[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13365-S13422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 1. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:N O T I C E

Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the 
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. 
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for 
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies 
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based 
upon the cost of printing and distribution.                          
                                    Michael F. DiMario, Public 
Printer


[[Page S13366]]


       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     1, to close the achievement gap with accountability, 
     flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind, 
     having met, have agreed the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2\1/2\ hours of debate on the conference report with 2 
hours to be equally divided and controlled between the chairman and 
ranking member or their designees for 15 minutes each for Senators 
Wellstone and Jeffords.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise to talk for a few minutes about 
the bill before us today--the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  First of all, I would like to commend the members of the conference 
committee who worked for months to reach a final agreement.
  In Congress, you very rarely get exactly what you want, and in this 
bill I think both sides reached a good compromise that will help our 
children and our schools.
  I have 9 kids and 35 grandkids, and I know exactly how important 
education is.
  I know how crucial it is for children to be challenged and encouraged 
at school. It is one of the most important elements of their 
development.
  Every child in America deserves a good education, and the President 
is exactly right when he says no child should be left behind. This bill 
takes a big step in that direction.
  It provides increased flexibility of funds, accountability for 
student achievement and more options for parents. It is a win-win-win 
bill for students, parents and schools.
  First, the bill gives new options to kids who have been trapped year 
after year in failing schools.
  Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress will face 
increasingly stiff penalties. For example, students trapped in failing 
schools will be allowed to transfer to another public school.
  Personally, I would have preferred giving children and their parents 
even more options and given them the choice of going to a private or 
religious school as well. But there is no doubt the legislation 
represents a definite improvement over current law.
  If a school continues to fail on a long-term basis, students will 
receive money for supplemental services like tutoring or an after-
school program.
  Also, I am very pleased the final version of this bill allows 
supplemental services to be provided by public, private or faith-based 
organizations. This could be especially important in smaller 
communities that offer fewer options to kids.
  Furthermore, the bill provides that schools that continue to fail 
students can be completely restructured.
  This means they could be taken over by the states or incompetent 
staff could be fired.
  I know this is drastic. No one wants to see anything like this 
happen. But if it's a choice between helping the kids or protecting a 
failing school, the choice is clear.
  Second, this bill provides states and school districts greater 
flexibility with federal education dollars.
  For years, many of us have argued we need to preserve local control 
over education and guard against a bigger federal bureaucracy.
  It is the local school board and state education officials who know 
better than anyone in Washington what works in their communities, and 
this bill represents a fundamental shift toward better education 
policy.
  For instance, the legislation before us allows every local school 
district and state to transfer certain federal funds among a variety of 
programs, along with establishing a local Straight A's program which 
will be available for 150 school districts nationwide.
  Straight A's is a great idea that actually lets the local officials 
direct federal money to their most pressing needs, whether it be hiring 
more teachers or buying new books, in exchange for meeting certain 
performance goals.
  I hope many schools in Kentucky take advantage of these new 
opportunities.
  If you think about it, we trust our local school officials with our 
children every day. But more and more, we have not been trusting them 
to know best how to spend education dollars. That does not make any 
sense to me and now that is going to change.
  This bill also consolidates some existing funding for class size 
reduction and professional development to give schools more options in 
improving teacher quality.
  Under the legislation, schools will have the ability to help teachers 
do their jobs better, whether it is reducing class size, providing 
training or recruiting new teachers.
  We all know good teachers are one of the keys to a good education. 
Now school officials are going to have more tools at their disposal to 
help teachers do their job.
  I have always said teachers have one of the hardest, most important 
jobs in the world, and too often they do not get the credit they 
deserve. I hope that starts to change.
  I am also glad this bill contains the important Troops to Teachers 
Program. There are no better role models for kids than men and women 
who have sacrificed for our country. The conference report is going to 
continue this program.
  Along that same line, the legislation also requires schools to give 
military recruiters the same access to high school students as job 
recruiters.
  Since September 11, there has been a newfound appreciation by many 
for our military. I hope many of our young people who feel called to 
serve their country will take advantage of the benefits the armed 
services can provide.
  Finally, I realize some are concerned funding for the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act was not included in this bill. This is 
an important program. I have long supported increasing funding for IDEA 
and for the Federal Government living up to its commitment of full 
funding at 40 percent.
  In fact, under a Republican controlled Congress, IDEA funding has 
virtually tripled from 1994 to 2001. Although we still have not met our 
goal and have a long way to go to fully fund this program, I am looking 
forward to working with my colleagues on reauthorizing IDEA next year.
  In conclusion, the bill we have before us is a good proposal. It is 
not perfect, but there is no doubt about it, it represents a clear 
improvement over current law. I believe our children, our Nation, and 
our schools will benefit from it. I look forward to voting for this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a year ago this week, in Texas, I joined 
several colleagues as the then-chairman of the Senate Education 
Committee and met with President-elect Bush to discuss education 
reform.
  It is interesting to note that the meeting occurred in Texas, the 
home of the current President, and the home of our 36th President, 
Lyndon Johnson, who, in 1965, signed into law the original Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
  As we emerged from last year's Austin meeting, we made a bipartisan 
commitment to write and pass an education reform bill that would raise 
school accountability and improve student achievement.
  With the projection of budget surpluses for as far as the eye could 
see, it appeared that we would not only set in motion innovative 
reforms, but we would also match those reforms with new monetary 
investments.
  It has been 362 days since we left that optimistic Austin meeting, 
and the scenario has dramatically changed. We are not only facing a 
very different economic reality, but we also have an administration in 
place that does not support the funding needed to successfully carry 
out its own education reform initiative.
  There is no question that we need to improve our Nation's schools. 
Results from the recently released National Assessment of Educational 
Progress show that only 1 in 5--that is only 1 in 5--of this country's 
high school seniors are proficient in math and science, and only 2 in 5 
are proficient in reading.
  Further, the Third International Mathematics and Science Study shows

[[Page S13367]]

that performance in math and science by U.S. students declines relative 
to that of students in other nations as students move through the 
grades of our school system.
  Another startling statistic is that almost half of all adults have 
either dropped out of high school or have not pursued any type of post-
secondary education.
  Last year, we had to again raise the cap on the number of H-1B visas 
because this Nation is lacking the skilled employees necessary to meet 
the workforce demands of the high-tech and health care industries. That 
is insulting.
  I commend the President and the chairmen and ranking members of the 
House and Senate Education Committees for creating legislation 
specifically mandating that States and schools must significantly 
improve performance.
  The bill before us imposes very strict mandates on our schools, 
requiring States to separate achievement data by race, gender, and 
other subgroups to better identify those students having academic 
difficulties. This is a very worthy goal and one which I fully support.
  However, I fear that this bill, without the sufficient resources, 
will merely highlight our shortcomings. I fear it will not provide the 
assistance--both financial and technical--that schools will need to 
meet the goal of having every student reach their full academic 
potential.
  Educational budgets throughout this Nation are facing severe cuts 
due, in part, to the recent economic downturn, but also due to the high 
costs associated with providing students with disabilities special 
education services.
  In Vermont, 92 percent of the children with disabilities, between the 
ages of 6 and 11, are educated in their neighborhood schools in 
classrooms with their nondisabled peers. Special education costs in 
Vermont have increased 150 percent over the past 10 years.

  The Federal underfunding of special education leads to State and 
local districts spending approximately $20 million more in Vermont from 
local sources than would be necessary if Federal funding were provided 
at the level Congress promised in the original law.
  In 1975, we, in the Congress, authorized the Federal Government to 
pay up to 40 percent of each State's excess cost of educating children 
with disabilities. It has been 26 years since we made that commitment, 
and we have failed to keep our promise. We are currently providing only 
16 percent of the original 40 percent promised.
  Earlier this year, during Senate consideration of the ESEA bill, this 
body unanimously adopted the Harkin-Hagel amendment that required 
Congress to fully fund IDEA through progressive annual increases. I am 
extremely disappointed that the final product we are considering today 
does not include this critical amendment. Without the inclusion of the 
Harkin-Hagel amendment, and without sufficient funding for the programs 
outlined in the bill, I am afraid this bill may actually do more harm 
than good.
  The primary feature of H.R. 1 is adequate yearly progress. Under the 
revamped title I program, every student in every school must be 
proficient within 12 years. This sounds reasonable. However, at current 
funding levels, and even with over a billion-dollar increase for title 
I in the coming year, we will still only be funding less than half of 
the children who qualify under the title I program.
  Since title I was created in the landmark Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, neither Congress nor any administration has 
provided the dollars required to fund all of the students needing 
services. It seems to me that Congress has failed to meet its own 
adequate yearly progress goals for the past 36 years.
  I have been in Congress for more than 25 years. I have never voted 
against an education bill before. But to vote for this education bill 
as it now stands, I believe, is counterproductive, if not destructive. 
My instincts tell me that this bill will become law within a matter of 
days.
  Although I am voting against this bill, I will work very hard with 
all of my colleagues to obtain the funding that is needed so that our 
educational system will not only be strengthened but, as Dr. Seuss once 
said in one of the last books to be issued before this author's 
passing: ``. . . you'll be the best of the best. Wherever you go, you 
will top all the rest.''
  We can only be the ``best of the best'' by not only adequately 
funding these programs but also working with parents and teachers and 
principals and superintendents and school personnel and school board 
officials and students, for they have many of the answers that will 
enable us and our students ``to top all of the rest.''
  Today, I vote against this bill because I believe it is better to 
approve no bill rather than to approve a bad bill. I am sincerely 
hoping, for the sake of our children, that history will prove me wrong.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Jeffords for his work on 
this legislation. He was chairman of our committee when we reported out 
the Senate version. Sometime after that, we had a change in leadership. 
As a matter of fact, the bill itself was on the floor. I had the 
opportunity to chair the legislation.
  The Senate should know that on this legislation, the first parts were 
reported out of the committee when Senator Jeffords was the principal 
architect. Although we come to different conclusions in terms of the 
outcome on this legislation, I express our great appreciation to him 
for his longstanding commitment to funding the IDEA. He has been 
passionate about that and has worked on it. He makes a compelling case. 
We are closer to the day when I think we will get there. I think we 
will get there, and we are going to. When we do, Senators Jeffords, 
Harkin, and Hagel will all have been enormously helpful in our 
achieving it.
  The final point I will mention: We have in this legislation expanded 
the afterschool program by 200,000 children. We still have a long way 
to go. I am mindful that that program started out in 1994 sponsored by 
Senator Jeffords. It started out as a $50 million program and several 
thousand students. Now there are probably more subscriptions for that 
program than any other program in these last years because of the 
recognition of the difference it makes in terms of being a resource for 
children to get assistance after school. I thank him for his good work. 
I wish he had come to a different conclusion, but the Senate should 
know.
  I see the Senator from Minnesota. We expect him to talk. If I may, I 
yield for 30 seconds to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy.
  I had the opportunity yesterday to speak at length on this bill and 
to commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, our 
colleagues from the other body, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Miller, and Senator 
Jeffords for his leadership as chairman.
  I neglected to commend people who were much responsible for this 
legislation, and that is staff members, particularly my staff member 
Elyse Wasch who did a remarkable job.
  I also extend my thanks and congratulations to Danica Petroshius, 
Roberto Rodriguez, Michael Dannenberg, Dana Fiordaliso, and Michael 
Myers of the majority staff and Denzel McGuire of the Republican staff. 
Their efforts were remarkable.
  Much of the success of the bill was because of these individuals. I 
thank them personally for their great work, particularly Elyse Wasch of 
my staff.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take some time now and I will 
reserve the final 5 minutes right before the vote.
  Senator Reed, in his characteristically gracious style, thanked his 
staff and other staff here for their great work. I would as well. I 
include Joe Morningstar who works with me in that mix.
  I also say to Senators Kennedy and Gregg that I appreciate all of 
their commitment and all of their very hard work.
  I say to Senator Jeffords that I greatly appreciate his soul, his 
unbelievable commitment to children, how strongly he feels about this 
question.

