment. It is an excellent amendment. It 
will, as she pointed out, give greater targeting of resources to the 
children who most need it.
  I am strongly in support of the Bond amendment.
  We are asking all of those colleagues who have amendments to bring 
these amendments up. We have been on this bill one way or the other for 
7 weeks. Now the leader has indicated to me that we are going to stay 
until we finish this bill this week. Members must bring up their 
amendments. Otherwise, we will establish a time for the completion of 
the bill, and Members will have to come over and object and we will 
consider their amendments then. The leader has said we will stay this 
week until we finish.
  It is Monday now. I hope we can. It is a good bill. We want to 
consider other amendments that are necessary, but we insist now that 
Members come over and offer their amendments so we can complete 
consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the importance of 
having the amendments before us. We have been able to go through a 
large number of amendments. We agreed upon several about an hour and a 
half ago. It is very important that people understand that in order to 
fulfill the will of the American people to really make sure we leave no 
child behind, we have to finish consideration of the bill. We would 
like to finish as soon as we can.
  I, too, support the Bond amendment and the Landrieu amendment, both 
of which involve no new programs, no new money, both of which I believe 
improve the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in closing, I again thank Senators 
Kennedy, Frist, DeWine, Lieberman, Carper, and others, for the 
bipartisan support of this important amendment to a very important 
bill.
  We have spent 2 hours speaking about the history of title I, the good 
intentions in the way it was originally crafted, but how over time, for 
understandable reasons, it has been diluted and is no longer effective, 
particularly to try to meet the challenges this new piece of 
legislation, this reform piece of legislation, will present.
  We have talked about the success stories of title I--that when it is 
properly directed, it can work because it can reduce class size, extend 
school time, support students in their learning, providing the help in 
the classroom where these children need it the most.
  Let me use 30 seconds in my closing to dispel something that some 
Members have a question about. The question is, Will my State lose 
money?
  The answer is no. In this amendment, there is a hold harmless 
provision. No State will lose money. For the record, let me say Iowa 
moves from $53 million to $69 million, based on a $3.7 billion 
investment; Connecticut will move from $82 million to $108 million; 
Delaware will go from $22 million to $31 million; Massachusetts will go 
from $177 million to $215 million; Ohio goes from $298 million to $412 
million; Louisiana, my home State, goes from $187 million to $279 
million. But no State loses money.
  Let me say that title I should be about funding children. It should 
be about giving children a chance, being a partner with children. 
Whether they live in rural or urban areas, they are poor; they don't 
live in districts with large companies and a big tax base. If we don't 
help, no one will. This amendment is the right thing to do. I ask for a 
good vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the 
Landrieu vote, the second in order, there be 1 minute on each side 
before the vote occurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the vote will now 
occur in relation to amendment No. 476 offered by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), are 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is absent 
delivering a commencement address.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) would 
each vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 177 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Baucus
     Biden
     Durbin
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Smith (OR)
  The amendment (No. 476), as modified, was agreed to.
 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I regret that I was delayed in 
reaching the Senate floor and missed the vote on Senator Bond's 
amendment to the Better

[[Page S6046]]

Education for Students and Teachers Act that would serve to strengthen 
parental involvement in the education of their child.
  I feel very strongly that parents should play an active and informed 
role in the education of their child, and I am pleased that my 
colleague, Senator Bond, offered an amendment to further encourage 
active and informed parental involvement.
  Recent studies have helped us better understand the role that our 
biological development plays in our ability to learn and understand. 
These studies reinforce the need for early and consistent parental 
involvement in their child's social and cognitive development.
  While I regret being absent during this vote, I am pleased that the 
Senate overwhelmingly agreed to this amendment. Helping parents better 
understand their child's developmental stages, and offering more ways 
for them to be involved in their child's education, will certainly lead 
to better education programs and more opportunities for our 
children.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 475