[[Page S13368]]

 And I very much find myself in agreement with his analysis.
  I must say with a smile that I am amazed that so many of my 
colleagues are now supporting a Federal mandate right under the school 
district saying every school district--school districts have 
represented the essence of graduate political culture in our country--
every school district, every school, you will test every child, grades 
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I must say that I think this oversteps, if not 
the authority, the sort of boundaries of congressional decisionmaking 
on education. Here I am, a liberal Senator from Minnesota, but this is 
my honest-to-God belief. I am just amazed that so many Senators have 
voted for this, especially my conservative friends.
  Having said that, I voted for the bill when it was on the Senate 
floor for two reasons: One, we had the IDEA program mandatory. That is 
hugely important in terms of getting funding back to our States and 
school districts. No. 2, I wanted to get on the conference committee to 
try to make the bill better.
  I thank both my colleagues. I can't say the Chair and I always agreed 
on everything, but I wanted to thank them for letting me be on the 
conference committee. I enjoyed the work. There is a lot of good policy 
in this bill. I will be proud of whatever I contributed, but also many 
Senators contributed to that.
  Let me just say that for my own part, the big issue with me is this 
sort of rush to testing, as if it is the reform. The testing is 
supposed to test the reform, it is not supposed to be the reform.
  This focus on standardized tests, multiple choice tests, and teachers 
teaching to it has become drill education. It is educationally 
deadening.
  There are a lot of amendments and provisions in this bill I had a 
chance to work on that talk about high-quality testing, how we do that, 
and multiple measures, giving our States maximum flexibility so that 
they have 3 years in the aggregate of testing before they begin to use 
them as high stakes testing, see how schools do. And they don't have to 
start until 2005 or 2006. Therefore, we don't get the result until 2008 
or 2009, and I am glad we will not have this mad rush to the worst of 
standardized testing.
  There are some good provisions in this bill that will make a 
difference when it comes to having high-quality testing.
  We also have very good legislation in here that deals with teacher 
recruitment and retainment. That had to do with Senators Hutchison, 
Clinton, Kennedy, and DeWine. That is a huge issue--how we can recruit 
and retain teachers.
  Parent information and resource centers, local family information 
centers, the ways in which you can have parents more involved--and 
quite often you have to do it through some of the nonprofits and 
nongovernmental organizations in the neighborhoods and communities--
that is extremely important. We have a great program in Minnesota after 
which this is modeled. I am so glad that is in the bill.

  Then I thank Sheila my wife because she is my teacher when it comes 
to violence in homes, and there are some really good provisions in this 
bill that deal with children who witness violence and how to help them.
  That is all to the good. But we had the chance to make our rhetoric 
of the last 26 years about the IDEA program a reality. We did that on 
the Senate side, but the House Republican leadership killed it on the 
House side and the administration opposed it. That is what I am saddest 
about. I believe we could have made the fight for children in 
education, and we could have said to this administration: You cannot 
realize this goal of leaving no child behind unless the resources are 
there to go with the testing. The tests don't bring more teachers. The 
tests don't lead to smaller class size. The tests don't lead to good 
textbooks. The tests don't lead to better technology. The tests don't 
mean the children come to kindergarten ready to learn. All of these 
things have to change.
  Without a commitment to making IDEA mandatory and making the full 
funding over a 6-year period that should have been this year, we cheat 
our States and school districts and our schools, and we cheat our 
teachers and we cheat our children.
  That is why I oppose this legislation. People in my State of 
Minnesota are angry because they believe by acceding to the House 
Republican position and the administration position, we have cheated 
Minnesota out of $2 billion of IDEA money over the next 10 years--about 
$45 million on the glidepath this year. They are angry because no 
longer are we going to be able to have all-day kindergarten in a lot of 
our schools. They are angry because we are having to eliminate some of 
our good early childhood development programs. They are angry because 
we are going to have to eliminate some of our afterschool programs. And 
they are angry because we are eliminating teachers and we are 
increasing class size. They are angry because we are having to make 
cuts in the school lunch program. They are angry because we are having 
to make cuts in transportation.
  There are first graders who are going to have to walk a mile, and 
seventh graders 2 miles, to go to school because the bus service has 
been cut out.
  Colleagues, if we had lived up to our commitment on full funding of 
IDEA, we would not have to make those cuts in Minnesota. But we did. 
That is why I will vote no. I will vote no for my State of Minnesota.
  The Center for Education Policy has a quote that I think is so 
important:
  Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the public into 
thinking that testing and accountability alone will close the learning 
gap. Policymakers on the State and national level should be wary of 
proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap, but do not help 
build the capacity to accomplish that goal.

  I believe what we have here is a Federal unfunded mandate calling on 
our States and school districts to do more with less, calling on them 
to test every child every year, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and telling 
them that they have to do so without a Federal mandate that every child 
will have the same opportunity to do well on these tests.
  Where are the resources to make sure that all the children in America 
have the same chance to do well? And when they don't do well on these 
tests or the schools don't do well, where are the additional resources 
to help them? Not in this bill. When you start talking about we have 
increased funding for title I, no, not in real dollar terms. We are in 
a recession. There are many more children who are eligible. We are not 
doing any more funding in real terms. About a third of the eligible 
children are going to get the funding, and that is it. We didn't live 
up to our commitment to fully fund the IDEA program, and there is a 
pittance in the Federal budget for early childhood development so that 
children can come to school ready to learn.
  The President and the administration talk about leaving no child 
behind--the mission of the Children's Defense Fund--and that is the 
title of this bill. We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child 
behind on a tin cup budget. We are setting a lot of schools and 
children and school districts up for failure because we have not lived 
up to this promise. We are calling on the schools to be more 
accountable. But what about our accountability to our States and our 
school districts and our teachers and our children? We have failed the 
test of accountability by not making the IDEA program mandatory and 
providing full funding. We have failed the test of accountability by 
not providing that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator has 5 minutes 
remaining. The Senator wanted to be informed.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Five minutes of the original 15?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take another 2 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield 5 minutes of our time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his graciousness.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we were trying to arrange some additional 
time. We were unable to do that. The vote will occur around 12 noon 
today.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have made my point. I will say to colleagues that I 
am amazed that Senators don't want to have a little more debate on 
this. What is the problem? There are people who want to speak against 
it, too. I am just amazed that apparently my colleagues

[[Page S13369]]

on the Republican side, I gather, are opposed to this. They don't want 
to have more debate. I don't blame you because a lot of people in our 
States are going to feel quite betrayed.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I don't understand the Senator's accusation 
against Republicans on that issue. The time agreement on this bill was 
reached between the majority party and the minority party. It was not 
unilaterally agreed to by the minority party. It was put forward by the 
leadership on both sides. Do not accuse the Republican side of the 
aisle of being the people who are trying to limit this. You have an 
opportunity to speak. You got 15 minutes. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has been kind enough to offer you more. I will offer 
you 5 more minutes of my time if you want more.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Since the Senator speaks with such indignation, I am 
pleased to offer an explanation. First of all, it is not about me; it 
is about other colleagues who want to speak. Yesterday, we had an 
understanding for 2 hours and a half hour--or 1 hour and a half hour. 
Then there was a unanimous consent yesterday to extend an additional 
hour for the proponents. I asked the majority whip whether we could 
have more time for other Senators to speak, and my understanding is 
that that is fine on our side, but the Republicans have turned that 
proposal down, in which case, Senator, I stand by my remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds Senators to address each 
other in the third person and through the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Let's make sure we 
have the time down here. It is my understanding that the Senator from 
Massachusetts graciously agreed to give the Senator from Minnesota 5 
minutes, and the Senator from New Hampshire also agreed to give him an 
additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will reserve that. The Senator has 
clearly rejected my offer.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Minnesota has an additional 5 minutes that 
the Senator from Massachusetts extended. I ask that that be approved by 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator this. There were several other 
Senators who wanted to speak in opposition. The Senator from Minnesota, 
Mr. Dayton, is one.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Vermont allocated the Senator his 7\1/2\ 
minutes, and he has 5 from Senator Kennedy.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. All together I have how much time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. REID. Plus the 7\1/2\ minutes from the Senator from Vermont, who 
agreed to let him use that time, but also 5 minutes from the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I guess we are going to have more 
discussion on these points. I think it is appropriate at this time to 
briefly respond to the Senator from Minnesota relative to his 
representations on especially IDEA funding.
  There is a history to this funding which I think has to be reviewed. 
During the Clinton administration, not once in the first 7 years of 
that administration was there an increase sent to the Congress for 
special education funding--not once--of any significance at all.
  However, a group of us on our side of the aisle said that was not 
right. We decided to significantly increase the IDEA funding beginning 
about 5 years ago. We were successful in accomplishing that. Over the 
last 5 years, we have increased IDEA funding, special education 
funding, by 173 percent. That is the single largest percentage increase 
that any significant policy account has received over the last 5 years.
  The new President, President Bush, also understood, because he was a 
Governor who was sensitive to this issue, that IDEA was not properly 
funded.
  He sent up in his budget the single largest increase in IDEA funding 
ever proposed by an administration. At the end of this appropriating 
process which will occur this year, hopefully before Christmas, IDEA 
funding will have gone from approximately 6 percent when we began this 
process in 1995 and 1996, up to approximately 20 percent of the cost of 
IDEA, not the 40 percent which is our goal, but the obvious path which 
is being pursued is towards full funding.
  I do not believe the Senator from Minnesota voted against any of the 
budgets offered by President Clinton which had zero increases in 
special education funding. I do not believe he did. But he comes here 
today and says that because special education funding was not included 
in this bill which deals with title I funding we should vote against 
title I funding.
  I find that inherently inconsistent, first because we are on a path 
towards full funding of special education, but second, by voting 
against a bill which significantly increases funding for title I, which 
is the low-income children of this country and who represent a primary 
responsibility of the Federal Government, which we have assumed as a 
Federal Government, we are undercutting the capacity of those children 
to have a chance to compete effectively in the school systems.
  These are two different issues, special education and title I. Yes, 
there is overlap on children, no question about it, but the policy 
issues involved in the two are significantly different. So a decision 
was made since we are going to reauthorize special education next year 
that we should take on the policy issues of special education and the 
funding issues of special education as a package, as a unit, and do it 
next year, in the context of the fact we are increasing special 
education this year by over $1 billion. It is not as if we are saying 
we are not going to do anything in the special education accounts for 
dollars; we are actually increasing it by $1 billion this year. The 
money is being put on the table, but the policy that needs to be 
addressed in the special education accounts are as important as the 
dollars that need to be addressed. For example, the issue of discipline 
needs to be addressed. The disparity in discipline between special 
education kids and kids who are not in special education is a big 
problem in school systems.
  The issue of bureaucracy needs to be addressed. It is extremely 
expensive to school districts to meet the bureaucratic requirements of 
IDEA.
  The issue of attorney's fees needs to be addressed. We have created a 
cottage industry for attorneys dealing with special education. We need 
to address that.
  There are significant policy concerns which should be addressed at 
the same time we address the issue of how we set up the funding stream. 
I have one other point on the mandatory funding stream. This in some 
ways is a smokescreen because, as I pointed out, there is a dramatic 
expansion in funding occurring in special education.
  The question is, Is that money going to come out of the discretionary 
accounts or is it going to come out of the mandatory accounts, and that 
is an inside-the-beltway baseball game, but it is a big game because if 
we move it all over to the mandatory accounts, basically we free up $7 
billion in the discretionary accounts. That is $7 billion the 
Appropriations Committee, on which I have the honor to serve, has 
available to spend on anything they want to spend it on. It does not 
have to spend it on education. It frees up that money.
  A lot of this exercise in mandatory accounts is an exercise to free 
up $7 billion of discretionary spending.
  I do think the argument that because the IDEA language was not 
included in this bill, therefore, I am going to vote against the title 
I reform language is inconsistent with the fact pattern because we know 
we are going to reauthorize special education next year, we know we 
will visit the issue of mandatory spending next year, and, at the same 
time, we know we are significantly increasing special education funding 
this year through the discretionary accounts; we have done it over the 
last 6 years.
  I find that argument to be one that does not have much in the way of 
legs,