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I speak in the absence of the Senator from Louisiana 
who is privileged to be off the floor with her mother and father. On 
behalf of this amendment, which Senator Landrieu, Senator DeWine, and I 
have cosponsored, we have come together on a bipartisan basis on the 
policy in this bill to demand educational results for the children of 
our country.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I hope the Chair 
will use that gavel vigorously. It will not crack. It only cracked once 
in the history of the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. In an effort to maintain order, we now have the 
sponsor, and I yield to Senator Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask for a vote on our amendment. We had a good 2-hour 
discussion about targeting the funds. As I said in my presentation, no 
State will lose money. There is a hold harmless provision in this 
amendment. Every State will gain money. Most importantly, this 
amendment is there for every child who needs a helping hand, every 
child who needs the Federal Government to be a partner, so we can make 
sure these children meet their requirements. That is what this 
amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. FRIST. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute in opposition to the Landrieu amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the authorizing committee, 
and as now chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on education, we 
put two programs in here in 1994. One was the targeted program. That is 
fine. But then we also put in there what we call the education finance 
incentive grant, which is otherwise known as effort in equity. In other 
words, a lot of States that need targeted grants, their State 
governments are not doing enough to target their money towards the 
poorer school districts. So we added--not just targeted--but we added--
effort and equity. We wanted to see what was the State doing to 
equalize the funding between the richest districts and poorest 
districts. So we added that in as a formula also. This amendment only 
speaks to the targeted program and does nothing about effort and 
equity.

  A 1998 GAO report found that Federal education programs provide an 
additional $4.73 for each poor student for every dollar provided for 
all children. In contrast, States provided 62 cents for each poor child 
for every dollar provided for all children.
  Senator Landrieu's amendment seeks to improve this record for the 
Federal dollars. We can always do better, but Federal dollars alone 
cannot correct the serious deficiency experienced by many low-income 
school districts. We must also encourage states to help these 
districts.
  The Targeted Grant and the Education Finance Incentive Grant, in 
tandem, would be a more effective way of helping get additional 
resources to local school districts.
  By funding the two grants, we accomplish two goals. First we do a 
better job of targeting Federal funds. Second, we also provide States 
with a modest incentive to also help poor schools. The Federal 
Government cannot do this job alone.
  As we proceed to the appropriations bill in the next few months I 
would like to work with the Senator from Louisiana to accomplish our 
mutual goal of getting more resources to the poorest school districts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS (when his name was called). Mr. President, Mr. Inouye is 
necessarily absent. If he were to vote, he would vote ``aye.'' If I 
were permitted to vote, I would vote ``no.'' I withhold my vote and 
announce a pair with the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is absent 
delivering a commencement address.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) would 
each vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. 
Gregg) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                   PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR--1

       
     Stevens
       

                             NOT VOTING---6

     Biden
     Durbin
     Gregg
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Smith (OR)
  The amendment (No. 475) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 405, Withdrawn

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 405 from the submitted amendments eligible for 
consideration to the bill, call up amendment 450, to modify my 
amendment, and to send my modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 450, As Modified, to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment, as 
modified.

[[Page S6047]]

  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Mr. 
     Sessions, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Breaux, and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 450, as modified.

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 450) as modified, is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide Federal support through a new demonstration 
program to States and local educational agencies, to enable the States 
    and agencies to develop models for high quality summer academic 
   enrichment programs that are specifically designed to help public 
   school students who are not meeting State-determined performance 
                               standards)

       On page 778, strike line 21 and insert the following:

                 ``PART C--STUDENT EDUCATION ENRICHMENT

     ``SEC. 6301. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Student Education 
     Enrichment Demonstration Act'.

     ``SEC. 6302. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this part is to establish a demonstration 
     program that provides Federal support to States and local 
     educational agencies to provide high quality summer academic 
     enrichment programs, for public school students who are 
     struggling academically, that are implemented as part of 
     statewide education accountability programs.

     ``SEC. 6303. DEFINITION.

       ``In this part, the term `student' means an elementary 
     school or secondary school student.

     ``SEC. 6304. GRANTS TO STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     demonstration program through which the Secretary shall make 
     grants to State educational agencies, on a competitive basis, 
     to enable the agencies to assist local educational agencies 
     in carrying out high quality summer academic enrichment 
     programs as part of statewide education accountability 
     programs.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--For a State educational agency to be 
     eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), the State 
     served by the State educational agency shall--
       ``(1) have in effect all standards and assessments required 
     under section 1111; and
       ``(2) compile and annually distribute to parents a public 
     school report card that, at a minimum, includes information 
     on student and school performance for each of the assessments 
     required under section 1111.
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Contents.--Such application shall include--
       ``(A) information describing specific measurable goals and 
     objectives to be achieved in the State through the summer 
     academic enrichment programs carried out under this part, 
     which may include specific measurable annual educational 
     goals and objectives relating to--
       ``(i) increased student academic achievement;
       ``(ii) decreased student dropout rates; or
       ``(iii) such other factors as the State educational agency 
     may choose to measure; and
       ``(B) information on criteria, established or adopted by 
     the State, that--
       ``(i) the State will use to select local educational 
     agencies for participation in the summer academic enrichment 
     programs carried out under this part; and
       ``(ii) at a minimum, will assure that grants provided under 
     this part are provided to--

       ``(I) the local educational agencies in the State that--

       ``(aa) are serving more than 1 school identified for school 
     improvement under section 1116(c); and
       ``(bb) have the highest percentages of students not 
     achieving a proficient level of performance on State 
     assessments required under section 1111;

       ``(II) local educational agencies that submit grant 
     applications under section 6305 describing programs that the 
     State determines would be both highly successful and 
     replicable; and
       ``(III) an assortment of local educational agencies serving 
     urban, suburban, and rural areas.

     ``SEC. 6305. GRANTS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) First year.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the first year that a State 
     educational agency receives a grant under this part, the 
     State educational agency shall use the funds made available 
     through the grant to make grants to eligible local 
     educational agencies in the State to pay for the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out the summer academic 
     enrichment programs, except as provided in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Technical assistance and planning assistance.--The 
     State educational agency may use not more than 5 percent of 
     the funds--
       ``(i) to provide to the local educational agencies 
     technical assistance that is aligned with the curriculum of 
     the agencies for the programs;
       ``(ii) to enable the agencies to obtain such technical 
     assistance from entities other than the State educational 
     agency that have demonstrated success in using the 
     curriculum; and
       ``(iii) to assist the agencies in planning activities to be 
     carried out under this part.
       ``(2) Succeeding years.--
       ``(A) In general.--For the second and third year that a 
     State educational agency receives a grant under this part, 
     the State educational agency shall use the funds made 
     available through the grant to make grants to eligible local 
     educational agencies in the State to pay for the Federal 
     share of the cost of carrying out the summer academic 
     enrichment programs, except as provided in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Technical assistance and planning assistance.--The 
     State educational agency may use not more than 5 percent of 
     the funds--
       ``(i) to provide to the local educational agencies 
     technical assistance that is aligned with the curriculum of 
     the agencies for the programs;
       ``(ii) to enable the agencies to obtain such technical 
     assistance from entities other than the State educational 
     agency that have demonstrated success in using the 
     curriculum; and
       ``(iii) to assist the agencies in evaluating activities 
     carried out under this part.
       ``(b) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a local educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the State educational agency at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing by such information as the 
     Secretary or the State may require.
       ``(2) Contents.--The State shall require that such an 
     application shall include, to the greatest extent 
     practicable--
       ``(A) information that--
       ``(i) demonstrates that the local educational agency will 
     carry out a summer academic enrichment program funded under 
     this section--

       ``(I) that provides intensive high quality programs that 
     are aligned with challenging State content and student 
     performance standards and that are focused on reinforcing and 
     boosting the core academic skills and knowledge of students 
     who are struggling academically, as determined by the State;
       ``(II) that focuses on accelerated learning so that 
     students served through the program will master the high 
     level skills and knowledge needed to meet the highest State 
     standards or to perform at high levels on all State 
     assessments required under section 1111;
       ``(III) that is based on, and incorporates best practices 
     developed from, research-based enrichment methods and 
     practices;
       ``(IV) that has a proposed curriculum that is directly 
     aligned with State content and student performance standards;
       ``(V) for which only teachers who are certified and 
     licensed, and are otherwise fully qualified teachers, provide 
     academic instruction to students enrolled in the program;
       ``(VI) that offers to staff in the program professional 
     development and technical assistance that are aligned with 
     the approved curriculum for the program; and
       ``(VII) that incorporates a parental involvement component 
     that seeks to involve parents in the program's topics and 
     students' daily activities;