[[Page S13370]]

as far as I am concerned, as a reason to oppose this bill. There may be 
other issues in this bill, and the Senator from Minnesota raised the 
issue of testing. That is a legitimate issue in this bill. We are 
significantly changing the role of the Federal Government relative to 
testing in the States. That is a legitimate issue. I know the Senator 
from Minnesota feels strongly about that issue and has very credible 
arguments, in my opinion, but the IDEA is another issue.
  I now yield to the Senator from Idaho 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
the bill. I came down to express my strong support for this 
legislation, not only because of the important reforms in education 
that it proposes but because of the significant new resources that the 
Federal Government will be providing to public education, and also to 
discuss the fact we are going to be moving forward from this 
legislation to reform and strengthen the IDEA legislation next year. I 
look forward to being a part of that process and working with our 
chairman and ranking member on addressing these critical needs of our 
children.
  I have worked for the last 3 or 4 years myself with the committee and 
with others to see if we could somehow reach that goal of 40-percent 
funding for IDEA, which is our objective. We have had a lot of 
difficult battles over that issue, and we have had a number of votes to 
try to get us moving down that path. We are on the path toward 
achieving that objective.
  I certainly agree with my good friend, Senator Gregg, about the fact 
because we have not yet achieved success does not mean we should vote 
against this legislation. I also have concerns about the testing 
language in the legislation. I have concerns about where we should 
address a number of the critical issues in education.
  Not everything in this legislation is as I would have had it. 
However, I consider this bill to be an important step forward, and I 
look forward to working with the committee next year on achieving both 
substantive reforms and the financial commitment we need to make to 
IDEA.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to take 1 
minute to respond, and I want to yield the floor to Senator Dayton for 
a few minutes, and that will be in opposition.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there is an order, and the time is being 
controlled by the Senator from Massachusetts, not by the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, after the Senator winds up, I was hoping 
we were going to go to Senator Mikulski. The Senator had been 
recognized for 15 minutes and then the tentative agreement is that 
Senator Mikulski was going to be able to respond. We are trying to work 
out an accommodation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How about Senator Mikulski speaking and then Senator 
Dayton will follow?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are trying to go from one side to the other.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is what I was trying to do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thought the Senator was trying to get Senator Dayton 
after himself.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am going to yield time to Senator Mikulski.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts 
what order we are in, and I am happy to take whatever order he deems 
appropriate.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thought the Senator might be here a little after 10:30 
a.m., if that is convenient to the Senator. We are trying to do the 
best we can, but we do have an order. I am glad to yield 3 minutes to 
the Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to make clear 
that I will vote for the legislation called the No Child Left Behind 
Act. The reason I am going to vote for this legislation is because I am 
a pragmatist. Does the legislation do everything in education that I 
want done? No. Does it do everything on funding the way I want it to be 
done? No. But there is a crying need in our public schools to pass this 
modernization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and I do 
not want to make this legislation be an example of the perfect is the 
enemy of the good.
  We do many fine things in this legislation. Technology is one area in 
which I have been concentrating.
  This bill does include my amendment to create an education technology 
goal that every child be computer literate by the eighth grade. It 
includes my amendment to authorize community tech centers to create and 
expand community tech centers in rural and distressed urban areas, in 
other words, to bridge the digital divide and allows the Department of 
Education to provide competitive grants to community-based 
organizations.
  These nonprofits would set up technology centers where children and 
adults would have access to technology. What does this mean? It means a 
safe haven for children; it lets them do their homework as well as surf 
the Web. It also means job training for adults during the day. This 
legislation also includes more flexibility for the tech approach, such 
as maintenance and repair.
  In Baltimore, the Social Security Administration gave over 1,000 
computers to the Baltimore city school system, but they needed repairs. 
Some of the microchips had been broken. No one could afford to pay for 
them. My amendment would allow schools greater flexibility to have 
these public-private partnerships to repair this equipment.
  Now I will address the issue of IDEA. Full funding for IDEA is 
essential for our special needs children and all of the children. Had 
the Senate passed the Harkin-Hagel amendment, this would have meant $42 
million for my State, as well as an increase of $2.5 billion in overall 
IDEA funding. Yet that approach was rejected by the House conferees.
  I salute Senator Jeffords and Haskin others who led the fight to add 
more money for IDEA, because at the rate we are funding IDEA it will 
take us to the year 2017 to fund IDEA at the 40 percent we promised 26 
years ago. However, I chose not to hold up this bill over this topic 
because there is increased funding and next year we are going to 
address the issue of IDEA, which is: What is the right money and what 
is the right policy?
  Since the IDEA legislation was passed 26 years ago, so many of our 
children come to school now far more medically challenged than when the 
legislation was passed, far more challenged with psychological or other 
learning disabilities. I think we need to take a new look, based on 
research-driven recommendations, that will give us the guiding 
principles on what is the right way to handle special needs children 
because of the complexity of their needs. It is often not only someone 
who helps sign in the classroom, but it is often the school nurse who 
now is required to dispense medication or medical treatment.
  I could say a lot more about this bill, but when they call my name I 
will vote aye. I congratulate Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Jeffords for 
moving this legislation in the Senate. I also want to thank their 
staffs and my staff for their outstanding work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think the Senator from Minnesota is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the 
Senator from Minnesota is next.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had indicated we were going to 
alternate. The last time I saw Senator Mikulski she was a Democrat, so 
now we will go to the Republican side. That is what I indicated 
earlier. That is the way we proceeded yesterday. That is our 
understanding today, and that is the way we will proceed right now.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my friend, I thought we were taking a 
viewpoint on----
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are going from one side to the other.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the ruling of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota controls his own

[[Page S13371]]

time. It was the understanding of the Chair that Senator Dayton was to 
be next, using Senator Wellstone's time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator 
Dayton, Senator Bond be recognized for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my decision to 
vote against the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Conference 
Report.
  Let me first say what enormous respect I have for the bill's manager, 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who, throughout his 
Senate career, has fought heroically to improve the quality of 
education for our nation's schoolchildren. He and other Senate 
conferees have labored long and hard for months to negotiate the best 
bill possible with the House and the White House, who have other, 
higher priorities. All year long, they have placed tax giveaways to the 
rich and the powerful above our nation's schoolchildren.
  Let there be no doubt: this legislation fails to achieve the 
President's stated goal: ``Leave No Child Behind.'' President Bush, 
this legislation leaves many thousands of children behind throughout 
this country. It fails, for the 25th consecutive year, to keep the 
Federal promise to pay for 40 percent of the costs of special 
education. This broken promise is costing my state of Minnesota over 
$183 million this year. It means the 110,000 Minnesota schoolchildren 
in these programs are receiving less special education than they need 
and deserve. It means that other Minnesota schoolchildren are harmed, 
as state and local money intended for their educations must be shifted 
to cover the Federal shortfall. It means that Minnesota taxpayers must 
pay higher property taxes to fund this broken Federal promise.
  To make matters worse, the House conferees refused to accept the 
Senate's bipartisan commitment to bring Federal funding for special 
education to 40 percent over the next six years. Earlier this year, Mr. 
President, I proposed an amendment to this legislation, which would 
have funded the 40 percent promise in two years. That amendment was 
defeated, in favor of a six-year timetable. Now, the House Republicans 
are saying that even six years is too soon.
  That is absolutely unconscionable, unjustifiable, and it should be, 
to this Senate, unacceptable. As a result, under this legislation, next 
year's Federal funding for IDEA will cover only 17.5 percent of those 
costs nationwide. In Minnesota, it will fund only 15 percent. This 
failure will leave thousands of children behind.
  House Republicans reportedly refused to accept the Senate position 
until after IDEA is ``reformed.'' Yet, just a few weeks earlier, the 
House added over $30 billion in tax breaks to large energy companies in 
their Energy Bill. The House Economic Stimulus package would repeal the 
corporate alternative minimum tax, and it would refund over $25 billion 
to some of America's largest and most profitable corporations. Neither 
of these two huge tax giveaways was predicated on any kind of 
``reform.''
  The failure to fully fund IDEA is tragic, because that money was 
available earlier this year. There was also enough money to 
significantly increase the Federal government's support of all 
elementary and secondary education nationwide. But massive tax cuts for 
the rich and powerful were the President's and the House Republicans' 
higher priorities. Now, those projected Federal surpluses are gone, and 
our nation's schoolchildren must wait in line again.
  Less money and more testing. That will be the legacy of this 
``education President.'' Well, the President and the Congress have 
failed their big education test this year. It shouldn't be surprising 
when, as a direct result of their failure, more of our nation's schools 
and schoolchildren do also in the years ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as a member of the conference committee, we 
spent nearly 6 months crafting this bill. I am pleased to rise in 
support of this landmark legislation which leaves no child behind.
  As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, this bill provides 
the most comprehensive education reform since 1965. I take this 
opportunity to thank and congratulate the leader on our side, the 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the manager of the bill, the 
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. 
Their tireless work to bring this bill to the Senate has placed 
comprehensive education reform within reach of all students across the 
country.
  Too many children in America are segregated by low expectations, 
illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a constantly changing world that demands 
increasingly complex skills from its workforce, children are being left 
behind. Over the years, we have empowered the Federal Government and 
faceless bureaucrats while burying our educators and schools in 
regulation, redtape, mandates, and endless paperwork. As a result, we 
have disenfranchised educators and slowly eroded the opportunity for 
creativity and innovation at the local level.
  At last count, the Federal Government had 760 different education 
programs operating within 39 different agencies, boards, and 
commissions. Each was launched as a step toward reform, but each new 
program comes with added regulation and paperwork.