       ``(ii) may include--

       ``(I) the proposed curriculum for the summer academic 
     enrichment program;
       ``(II) the local educational agency's plan for recruiting 
     highly qualified and highly effective teachers to participate 
     in the program; and
       ``(III) a schedule for the program that indicates that the 
     program is of sufficient duration and intensity to achieve 
     the State's goals and objectives described in section 
     6304(c)(2)(A); and

       ``(iii) shall include an explanation of how the local 
     educational agency will develop and utilize individualized 
     learning plans that outline the steps to be taken to help 
     each student successfully meet that State's academic 
     standards upon completion of the summer academic program;
       ``(B) an outline indicating how the local educational 
     agency will utilize other applicable Federal, State, local, 
     or other funds, other than funds made available through the 
     grant, to support the program;
       ``(C) an explanation of how the local educational agency 
     will ensure that only highly qualified personnel who 
     volunteer to work with the type of student targeted for the 
     program will work with the program and that the instruction 
     provided through the program will be provided by qualified 
     teachers;
       ``(D) an explanation of the types of intensive training or 
     professional development, aligned with the curriculum of the 
     program, that will be provided for staff of the program;
       ``(E) an explanation of the facilities to be used for the 
     program;
       ``(F) an explanation regarding the duration of the periods 
     of time that students and teachers in the program will have 
     contact for instructional purposes (such as the hours per day 
     and days per week of that contact, and the total length of 
     the program);
       ``(G) an explanation of the proposed student/teacher ratio 
     for the program, analyzed by grade level;

[[Page S6048]]

       ``(H) an explanation of the grade levels that will be 
     served by the program;
       ``(I) an explanation of the approximate cost per student 
     for the program;
       ``(J) an explanation of the salary costs for teachers in 
     the program;
       ``(K) a description of a method for evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the program at the local level;
       ``(L) information describing specific measurable goals and 
     objectives, for each academic subject in which the program 
     will provide instruction, that are consistent with, or more 
     rigorous than, the annual measurable objectives for adequate 
     yearly progress established by the State under section 1111;
       ``(M) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will involve parents and the community in the program in 
     order to raise academic achievement;
       ``(N) a description of how the local educational agency 
     will acquire any needed technical assistance that is aligned 
     with the curriculum of the agency for the program, from the 
     State educational agency or other entities with demonstrated 
     success in using the curriculum; and
       ``(O) a description of the supplemental educational and 
     related services that the local educational agency will 
     provide to students not meeting State academic standards and 
     a description of the additional or alternative programs 
     (other than summer academic enrichment programs) that the 
     local educational agency will provide to students who 
     continue to fail to meet State academic standards, after 
     participating in such programs.
       ``(c) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     State educational agency shall give priority to applicants 
     who demonstrate a high level of need for the summer academic 
     enrichment programs.
       ``(d) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost described 
     in subsection (a) is 50 percent.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including plant, equipment, or services.

     ``SEC. 6306. SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT.

       ``Funds appropriated pursuant to the authority of this part 
     shall be used to supplement and not supplant other Federal, 
     State, and local public or private funds expended to provide 
     academic enrichment programs.

     ``SEC. 6307. REPORTS.

       ``(a) State Reports.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this part shall annually prepare and 
     submit to the Secretary a report. The report shall describe--
       ``(1) the method the State educational agency used to make 
     grants to eligible local educational agencies and to provide 
     assistance to schools under this part;
       ``(2) the specific measurable goals and objectives 
     described in section 6304(c)(2)(A) for the State as a whole 
     and the extent to which the State met each of the goals and 
     objectives in the year preceding the submission of the 
     report;
       ``(3) the specific measurable goals and objectives 
     described in section 6305(b)(2)(L) for each of the local 
     educational agencies receiving a grant under this part in the 
     State and the extent to which each of the agencies met each 
     of the goals and objectives in that preceding year;
       ``(4) the steps that the State will take to ensure that any 
     such local educational agency who did not meet the goals and 
     objectives in that year will meet the goals and objectives in 
     the year following the submission of the report or the plan 
     that the State has for revoking the grant of such an agency 
     and redistributing the grant funds to existing or new 
     programs;
       ``(5) how eligible local educational agencies and schools 
     used funds provided by the State educational agency under 
     this part; and
       ``(6) the degree to which progress has been made toward 
     meeting the goals and objectives described in section 
     6304(c)(2)(A).
       ``(b) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall annually 
     prepare and submit to Congress a report. The report shall 
     describe--
       ``(1) the methods the State educational agencies used to 
     make grants to eligible local educational agencies and to 
     provide assistance to schools under this part;
       ``(2) how eligible local educational agencies and schools 
     used funds provided under this part; and
       ``(3) the degree to which progress has been made toward 
     meeting the goals and objectives described in sections 
     6304(c)(2)(A) and 6305(b)(2)(L).
       ``(c) Government Accounting Office Report to Congress.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a 
     study regarding the demonstration program carried out under 
     this part and the impact of the program on student 
     achievement. The Comptroller General shall prepare and submit 
     to Congress a report containing the results of the study.

     ``SEC. 6308. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``The Secretary shall develop program guidelines for and 
     oversee the demonstration program carried out under this 
     part.

     ``SEC. 6309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.

     ``SEC. 6310. TERMINATION.

       ``The authority provided by this part terminates 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of the Better Education for 
     Students and Teachers Act.''.

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me begin by especially thanking two 
of our colleagues as we begin this debate about a part of this 
country's educational system that, unfortunately, has gotten short 
shrift. For the next few minutes we are going to talk about summer 
school, which I think is a critical time between the spring achievement 
tests that our youngsters take and that time in the fall when it is so 
critical to evaluate their performance for the upcoming school year.
  Suffice it to say, what the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I would like to do is have an opportunity to 
supercharge those few months in an effort to beef up the test scores, 
particularly the test scores of math and science, for youngsters across 
this country.
  What Senator Sessions and Senator Durbin and I envision is 
establishing a new demonstration program that would empower States and 
local educational agencies to develop models for exceptionally high-
quality summer academic enrichment programs that would be designed to 
help public school students meet those achievement requirements being 
required by the States in the performance standards that are being 
established.
  For me, it all came down to what Nehemiah Vaughn told me in Portland 
not long ago when he was going into the sixth grade. Nehemiah Vaughn 
told me: Summer school, Mr. Senator, is helping me to raise my grades.
  I think, as we look at educational reform in this country, we ought 
to think about what students and families are telling us. For example, 
in Baltimore--and we know our colleague, Senator Mikulski, has been 
very interested in these education issues--the Baltimore Sun had an 
exceptionally important article a few days ago indicating that more 
than 30,000 children--nearly one-third of Baltimore's public school 
population--had failed to meet the tough new promotion standards and 
were being directed to summer school.
  So this legislation, which Senator Sessions and I have worked on for 
many months, on a bipartisan basis, with Senator Durbin especially--and 
we are pleased to have Senator Landrieu, Senator Breaux, and Senator 
Mikulski as bipartisan cosponsors--is an effort to develop these model 
projects around the country that can be duplicated in the years ahead.
  We are not saying that we can spend an unlimited sum of money at this 
point, but we are saying that $25 million is a modest amount of money 
to spend each year over the next few years to set in place these 
demonstration projects which we believe would then be projects that 
could be duplicated in school districts across this country.
  For example, Senator Durbin has done very important work with the 
Chicago program which is called the Public School Summer Bridge 
Program. I happen to share his view that it is going to take a 
substantial investment in the years ahead to strengthen these summer 
school programs.
  Frankly, I would like to be able to invest a bit more in those 
programs now. I think it is critically important that one of those 
major urban school districts be part of the set of programs that are 
selected when these programs are evaluated by the experts in the field. 
So I want it understood that his contribution, in my view, is extremely 
important.
  I also note the chairman of the committee, Senator Kennedy, is with 
us. He has again and again and again raised these issues in this Senate 
Chamber. I think this country is very fortunate that someone is in this 
Chamber who consistently makes it impossible for the Senate to forget 
these priorities. I express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
committee as well for all of his help, and that of the staff.