  By one estimate, compliance consumes 50 million hours each year, the 
equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees just to process the forms. Ask 
the teacher who has to deal with 760 programs, or the administrator who 
has to handle it, just how much this detailed reform and direction from 
Washington has helped them focus on their children. In my State they 
will say ``not one bit.''
  Today, nearly 70 percent of low-income fourth graders are unable to 
read at a basic level. Our high school seniors trail students of most 
industrialized nations on international math tests. Nearly a third of 
our college freshmen must take a remedial course before they are able 
to begin college level courses. This is why President Bush has chosen 
education reform as a cornerstone of his administration.
  This conference report reflects an agenda that President Bush 
outlined during his first days in office. It emphasizes flexibility, 
local control, accountability, literacy, and parental involvement. I am 
honored to have had a hand in shaping that policy. Parental 
involvement, early childhood, and parents as teachers are issues I have 
worked with a long time. I am pleased the principles of my direct check 
for education were included in the legislation. Over the years, I have 
worked with Missouri educators to develop the direct check approach to 
education reform, which consolidates Federal education programs, cuts 
Federal strings and paperwork, and sends the money directly to local 
school districts.
  Like my direct check proposal, this conference report recognizes that 
educational reform and progress will take place in the classrooms in 
America, not in Washington, DC. This report consolidates a myriad of 
existing Federal programs and allows States and local school districts 
to make decisions on their own, to determine their priorities. By 
reducing the mandates, as well as the costly and time-consuming 
paperwork that local school districts must endure to obtain Federal 
grants and funding, parents and teachers are empowered to take back 
control of educating our Nation's children.
  To me, the issue is simple. We must empower our States and local 
school districts with flexibility to utilize the limited amount of 
Federal resources as they best see fit to educate our children. This 
conference report does just that. Local schools will immediately be 
given the flexibility they need, where they are most needed, because a 
school in Joplin, MO, may have different needs than one in Hannibal, 
Kansas City, St. Louis, or Boonville, MO.
  Some schools need new teachers. Others may need new textbooks or 
computers, or wish to begin an after-school program.
  We simply cannot continue to ask teachers and local schools to meet 
higher expectations without empowering them with the freedom and 
flexibility to do the job.

[[Page S13372]]

  This legislation strikes a delicate balance. It keeps the Federal 
Government out of the day-to-day operations of local schools; gives 
States and school districts more authority and freedom; and requires 
performance in return.
  Education, while a national priority, remains a local responsibility. 
I believe that those who know the names of the students are better at 
making decisions than bureaucrats at the Department of 
Education. Parents, teachers, local school boards are the key to true 
education reform, not big government, Washington-based educational 
bureaucracy. In addition to giving local schools more control, I am 
pleased this conference report recognizes parental involvement and 
increases resources to our very successful Parents as Teachers Program 
which we hope to provide to every State in the Nation as well as 
foreign countries. It strengthens accountability, it provides the 
necessary funds to attract and retain quality teachers, and develops 
literacy programs to guarantee all students will be able to read by the 
third grade.

  With its emphasis on the child rather than the bureaucracy, this 
legislation offers an opportunity to make real progress in our schools.
  The great Missourian Mark Twain said: Out of public schools grows the 
greatness of a nation.
  One-sixth of the American population is enrolled in public schools. 
The content and quality of their education will determine the character 
of our country.
  I thank the managers of this bill for their courtesy to me as well as 
for their great work over the 6 months in bringing this conference 
report to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. As he 
mentioned in his comments, he, as a Governor, was involved in the 
Parents as Teachers Program. We have developed a different way of 
recognizing this as a national problem, a national challenge, and 
different ways to bring people into the teaching profession. His is one 
of the imaginative and creative programs. We always welcome his 
continued interest in this program.
  Before yielding 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, I take a 
brief moment to respond to the Senator from Minnesota.
  I gather there are three major points the Senator made, one about the 
funding for the IDEA program. I am in strong support of that program. 
It seems to me we are only meeting 17 percent of our responsibilities. 
We are pitting children, title I children, against disabled children. 
Two-thirds of those who receive the funding under special needs are 
title I children. We are talking about a similar group of children. We 
are trying to bring about significant reforms in this program. We will 
bring about the reforms next, but we should move ahead and recognize we 
are going to try to be of assistance to them. I am sympathetic and a 
strong supporter of that.
  However, I don't know whether the Senator has read the conference 
report when it comes to testing because we have effectively accepted 
the Senator's amendments. The Senator is quite correct, testing is not 
performed.
  We have a situation with some States spending $1.46 per student in 
one State and another State is $3.16, another State is $3.21. In this 
legislation we are committing with a trigger that says, if the 
resources are not there, these provisions do not apply.
  We have the most overtested group of students in the country. We 
understand that. However, what we do not have are content standards 
established by the States, curriculums established by the States, well-
trained teachers to be able to teach the curriculum, and assessments 
about how the children are doing so they can be assisted in academic 
achievement and accomplishment. That is what this bill is committed to, 
not off-the-shelf tests.
  We do a disservice in describing this bill as the off-the-shelf test. 
It is not. It has been rejected. If the Senator read page 458, he would 
see his language is effectively accepted to enable States or 
consortiums of States to collaborate with institutions of higher 
education, other research institutions, other organizations, to improve 
quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond 
the requirements for such assessments described in the act, and 
measuring students' academic achievement using multiple measures from 
multiple sources.
  We have leaned over backwards to do it right. The Senator was right 
in his amendment. We have it right in this program. To try to distort 
it does not serve the issue well. It is not an accurate reflection of 
what is in the bill.
  I do not yield to the Senator from Minnesota or anyone else in terms 
of getting additional resources. We started with modest resources, the 
3-percent increase in terms of the title I program. That happened to be 
increased to 20 percent. We started off with only a third of the 
children covered. It is true, we are facing recession and there will be 
600,000 more children covered under this program. They are going to 
be eligible this year because of the state of the economy, but we only 
reach 40 percent of the Head Start children. Are we against Head Start 
because it only reaches 40 percent? Are we breaking our promises? We 
are out here to try to get full investment in these reforms. That is 
what I am committed to do.

  I think we have made some progress. It is always easy to criticize 
the failures, but I think, along with our colleagues, this is one of 
the most important efforts made by the Congress in terms of enhancing 
academic achievement and accomplishment. We might come back to the 
other areas, but I thought this was the time to respond.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana. I thank the Senator. 
There is additional targeting. Under this bill, Minnesota would get $20 
million more for title I. But the targeting, both in urban areas and 
rural areas, is a direct tribute to the Senator from Louisiana. She 
fought for that and built a coalition. It is always difficult to alter 
or change formulas. It is a significant alteration to reach the 
neediest children. We are grateful to her for her commitment in this 
area.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for those kind remarks and I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg 
for their extraordinary effort that has not gone unnoticed by the 
Members of this Senate and all the people who have followed so closely 
the tireless efforts to get to this point where we can support such a 
solid, principled compromise that all Members can be proud of passing 
today. It is a great victory for our school system and our Nation and 
for the Presiding Officer, in the role played as a former Governor of 
Indiana. I thank also Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and Senator 
Sessions. It was a really bipartisan effort. And to the President, I 
say thank you. Through all of the efforts, along with the war in 
Afghanistan and our defense, trying to stand up and defend our 
homeland, the President stayed focused on education. We stayed focused 
on education. I think that speaks well of the work we have done. I am 
proud to be a part of it.

  This bill works for our Nation to strengthen our schools and to build 
on a promise that every child deserves a quality education and the 
belief that we can fund it and strengthen it so that every child can 
learn and so that every child should have an opportunity--not a 
guarantee but an opportunity--to be all that God created them to be and 
all their parents and loved ones hope for them to be.
  That is why I am excited about this bill. It outlines some new goals 
and objectives that are going to be difficult and challenging. But we 
need to lift those expectations for our children. We need to challenge 
our Nation. We need to fund it.
  That is why I thank Senator Kennedy, our leader from Massachusetts. 
He fought like a tiger to say: Yes, we want accountability. Yes, we 
want flexibility. Yes, we want to work in partnership with the 
Governors, but we want to give them the resources to fight the battle. 
That is what this bill does. It is the single largest investment in 
education in a single year.
  I also thank the Governors who are our partners--the 23 Governors who 
are on the front line with mayors and school boards around the Nation 
leading this fight for their support.
  Let me focus on three issues.
  First, accountability. We say if you are going to run a school, run 
it right. If not, we are going to reconstitute it so that every child 
has a chance.

[[Page S13373]]