  Finally, I will yield to my colleague from Alabama. He and I have 
been talking about this effort for more than a year. I have always 
thought that the really important work for this country can only be 
accomplished on a bipartisan basis. I think it is clear that when we 
look at the future of education, it does not get much more important 
than summer school.
  It is our hope, the hope of Senator Sessions and I, and Senator 
Durbin, that after we get the results of these demonstration projects--
and we see

[[Page S6049]]

what works and what is most cost effective--we can be in this Chamber 
again, on a bipartisan basis, making the case to our colleagues that 
these are the kinds of programs that are going to allow us to use those 
months, those precious months between the spring achievement tests and 
the fall, to make sure that when young people leave in the spring they 
say more than: See you in September; that they say: See you in summer 
school, and that they and their families know the programs that truly 
make a difference.
  I yield the floor and especially thank my colleague, Senator 
Sessions, from Alabama who has worked with me on this for more than a 
year. And I also recognize the critically important work of Senator 
Durbin.
  I think when we get the results of these demonstration projects, you 
are going to see the bipartisan team that has advanced this 
demonstration project effort back in this Chamber again saying that now 
this country has to make a truly significant investment in summer 
school because these are programs that make a difference.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I join with Senator Wyden in our 
concern that summer not be a vacuum for children. I have had, for quite 
a number of years, a deep concern that children are losing too much 
over the summer.
  Every child perhaps does not need to go to summer school. I am not 
perfectly sure how it ought to work. But ultimately I think we have the 
question of whether or not we could do a better job in the summer.
  We do know this. We do know that in an age where we are doing a 
better job of testing, we are finding that children are falling behind. 
We have seen some studies that indicate the normal summer school 
programs of today have not been very effective in helping those 
children who fall behind. So it strikes me as perfectly good sense and 
good public policy for the U.S. Government to be involved in helping to 
identify how education is occurring, where the problems are, and to do 
good scientific research to help our States and local school systems to 
best understand what is occurring and how they might, with frugal and 
wise use of their money, get the most learning possible by each and 
every child in a school system.
  A few years ago, Senator Feinstein and I offered a very serious 
amendment to end social promotion. Social promotion is a system where a 
child is clearly falling behind the minimum standards of education, yet 
they are passed on because people think that helps them socially.
  Dr. Paige, the Secretary of Education, from the Houston school system 
became the superintendent of that school system when only 37 percent of 
the students were passing the Houston basic education test. He decided 
to make some serious changes. One of the changes he made was to end 
social promotion and to provide more incentives to help children who 
were falling behind. In 5 years, those passing that test went from 37 
percent to 73 percent. This was in a huge 210,000-student system in 
Houston, TX, one of the largest school systems in America, facing all 
the problems that a big inner-city school system would face.
  He took those tough positions because he loved those children. He did 
not want to see them just be passed along and not learn, to be not up 
to the level they needed to be, finally reaching a level in school 
where they were so far behind, they just dropped out. That is the 
pattern he said he saw and was determined to end, and he did a 
remarkable job when he was in Houston of ending that cycle.

  The goal is for us to be a lot more serious about education. The goal 
has to be to have some change in education. Senator Wyden is correct: 
We need to ask some of these questions. We need to know what is 
occurring in our school systems.
  One of the things that is plain and simple is, perhaps if we can 
identify children who are falling behind in early grades and provide 
them with a high-quality, well-managed summer school program, we just 
may be able to achieve special results for those children. And then 
when they come back in September, instead of falling even further 
behind during the summer, they are up and ready to compete with the 
other children in that class.
  One of the things I strongly believe is appropriate for the Federal 
Government to do is to do this kind of research. So we are going to 
have the Department of Education review these programs, these programs 
in each one of these pilot five States that will be selected. They will 
be required to submit intense data on what they have done and how they 
did it. We will have the General Accounting Office as an additional 
independent evaluator of these school systems.
  Maybe when we look at them around the country, we can say: This 
clearly works, this is real progress; or, this did not show much good 
progress. We can use that information to challenge every school system 
in America to use the best available scientific evidence to plan a 
summer school program that works for every child and focuses not just 
on going through the motions of a summer school but actually bringing a 
child up who has fallen behind, getting them ready to start in the 
fall, motivating them with more confidence than they would have 
otherwise had.
  I am honored to join Senator Wyden on this legislation. We are 
starting the right way. It has the potential to provide us information 
that could be extraordinarily valuable. I thank him for his commitment 
and leadership. I thank Senator Durbin, who also is strongly committed 
to summer school programs, for working with us on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank Senators Wyden and Sessions and 
others for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. In a 
few moments, I will urge that the Senate accept the amendment.
  I want to mention to the two sponsors a very interesting program we 
had in Boston last summer that was a result of the leadership provided 
by the Federal Reserve in Boston and the PIC and Tom Payzant, who is 
the superintendent of schools. What they did is provide, with the 
summer employment program of the mayors, 2 hours of reading for a 6-
week period to students who the principles of various schools thought 
would have difficulty with what they call the MCAS, which is our sort 
of NAEP test, the principal test that is given statewide and the child 
cannot graduate unless that child is going to pass the test.
  They had some 260 students who were involved in that program. The 
average progress that was made was 1.7 years. No student advanced less 
than a year, and many of them were at least 2 years or above. It was 
the combination of the school system working, in this case, with the 
PIC, which is a combination of the industries, in this case in Boston, 
really one of the best of the PICs that exist not only in our State but 
in the country, really outstanding leaders in the business community, 
the labor community, the education community, and the school system. 
They made it an objective to try to take the summer employment program 
and add the educational component to it.
  This year they are going to have it for 460 students. That might not 
be the best one even for Springfield, MA, let alone for Seattle or 
Portland but, nonetheless, it is working. It is an innovative and 
creative way of trying to develop an education program that is also an 
employment program where in many instances these children need the 
employment in the summer as well as the educational program.
  As I understand, you have sufficient flexibility in the development 
of this program to try to sort of challenge local communities to find 
ways in which you can enhance academic achievement in the course of the 
summer program. At least in Boston it works very well.
  I was in a plane just last week talking to one of the stewardesses 
whose family was located in North Carolina. The child was in one of the 
early grades and had not quite done as well as they should, just missed 
narrowly, and only had 5 days of a summer program. But the parents were 
very supportive of it. The child was rather excited about it because 
they were going to get caught up to the rest of the class.
  The summer programs are here to stay, hopefully in ways that are 
going

[[Page S6050]]

to reach out to children at the lower levels as well as children moving 
through the middle schools and high schools.
  One of the things I find most appealing is the good amendment you 
pointed out to try to find out what is happening out there across the 
country, what is working, what is demonstrating good results. The 
summer is really going to be a key time in terms of helping children.
  The last point I will make is that in looking at the country and 
trying to enhance education accomplishment, most educators would say, 
particularly for children who are hard-pressed, that the summer 
interlude is a dangerous time. Children fall behind. A lot of it is 
that they are sort of moving along, gradually making some progress. 
Then they run into the summertime, and they fall behind again; they 
have to start over again. So this summer period--trying to find ways in 
which they can have effective programs so children who may be behind a 
little bit can catch up, get some advantage, retain the knowledge they 
may have gained, get some advantage in making up for perhaps some other 
area of need--makes them better prepared in the next full period. All 
of this deserves our thought.

  The good amendment is going to help us do some important work in this 
area. I thank the two Senators for their initiative and those the good 
Senators have referenced for their help as well.
  If there is no further comment, I ask, what is the question before 
the Senate at the present time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 450, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 450), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________