  Second, the flexibility issues that we fund at the Federal level, but 
we allow the local jurisdictions to make those decisions.
  Third, targeting. Senator Kennedy mentioned this. I want to say for 
Louisiana that this will mean $100 million more for title I to help 
with the resources to make these classes really work for children. It 
will help us with technology and will make sure kids really have an 
opportunity. It is going to help us with afterschool programs. It is 
not just given out by a grant but a formula, so we get it to the 
parishes that really need the most help. This will give them the 
helping hand.
  I am proud to join my colleagues. I could speak for hours and days. I 
congratulate our leaders for doing such a fine job. It was a joy for me 
to work on this bill. It will mean a lot to the kids in Louisiana and 
their families.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues 
on the conference committee for their efforts on behalf of our Nation's 
school children. This legislation encompasses a number of important 
reforms for our schools. One notable provision reforms the collection 
and dissemination of personal information collected from students to 
protect their privacy.
  Earlier this year Senator Dodd and I introduced the Student Privacy 
Protection Act. The goal of this legislation is to ensure that parents 
have the ability to protect their children's privacy by requiring 
parental notification of any data collection for commercial purposes 
from their children during the school day. I am pleased that the 
conference agreed with Senator Dodd and me on the importance of 
protecting student's privacy and the essential nature of parental 
participation in the process.
  The need for this provision stems from the growing practice of a 
large number of marketing companies going into classrooms and using 
class time to gather personal information about students and their 
families for purely commercial purposes. In many cases, parents are not 
even aware that these companies have entered their children's school, 
much less that they are exploiting them in the one place they should be 
the safest, their classroom.
  The provision included in H.R. 1 builds on a long line of privacy 
legislation to protect kids, such as the Family Educational Rights Act, 
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and the Protection of 
Pupil Rights Act. The goal of these laws, as is the case with our 
provision, is to ensure that the privacy of children is protected and 
that their personal information cannot be collected and/or disseminated 
without the prior knowledge and, most importantly, the ability of 
parents to exclude their children from such activities.
  We understand that schools today are financially strapped and many of 
these companies offer enticing financial incentives to gain access. Our 
goal is not to make it more difficult for schools to access the 
educational materials and the computers that they so desperately need 
or to deter beneficial relationships. Rather our goal is to ensure that 
the details of these arrangements are disclosed and that parents are 
allowed to participate in the decisionmaking process.
  The bottom line is that parents have a right and a responsibility to 
be involved in their children's education. Much of these noneducational 
activities are being done at the expense of the parents' decision 
making authority because schools are allowing companies direct access 
to students. The provision included in H.R. 1 enhances parental 
involvement by giving them an opportunity to decide for themselves who 
does and does not get access to their children during the school day.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the bipartisan education bill before 
the Senate today puts in place some strong and unprecedented reforms in 
elementary and secondary education to make schools more accountable and 
help students learn. For the public, this bill helps assure that our 
schools get results and that we know what those results are. 
California's public schools should be helped by this bill.
  To bolster student achievement, this bill includes several needed 
reforms, tying the receipt of Federal funds to getting results:
  The bill continues the current requirement that States must have 
academic standards for reading and math and adds a requirement that 
States establish standards for science.
  Schools must assure that students make continuous and substantial 
academic improvement and that students reach a proficient level within 
12 years.
  To measure student achievement, States are required to test every 
student in grades 3-8 annually in reading and math based on State 
standards, by 2005-06.
  To ensure accountability, schools that fail for 2 consecutive years 
to make adequate yearly progress must be identified for improvement and 
also must identify specific steps to improve student performance.
  After 3 years, a failing school must offer public school choice and 
provide supplemental services. After 4 years, a school must take 
corrective actions such as replacing staff or implementing a new 
curriculum. After 5 years, a failing school must undertake major 
restructuring. The bill provides $500 million to help turn around low-
performing schools.
  In order to improve teacher quality, this bill authorizes grants to 
States for teacher certification, recruitment, and retention services. 
States must assure that all teachers are qualified by 2006.
  The bill authorizes $1.25 billion in 2002 and up to $2.5 billion in 
2007 for afterschool programs remedial education, tutoring and other 
services to improve student achievement.
  The bill requires public ``report cards,'' which will report on 
academic achievement, graduation rates and the names of failing 
schools.
  There are many other important initiatives and reforms.
  Another important feature of this bill is that it better directs 
Federal funds to disadvantaged students than does current law. Here are 
some examples:
  It requires that for the largest Federal education program, Title I, 
Aid to the Disadvantaged, the poor children count be updated every year 
instead of every 2 years under current law. This is very important to 
California, a State that has a higher than average poverty rate and 
high growth in the number of low-income children.
  The bill requires that more funds be funneled to States and districts 
using the targeted grant formula, which is focused on concentrations of 
poverty, areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego and other major cities. 
California is expected to receive a larger share of targeted grant 
funding than under current law because of its concentrated child 
poverty enrollment.
  The bill shifts bilingual and immigrant education funding from a 
competitive grant program to a formula grant program based on the 
number of children. California has a very high proportion of limited-
English proficient and newly-immigrant children and should be greatly 
helped by this change.
  These are welcomed changes and should send the resources to where the 
needs are.
  The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total education 
funding, but the strength of this bill is that it tries to leverage the 
Federal share to prod States and school districts to make schools 
responsible for real results. I believe the bill offers hope and 
resources to California's students, school officials, parents, and the 
public.
  California's schools are facing huge challenges. California has a 
projected enrollment rate triple that of the national rate. 
Unfortunately, many California students perform poorly compared to 
students in many other States. California has some of the largest 
classes in the Nation. California has overcrowded and substandard 
facilities and 30,000 uncredentialed teachers.
  I am sorry to say that 34 percent of California's schools that 
participate in Title I are identified for improvement compared to the 
national average of 19 percent, according to the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  According to the January 2001 Education Weekly Quarterly Report, only 
20 percent of California's fourth grade students are proficient in 
reading, ranking 36 out of 39 States. California ranks 32 out of 36 
States for proficient eighth graders in reading, at 22 percent.
  American students are falling behind their counterparts in other 
countries.
  In literacy, 58 percent of U.S. high school graduates rank below an 
international literacy standard, dead last

[[Page S13374]]

among the 29 countries that participated, according to Education Week, 
April 4, 2001.
  United States eighth graders scored significantly lower in 
mathematics and science than their peers in 14 of the 38 participating 
countries, according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
  The percentage of teachers in the United States that feel they are 
``very well prepared'' to teach science in the classroom is 27 percent. 
The international average is twice that, peaking at 56 percent, 
according to the 1999 TIMMS Benchmarking Study.
  United States students' knowledge of civic activities ranked 3rd out 
of the 28 countries that participated. However, those same students 
have been slipping in scores relating to math and science, according to 
Civic Know-How: US Students Rise to Test, International Association for 
the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
  The final bill includes several initiatives that I suggested:
  As to Title I funding, I have long argued that Title I should reflect 
the real numbers of poor students. This bill retains the requirement 
that the poor child count be updated every two years. Also, the bill 
better targets funds on concentrations of poor children, which should 
particularly help our urban school districts, like Los Angeles.
  As to master teachers, the bill allows funds under the teacher 
training title to create ``exemplary'' or ``master'' teachers who could 
mentor and guide less-experienced teachers, in an effort to keep new 
teachers in teaching. This is an outgrowth of my bill, S. 120.
  As to the Title I audit, the bill requires the Inspector General to 
conduct of audit to determine how Title I funds are used and the degree 
to which they are used for academic instruction. The Senate had 
accepted my amendment to better direct Title I funds to academic 
activities and away from things like playground supervisors. While the 
limitations of my amendment are not included in the final bill, the 
required audit will help us determine specifically whether Title I 
funds are being used to help students learn.
  As to small schools, the bill allows the use of Innovative Education 
funds to create smaller learning environments. While the final bill 
does not include my amendment that puts in place certain school-size 
requirements, as a condition for receiving funds, it does move that 
direction and recognize that smaller schools produce more learning.
  As to gun-free schools clarification, the bill includes several 
clarifications of the current Gun-Free Schools Act, the 1994 law which 
requires a 1-year expulsion for students who ``bring'' a gun to school. 
This bill includes students who ``possess'' a gun at school; it 
clarifies that the term ``school'' means the entire school campus, any 
setting under the control and supervision of the local school district; 
and it requires that all modifications of expulsions be put in writing. 
These are important clarifications to the law, the need for which was 
highlighted by an Inspector General's report on the implementation of 
that law.
  This bill makes some of the most profound revisions to Federal 
education policy since ESEA was first enacted in 1965. It is an 
important reform designed to help students learn, achieve and in fact, 
excel.
  The bill authorizes significant new funding. For example, Title I's 
authorized funding would grow from $13.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 to 
$25 billion in 2007. Now the challenge is to in fact provide those 
funds so that this bill will not be an empty promise.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1, 
the No Child Left Behind Act, which will reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, ESEA.
  Last year, presidential candidate George W. Bush appropriately 
indicated that education reform was a top priority. This year, 
President Bush has worked to make this top priority a reality. The 
Senate will soon pass H.R. 1, legislation which is based on President 
Bush's education blueprint, entitled, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I share 
the President's goal; our educational system must leave no child 
behind.
  I commend President Bush, Secretary of Education Paige, and my 
colleagues who served with me on the Education Conference Committee. We 
have worked in bipartisan fashion to forge this legislation that will 
substantively reform elementary and secondary education in this 
country.
  Education is the key to a better quality of life for all Americans. 
From early childhood through adult life, educational resources must be 
provided and supported through partnerships with individuals, parents, 
communities, and local government. The Federal Government has a limited 
but important role in assisting states and local authorities with the 
ever-increasing burdens of education.
  Originally passed in 1965, the ESEA provides authority for most 
federal programs for elementary and secondary education. ESEA programs 
currently receive about $18 billion in federal funding, which amounts 
to an estimated 7 cents out of every dollar that is spent on education.
  Nearly half of ESEA funds are used on behalf of children from low-
income families under title I. Since 1965, the federal government has 
spent more than $120 billion on Title I.
  Despite the conscientious efforts of federal, state, and local 
entities over many years, our education system continues to lag behind 
other comparable nations. Nearly 70 percent of inner city fourth 
graders are unable to read at a basic level on national reading tests. 
Fourth grade math students in high poverty schools remain two grade 
levels behind their peers in other schools. Our high school seniors 
score lower than students in most industrialized nations on 
international math tests. And, approximately one-third of college 
freshman must take a remedial course before they are able to even begin 
college level courses.
  The underlying issue is--do we just pour more taxpayer dollars to 
perpetuate these mediocre results or do we take some bold new 
initiatives?
  The No Child Left Behind Act takes some bold new initiatives by 
increasing federal education funding, increasing state and local 
flexibility in their use of Federal funds, and increasing 
accountability--each are steps in the right direction.
  First, in regard to funding, the No Child Left Behind Act authorizes 
$26.5 billion for elementary and secondary education. This includes a 
substantial increase for Title I programs--which are education programs 
directed toward disadvantaged children. The bill also provides 
substantial funding for programs aimed at having all children read by 
the 3rd grade, teacher quality programs, and programs aimed at making 
our schools safe and drug free.
  Next, in regard to flexibility, the bill significantly increases 
State and local flexibility in the use of their Federal education 
dollars.
  Under the ESEA law that exists today, most ESEA programs have a 
specified purpose and a target population. Our states and localities 
are given little, if any flexibility in the use of the federal dollars 
they receive.
  Our schools do not need a targeted one size fits all Washington, D.C. 
approach to education. While schools in some parts of the country may 
need to use federal education dollars to hire additional teachers to 
reduce classroom size, schools in other parts of the country may wish 
to use federal dollars for a more pressing need, like new text books. 
Federally targeted programs for a specified purpose do not recognize 
that different states and localities have different needs.
  Who is in a better position to recognize these local needs, Senators 
and Representatives in Washington, D.C. or Governors, localities, and 
parents? Those Virginians serving in state and local government and 
serving on local school boards throughout the Commonwealth are 
certainly in a better position than members of Congress from other 
states to determine how best to spend education dollars in the 
Commonwealth of Virginia.
  The No Child Left Behind Act increases flexibility and local control. 
For example, the bill allows every local school district in America to 
make spending decisions with up to 50 percent of the non-title I funds 
they receive from the federal government. Thus, with regard to non-
title I funds, every local school district will have the freedom to 
choose alternative uses for these funds within certain broad 
guidelines.
  Moreover, the bill provides even more flexibility in the use of 
federal

[[Page S13375]]

education dollars for up to 7 states and 150 school districts. These 
states and local school districts will be given the opportunity to 
consolidate a number of federal education programs, providing the 
participating states and localities the ability to focus federal 
dollars where they are needed most.
  Finally, accountability, in certain areas, is needed. Our education 
policy is locking out many students and not providing them the key to a 
better life. It's time to move forward in education to ensure that all 
of our children are given the opportunity to receive a higher quality 
of education.
  President Bush's proposal to test students annually in grades 3-8 in 
reading and math, which is part of the No Child Left Behind Act, is a 
strong proposal that promotes accountability.
  These tests will result in parents and teachers receiving the 
information they need to know to determine how well their children and 
students are doing in school and to determine how well the school is 
educating its students. Testing also provides educators the information 
they need to help them better learn what works, improve their skills, 
and increase teacher effectiveness.
  While some have expressed concern that this legislation calls for too 
much testing, I have a different view. A yearly standard test in 
reading and math will allow our educators to catch any problems in 
reading and math at the earliest possible moment. Tests are becoming a 
vital part of life, no matter how onerous. If America is to survive in 
the rapidly emerging global economy, tests are a key part.
  I note that Virginia has already recognized the importance of 
testing, having installed an accountability system called the Standards 
of Learning (SOLs). In Virginia, we already test our students in math 
and science in grades 3, 5, and 8. The No Child Left Behind Act will 
build upon Virginia's experience.
  Increased funding, increased flexibility, and enhanced 
accountability, are all steps in the right direction that we take with 
the No Child Left Behind Act. However, I must remind my colleagues that 
we have more work to accomplish.
  President Bush's ``No Child Left Behind'' blueprint calls for tax 
relief for America's teachers when they dip into their own pocket to 
purchase supplies for students. Senator Collins and I have worked 
together since early this year to pass legislation to provide teachers 
with this type of tax relief. Unfortunately, the bill before us today 
does not contain these provisions.
  In my view, as we leave no child behind, we must not forget our 
nations' teachers.
  The important role that our nations' teachers play in educating 
today's youth and tomorrow's leaders cannot be overstated. Quality, 
caring teachers along with quality, caring parents, play the 
predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind.
  Nevertheless, in part because of their low salaries and the numerous 
out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession, we are 
in the midst of a national teaching shortage. Teacher tax relief 
legislation is one way the federal government can help.
  So, while I look forward to voting in support of the No Child Left 
Behind Act and look forward to President Bush signing this important 
education reform legislation into law, I also look forward to working 
with the President and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that our 
teachers receive the tax relief they deserve.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the 
education bill before us.
  First of all, I thank my colleagues for the many hours of work they 
have spent on this bill. From day one, they have had the best interests 
of our students and teachers in mind. It is difficult to design a 
Federal education plan that supports the needs of the countless school 
districts around the country. But this bill affirms the Federal 
Government's role as one that seeks to narrow the achievement gap 
between poor students and their wealthier counterparts. This is clearly 
a worthy goal, and, while I am not entirely pleased with this 
compromise, I plan on supporting this bill when we vote on its approval 
tomorrow morning.
  I believe this education bill sets a platform from which we can build 
a solid, supportive role for the Federal Government in our schools 
across the country. I must say, however, that this bill does not do 
everything it needs to do. I am on the floor today to remind my 
colleagues that we have a long ways to go, that this bill is merely a 
step along the way, and that our schools will need additional 
investments if we want to provide our children with the knowledge and 
skills that will bring them opportunities for personal and professional 
success.
  I want to outline the challenges that lie before us. Our biggest 
challenge may be to fulfill old promises before requiring new mandates. 
I am, of course, speaking of our failure to fully fund the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, this year. I am extremely 
disappointed that we failed to do so, because I recognize the burden 
that schools face in coming up with special education funds from their 
own pockets.
  We have the very worthy intent of educating all students in this 
country, regardless of their ability or capability. It simply makes 
good common sense that we would do whatever we can to support that 
cause from the federal level. Fulfilling a promise we made to schools 
in 1975 is an easy way to support that effort. I challenge my 
colleagues to build on the successful Senate amendment to fully fund 
IDEA with a bill to fully fund IDEA during next year's reauthorization.
  I also want to challenge my colleagues to recognize that a federal 
presence in our state's education systems must fit into the structure 
of each state. That has not always been the case in my home state of 
Montana.
  Montana's very successful education system is built on a system of 
local control. Montana's Constitution is built on this premise, giving 
control of most education decisions to local school boards rather than 
to the state. This system has proven effective, but makes compliance 
with state oversight of federal programs difficult, sometimes 
impossible. As a result, Montana has not been able to meet the testing 
and assessment requirements implemented in 1994, despite recording some 
of the highest student outcomes in the nation.
  With the strengthening of accountability provisions in this bill, I 
am very concerned that Montana's education system may suffer from the 
inability to integrate federal reforms. The construction of Montana 
law, for example, will make any attempt by the state to ``institute a 
new curriculum,'' ``restructure the local educational agency,'' 
``reconstitute school district personnel,'' or ``make alternative 
governance arrangements,'' as outlined in this year's bill, an 
unconstitutional measure. I hope my colleagues recognize this 
incongruity and will work to insure that our successful system of local 
control is not stymied by federal intervention.
  Finally, for all our talk of wanting to support public education, I 
think it is unfortunate that we spend an enormous amount of time, 
energy, and resources in this bill on oversight and accountability 
measures from the federal level. As I've just mentioned, our state's 
successes in education have often been the result of local communities 
taking on the responsibility to build a successful program tailored to 
their individual environment.
  Just as our communities have taken on the responsibility of providing 
their students with the best possible education at the local level, so 
must we, at the federal level, make decisions that support our Federal 
education goals to support local schools and to eliminate achievement 
gaps. To that end, our focus must be on improved student outcomes. I am 
not convinced that the provisions outlined in this bill will reach that 
goal.
  I certainly do not want strict controls to be placed on schools, like 
those in Montana, that have outstanding student outcomes on limited 
budgets. Montana's schools, for example, would be much better off with 
additional funds for teacher and principal recruitment and retention 
programs, school maintenance and repair, technology hardware and 
training, and on-going professional development opportunities.
  In the end, this bill starts us on a very critical path towards 
addressing the acute and variable needs of schools in states as diverse 
as Montana and Florida. This bill takes a good, hard

[[Page S13376]]

look at the role of the federal government in our elementary and 
secondary schools for the first time since its inception in 1965. It 
would be overly optimistic to expect that we could accomplish 
everything necessary to provide an ideal environment for closing 
achievement gaps and supporting school teachers and administrators 
across the country in this bill.
  We certainly have not reached that point yet. But we have done 
something very important in starting that dialogue and in attempting to 
meet that need. Again, I challenge my colleagues to keep the education 
debate alive and active and to work every day to make our schools a 
place where student success is the number one priority.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the conference report we have before us 
represents the first comprehensive overhaul of the Federal Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, in 35 years. And from what all of us 
have learned, overhaul is mandatory.
  Since 1965, the Federal Government has pumped more than $135 billion 
into our educational system. Yet despite this infusion of funds, 
achievement gaps between students rich and poor, disadvantaged and 
affluent remain wide.
  In fact, only 13 percent of low-income fourth graders score at or 
above the ``proficient'' level on reading tests. As the 2000 National 
Assessment of Education Progress shows, the reading scores of fourth 
grade students have shown no improvements since 1992. That is 
unacceptable.
  This conference report reflects the four principles underlying 
President Bush's education reform plan--accountability and testing; 
flexibility and local control; funding for what works, and expanded 
parental options. President Bush promised that he would bring Democrats 
and Republicans together to develop an education plan that puts 
children first. And this conference report reflects that commitment.
  The House passed this conference report by an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 381 to 41. Last June, after we debated and voted on more than 
40 amendments to the education reform bill, the Senate voted 91-8 in 
favor of the reform measure. I expect a similar vote on this final 
conference report.
  Why is there such strong support for this measure? I think the reason 
is simple: we cannot afford as a nation to continue to allow our public 
schools to languish. Our children represent the future of America, yet 
they are not getting the best training for their future. The first 
thing we need to do is bring greater accountability to the education 
system. This legislation does that.
  It requires States to implement annual reading and math assessments 
for grades 3--8. These annual reading and math assessments will give 
parents the information they need to know how well their child is doing 
in school, and how well the school is educating their child. This is 
not a Federal learning test. The State will be able to select and 
design these tests, while the Federal Government would provide $400 
million to help the States design and administer the tests.
  The conference report also provides unprecedented new flexibility for 
all 50 States and every local school district in America to use Federal 
funds. Every school district would have the freedom to transfer up to 
50 percent of their Federal dollars to various educational programs. 
The conference report attempts to consolidate the myriad Federal 
programs that comprise ESEA, reducing the number of programs from 55 to 
45.
  The conference report also provides greater choices for families with 
children in failing schools. Parents in such schools would be allowed 
to transfer their children to a better-performing public or charter 
school immediately after a school is identified as failing. Moreover, 
additional title I funds, approximately $500 to $1,000 per child, can 
be used to provide supplemental educational services, including 
tutoring, after-school services and summer school programs, for 
children in failing schools.
  In addition, the conference report provides a major new expansion of 
the charter school initiative, providing more opportunities for 
parents, educators and interested community leaders to create schools 
outside the bureaucratic structure of the education establishment.
  I am very pleased that the conferees retained provisions that I 
authored which allow the Education Department to provide grants to 
local schools to develop and implement suicide prevention programs. 
Moreover, States may use Safe and Drug Free funds to finance suicide 
prevention programs.
  This is a critically important program that desperately needs 
attention. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15 
to 25 years of age, and is the sixth leading cause of death among those 
5 to 14 years of age. In Alaska, suicide is the greatest cause of death 
among high school age youths. In fact, Alaska's suicide rate is more 
than twice the rate for the entire United States.
  None of us know the future so we can never say with certainty whether 
this conference report will achieve the goals that are being set. But 
we know that what we have tried in the past with regard to elementary 
and secondary education has not worked. Too many children in America 
are being left behind. We cannot afford as a society and as a community 
to allow these failures to continue.
  I believe this conference report is an important first step in 
changing the interaction between Washington and local school districts 
and that the ultimate beneficiaries will be the students who will 
become the leaders of tomorrow.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, after many months of hard work we have 
before us today an education bill that represents a quantum leap 
forward for America's children. We have come together in a common-
sense, bipartisan way and we should be proud of the progress we've 
made.
  The bill is a strong one, and I commend my colleagues for recognizing 
that a quality public education is not a conservative or liberal goal. 
The education debate in Washington has too often broken down along 
stale ideological lines. With this bill, we are moving beyond the false 
choice of greater investment versus stricter accountability. We've 
struck the right balance by both giving more to our schools and 
expecting more in return. This bill increases investment in our 
schools, gives new flexibility to principals and superintendents, 
encourages high standards for all children, and holds schools 
accountable for their performance. Every child in America has a right 
to a world-class education. This bill enacts the reforms and provides 
the resources necessary to make this right a reality.
  My State of North Carolina has much to offer in this debate about 
national education reform. Since coming to the Senate, I've tried to 
bring some of North Carolina's successes to the rest of the Nation. I 
am grateful that the final bill includes a provision which I introduced 
that will allow States to try out a very simple plan we have 
implemented with great success in North Carolina.
  Here's how our program works: immediately after we learn that a 
school is in trouble, we appoint a specially-trained Assistance Team 
composed of experienced educators and administrators who are dedicated 
to a clear and specific goal: helping that school get back on track. 
The team begins with an intensive review of school operations to find 
out what works and what doesn't work.
  Then the team evaluates all of the school's personnel; finally, the 
team works with the school staff and local boards of education to make 
the changes necessary to restore educational quality, to improve 
student performance, basically, to turn the school around. It's a 
simple idea, but sometimes simple ideas can lead to dramatic results, 
and it has worked in North Carolina. Now other States will also have 
this same tool in their reform arsenal.
  I must confess that I am disappointed that some of our Republican 
colleagues rejected the proposal by Senators Harkin and Hagel to fully 
fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. For almost 
three decades, the Federal Government has failed to live up to its 
promise to pay 40 percent of special education costs at the local 
level. The Senate approved an eminently reasonable, bipartisan proposal 
to make good on this promise. I regret that this long-overdue provision 
is not included in the final bill.
  For all the progress we have made, my hope is that this bill will 
only be

[[Page S13377]]

the beginning of our conversation about education reform. It will take 
time to learn whether the changes we are making will work and whether 
the resources we are providing are adequate. We must commit to 
reviewing these issues periodically and consistently as the 
consequences of reform become clearer. Today we take an important first 
step towards a fundamental reform of American education. But it is only 
a first step. Even as we approve a strong bipartisan bill, we must 
commit ourselves to doing all that we can for America's children in the 
months and years to come.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
Authorization Act, the primary Federal law affecting K-12 education 
today.
  Completion of this reauthorization was a long time coming, 
considering that the original reauthorization expired last year and 
that the Senate passed its bill 6 months ago. It is critical that the 
Senate approve this report prior to adjourning for the session.
  The fact is, while education is primarily a local and State 
responsibility, the seven percent of funding the Federal Government 
does provide plays a key role in preparing today's students for 
tomorrow's workforce. We have been faced with the daunting task of 
reauthorizing and revamping the Federal Government's entire K-12 
commitment, and the passage of this conference report comes not a 
moment too soon for the young men and women of America.
  We have spent $120 billion in title I education funds over the last 
35 years, yet we have failed to close the achievement gap between 
students in high-income and low-income families. We spend near the 
maximum for students each year compared to our foreign competitors, 
$5,300 for a primary education, yet have one of the poorest test 
records in math, reading and science, with only 40 percent of grade 
school students meeting today's basic reading standards and only 20 
percent who are prepared for high school math. The cold hard truth is 
that with 89 percent of our kids in public schools, that is almost 50 
million students, we cannot afford to let this happen any longer.
  So I applaud President Bush for following through on his promises and 
making education a cornerstone of his Presidency. He has continually 
set the proper tone by making a case for ensuring that greater 
flexibility goes hand-in-hand with accountability.
  Indeed, the conference report before us creates unprecedented 
flexibility for States and local educational agencies, while increasing 
accountability to ensure that they are getting the job done.
  This reauthorization allows States to help schools that have not met 
their annual goal through the dedication of additional resources to 
help turn the school around, while guaranteeing students access to 
supplemental services to bolster their education. Students are not 
trapped in failing schools, as the conference report ensures that 
students in a failing school can transfer to another public school if 
their home school is considered to be failing for more than 1 year.
  In order to have accountability there needs to be some sort of ruler 
by which to measure the school's success. I am pleased that the 
conference report allows States to determine not only the assessment 
system but also the annual achievement goals.
  My own State of Maine has worked for several years to develop its own 
assessment system to ensure that our students, and our schools, are 
achieving. Having witnessed the evolution of Maine's Learning Results 
Program over the past several years, I would not support this 
conference report if I thought that it would interfere with Maine's 
efforts. To the contrary, I believe it would build on those efforts, 
and therefore I will support passage of the conference report. 
Additionally, passage of the conference report is supported by Maine's 
Commissioner of Education, Duke Albanese.
  My support for this package is tempered only by my disappointment 
that the conferees did fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act or IDEA. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, supported the 
inclusion of mandatory full funding for IDEA during consideration of 
the ESEA bill in the spring.
  IDEA is an unfunded mandate that is draining precious resources from 
our States and in each and every community. Twenty-six years ago, 
Congress committed to paying 40 percent of IDEA funding, and we have 
yet to come close. While Congress has more than doubled IDEA funding 
over the past 5 years, the Federal Government has not contributed more 
than 15 percent of the total cost of IDEA.
  Full funding would free up billions of dollars nationwide, and 
approximately $60 million in Maine, freeing up local and State 
education money which can then be used for other pressing needs. 
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have fought for full funding of 
IDEA and this is a fight I will not give up.
  Those conferees who opposed including the full funding provisions in 
this conference report argued that this program cannot be made 
mandatory until the program is reformed and reauthorized. Fortunately, 
IDEA is due for reauthorization next year and I will be working to 
ensure that it is fully funded.
  I appreciate the diligence of my colleagues who sit on the Senate 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in this effort, and I 
look forward to supporting this conference report and sending it to the 
President for his signature. I believe this legislation will make an 
important difference in the future of our children as well as our 
Nation.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I am very gratified that the House and 
Senate conferees included in the conference report of the elementary 
and secondary education bill the language of a resolution I introduced 
during the earlier Senate debate. That resolution concerned the 
teaching of controversies in science. It was adopted 91-8 by the 
Senate. By passing it we were showing our desire that students studying 
controversial issues in science, such as biological evolution, should 
be allowed to learn about competing scientific interpretations of 
evidence. As a result of our vote today that position is about to 
become a position of the Congress as a whole.
  When the Senate bill was first under discussion in this body, I 
referenced an excellent Utah Law Review article, Volume 2000, Number 1, 
by David K. DeWolf, Stephen C. Meyer and Mark Edward DeForrest. The 
authors demonstrate that teachers have a constitutional right to teach, 
and students to learn, about scientific controversies, so long as the 
discussion is about science, not religion or philosophy. As the 
education bill report language makes clear, it is not proper in the 
science classrooms of our public schools to teach either religion or 
philosophy. But also, it says, just because some think that contending 
scientific theories may have implications for religion or philosophy, 
that is no reason to ignore or trivialize the scientific issues 
embodied in those theories. After all, there are enormous religious and 
philosophical questions implied by much of what science does, 
especially these days. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that the 
scientific evidence behind them is examined in science classrooms. 
Efforts to shut down scientific debates, as such, only serve to thwart 
the true purposes of education, science and law.
  There is a question here of academic freedom, freedom to learn, as 
well as to teach. The debate over origins is an excellent example. Just 
as has happened in other subjects in the history of science, a number 
of scholars are now raising scientific challenges to the usual 
Darwinian account of the origins of life. Some scholars have proposed 
such alternative theories as intelligent design. In the Utah law review 
article the authors state, ``. . . The time has come for school boards 
to resist threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers, 
who teach the scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their 
efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this 
timely and compelling controversy.''
  The public supports the position we are taking today. For instance, 
national opinion surveys show--to use the origins issue again--that 
Americans overwhelmingly desire to have students learn the scientific 
arguments against, as well as for, Darwin's theory. A recent Zogby 
International poll

[[Page S13378]]

shows the preference on this as 71 percent to 15 percent, with 14 
percent undecided. The goal is academic excellence, not dogmatism. It 
is most timely, and gratifying, that Congress is acknowledging and 
supporting this objective.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased that with the passage of 
this legislation, we are on our way to assisting our Nation's schools 
in providing a quality education for each and every child. I want to 
thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg, Congressmen Boehner and Miller and 
their staffs for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that will give children the opportunity to succeed in the 
classroom.
  I am also happy to see that this legislation includes an emphasis on 
math and science education. Senator Frist, Congressman Ehlers and 
myself have worked hard to make ensure that there is a renewed focus on 
a portion of education curricula that needs addressing. Scores on the 
National Assessment for Educational Progress, NAEP, test in the subject 
area of science have not improved over the last several years and, in 
fact, have been lower than previous years test scores. Seniors in high 
school who took the 2000 NAEP science test scored, on average, three 
points lower than those taking the test in 1996. Only 18 percent 
correctly answered challenging science questions, down from 21 percent 
and those students who knew just the basics dropped to 53 percent. This 
is simply unacceptable.
  According to an Associated Press article that appeared in the Kansas 
City Star on November 20, many science teachers complain that they 
can't persuade school officials to give them the time or money required 
for training. Our math and science provision in this bill addresses 
this very problem through a variety of ways, including: one, improving 
and upgrading the status and stature of mathematics and science 
teaching by encouraging institutions of higher education to assume 
greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher 
education; two, create career-long opportunities for ongoing 
professional development for math and science teachers; three, provide 
mentoring opportunities for teachers by bringing them together with 
engineers, scientists and mathematicians; and four, develop more 
rigorous math and science curricula.
  This legislation authorizes the math and science partnerships at $450 
million in the first year. I would encourage my colleagues, especially 
in light of the recent NAEP scores, to adequately fund this program in 
order to improve the abilities of our teachers to provide good, quality 
instruction in math and science.
  We are in an age where science and technology fields are booming and 
yet we cannot produce students who even have an understanding of basic 
science principles. How can we attract students into fields that are 
experiencing dramatic shortages such as nursing or engineering when 
they don't have a good background in math and science? We have failed 
our children and I believe it is imperative to the future of our 
country to make sure that our children are adequately prepared in math 
and science subject areas.
  I am disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to provide our 
school districts the financial relief needed in the area of special 
education. I have strongly supported funding the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, at the full 40 percent and yet we 
will go another year with it being inadequately funded by the Federal 
Government. We have made dramatic improvements in the funding levels 
over the last several years. However, we are now only providing 
approximately 15 percent instead of the 40 that we said we would commit 
26 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleagues who have 
stated throughout the conference their willingness to address this 
issue next year when IDEA will be reauthorized.
  I am pleased with our overall product and will be looking forward to 
seeing results in the years to come as our States and local districts 
work to implement the reforms made in this bill. I believe the State of 
Kansas overall provides a good education for it's children and I look 
forward to seeing the quality of education in Kansas get even better.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the conference report of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 
Earlier this year, I voted in support of S. 1, the Better Education for 
Students and Teachers Act, with the belief that we were taking the 
first step toward enacting quality education reform in our nation's 
schools. My support for this legislation was to be contingent upon 
taking an essential second step providing adequate financial resources 
for carrying out these reforms. I will repeat now what I said then: 
unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources necessary for 
States to carry out the reforms outlined in the bill, we will be doing 
serious harm to our children. I am afraid that in passing this bill, we 
are headed down that very path.
  First, I want to express my strong disappointment that an amendment 
adopted during the Senate's consideration of this bill, authored by 
Senator Hatch and myself, was dropped in conference. This amendment 
would have re-authorized Department of Justice grants for new Boys and 
Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States. In 1997, I was proud to join with 
Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation authorizing 
grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs 
across the nation. Our bipartisan amendment to this education bill 
would have authorized $60 million in Department of Justice grants for 
each of the next five years, enabling the establishment of 1,200 
additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation. These new grants 
would have brought the total number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000, 
serving 6,000,000 young people by January 1, 2007.
  In my home state of Vermont, these federal grants have helped 
establish six Boys and Girls Clubs in Brattleboro, Burlington, 
Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. Together, Vermont's Boys 
and Girls Clubs have received more than $1 million in Department of 
Justice grants since 1998. I know what a great impact these after 
school opportunities have had in these communities, and it is clear to 
me that more resources must be invested in order to help our kids lead 
healthy lives and avoid the temptations of drug use. I am disappointed 
that some members of the conference committee did not want to ensure 
future funding for these successful programs.
  Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the No 
Child Left Behind Act are the expanded requirements for measuring 
student performance through annual testing of students in grades three 
through eight in math and reading. This conference report requires 
states to develop and administer this annual testing. While 
accompanying appropriations will provide the resources necessary to pay 
for a portion of the costs of developing and administering the tests, 
the funds are far less than what will be necessary, leaving Vermont and 
other states with large financial gaps to fill. At a time when our 
economy is slowing and states are facing difficult budget choices, the 
Federal Government should not be placing burdensome, unfunded mandates 
on local and state officials, especially when there are education 
funding commitments the Federal Government is still yet to meet.
  With this legislation, Congress had before it the opportunity to 
reverse its decades-long transgression in the area of special education 
funding. The conferees rejected a provision adopted during the Senate's 
consideration of the education bill that would have ensured that the 
Federal Government finally lived up to its commitment to our children 
with special needs and the communities in which they live. I am deeply 
troubled by this. When Congress first passed the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act, IDEA, the States were required to comply with the 
special education provisions, and in exchange, the Federal government 
would contribute up to 40 percent of the costs. Instead, the Federal 
contribution is generally only 12 to 15 percent, far from the promised 
40 percent. The provision included in the Senate-passed bill would have 
required the government to contribute the 40 percent by changing the 
Federal contribution from discretionary spending to mandatory. In 
Vermont, countless communities struggle each year to pass their local 
school budgets, hampered by the high

[[Page S13379]]

costs of providing special education. The actions of the conferees fail 
to provide the relief States are owed, and have instead placed 
additional mandates that State and local education officials must find 
a way to address.
  In addition to the inadequate resources provided for special 
education, and for implementation of the assessment provisions, I am 
concerned about the extensive Federal control exerted in this bill over 
the evaluation of whether a school is failing. I am particularly 
concerned about the definition of what constitutes a failing school, 
especially because this is a determination that could ultimately lead 
to the elimination of Federal funds for that school. Finally, I find 
troubling the degree to which this legislation increases Federal 
control over teacher qualification and greatly increases administrative 
paperwork for the States.
  Current statistics leave no doubt that some schools in our country 
are failing--education reform is necessary in some parts of our 
country. One of the fundamental problems with this legislation, 
however, is that in recognizing the areas in our education system that 
are failing and in need of assistance, it fails to recognize the 
successful things happening in education in some States. My state of 
Vermont leads the Nation with its innovative and effective policies for 
assessing student performance and providing necessary technical 
assistance to struggling schools. This new Federal legislation will 
require that Vermont abandon its home-grown successful tools and 
implement--at a high cost--new tools selected by Federal lawmakers that 
appear to be aimed at failing schools in our Nation's urban areas. This 
legislation will require schools to make major changes in a short 
period of time without the resources necessary to implement these 
changes. With difficult financial times ahead for many States, 
including Vermont, this Federal law will force State legislatures to 
make very difficult budget choices in order to comply with these new 
Federal mandates.
  I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone into crafting this 
legislation. I know that my colleagues all want to ensure that our 
Nation's children have access to the quality education they deserve. 
Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the legislation that has been 
pieced together does more harm than good for school children in 
Vermont. While there are some positive reforms included in the final 
measure, there is far more that will hurt Vermont's local educational 
efforts and cost the State dearly in financial resources. As the former 
chairman of the Education Committee for many years, and as a leader in 
education policy, my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, understands better than most the impact that this bill will 
have on our home State. During this debate, Senator Jeffords' continued 
perseverance on the issue of increased Federal special education 
funding has been outstanding, and I commend his tireless advocacy on 
behalf of our Nation's schoolchildren.
  I regret I am not able to support this legislation today. And I 
regret that we will likely find ourselves on the Senate floor sometime 
soon, once again discussing education reform efforts. Next time, 
though, I believe we will be here to discuss how to fix the harm we 
have done in passing the legislation before us today.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I rise to say a few words about the 
Conference report to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also 
known as the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, H.R. 1.
  First of all, I want to thank President Bush for his leadership on 
this important issue, which he has made a cornerstone of his domestic 
agenda. He is to be commended for this commitment to local control of 
education, and for ``leaving no child behind.''
  As a former civics and history teacher and school board chairman, I 
know that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local 
level, and that we should not run our public schools from Washington 
DC.
  Although the Senate's education bill, S. 1, lacked several important 
reform provisions, I voted for the bill's passage on June 14 of this 
year.
  I supported the bill because I wanted to move the ball forward to 
improve our nation's educational system. I supported the bill because I 
am tired of the status quo.
  I am tired of failing schools, and smart kids who are trapped in 
them. I am tired of money that is directed to our classrooms being 
spent on bureaucracy. I am tired of the United States' academic 
progress falling far behind that of other nations.
  The reconciled education bill will make modest but necessary and much 
needed reforms with the goal of making lasting improvements for our 
nation's schools.
  Bill Bennett, the Secretary of Education under President Ronald 
Reagan and one of the most respected leaders in the education reform 
movement, said in a recent article that there are several basic 
ingredients to a quality education for America's children. These 
ingredients are:
  First, strong leadership and excellent teachers;
  Second, principals and teachers sharing a common vision of the 
school's academic mission with clearly defined goals which are adhered 
to;
  Third, a commitment to homework and testing;
  Fourth, teaching character education; and
  Fifth, a successful school hinges on parents being involved in the 
academic lives of their children.
  I agree with Mr. Bennett completely.
  I want to first speak about funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is commonly called. I have heard from a 
number of New Hampshire constituents who are concerned about the 
Federal Government's commitment to funding our share of the costs 
associated with educating children with disabilities. IDEA does receive 
substantial funding increases in this bill. I support fully funding the 
IDEA mandate, and I am also committed to making sure that localities 
have more flexibility and that true reforms, such as cost control, are 
enacted to IDEA.
  I look forward to addressing IDEA next year when this bill is 
reauthorized by Congress. I hope to be able to offer amendments to 
reform and improve this important legislation at that time.
  I am also proud to report that this bill reflects the principles of 
two out of three amendments that I passed during consideration of S. 1. 
The first amendment requires the Department of Education to initiate a 
study on sexual abuse in our nation's schools. This is a very serious 
problem that, unfortunately, has received very little national 
attention, and I am glad that this amendment was included in the final 
bill.
  The second amendment applies ``Dollars to the Classroom'' principles 
to all Federal formula grant programs, and directs 95 percent of this 
money to the local level.
  Unfortunately, the vast majority of all federal education funds do 
not go to schools or school districts.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, audits from around the country 
have found as little as 26 percent of school district funds are being 
spent on classroom expenditures. Classroom expenditures are defined as 
expenditures for teachers and materials.
  Twenty six percent is unacceptable to me.
  Heritage also found that my home State of New Hampshire only receives 
47 cents to the dollar of federal education money. What becomes of the 
remaining 53 cents?
  Many of my colleagues believe that throwing more money at our 
education system will solve all of its problems.
  I respectfully disagree, and let me briefly tell you why.
  Over the last 36 years, the federal government has spent more than 
$130 billion to shrink the scholastic achievement gap between rich and 
poor students.
  I am here to report that not much has improved.
  Poor students lag behind their peers by 20 percent even though the 
scope of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has 
expanded.

  In fact, the average fourth grader today who comes from a low-income 
family reads at two grade levels less than his or her peer in that same 
classroom.
  One of the biggest reasons for this failure is that very little 
accountability exists for how all of this money is spent.
  Greater accountability and flexibility, not more money, is the key to 
education reform.

[[Page S13380]]

  I am also proud to report that the House/Senate agreement would 
provide all States and local school districts with the flexibility to 
shift Federal dollars earmarked for one specific purpose to other uses 
that more effectively address their needs and priorities.
  States would now be allowed to make spending decisions with up to 50 
percent of most of their non-title I administrative funds that they 
receive from the Federal Government.
  The proposal would give every State the freedom to choose alternative 
uses for these funds within certain broad guidelines; for example, 
technology funds could now be used by the state to improve teacher 
quality. States can also use Federal funding to improve education for 
disadvantaged students.
  In addition, every local school district will be able to transfer up 
to half of its non-title I funds at its discretion.
  I am also pleased to report that the proposal would also allow 150 
districts to apply for waivers from most Federal education rules and 
requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, as long as 
they obtain certain achievement levels for their lower-income students.
  Additionally, seven States will receive additional flexibility, 
making it possible for State and local education agencies to enter into 
State-local ``flexibility partnerships'' to coordinate their efforts 
and put Federal resources to their most effective use for students.
  Although these provisions fall short of what was originally 
envisioned for the Straight A's concept, I am pleased that we have a 
foundation on which to build regarding funding flexibility.
  It is my hope that these States and school districts will effectively 
demonstrate that less government heavy-handedness, with more local 
control and broader decision making power at the local level is the key 
to improving schools in this nation.
  The conference report also consolidates wasteful federal programs.
  The proposal would reduce the overall number of ESEA programs to 45, 
which is 10 fewer programs than in current law, and 34 fewer programs 
than in the Senate-passed legislation. The proposal would accomplish 
this by streamlining programs and targeting resources to existing 
programs that serve poor students.
  Additionally, H.R. 1 would, for the first time, require States to 
begin using annual statewide assessments and insisting that states show 
that progress is being made toward narrowing the achievement gap.
  National testing and federally-administered exams would be 
prohibited: States would be able to design tests that are consistent 
with its current academic standards--not Washington D.C.'s standards. 
States would need to ensure that student academic achievement results 
could be compared from year to year within the State, and federal 
funding will be provided to States so they can develop their annual 
assessments. I also believe that parents should have a choice in 
schooling options for their children. This can come in the form of tax 
credits, the option to change to another public school, or private 
school vouchers. Under the agreement reached by the House and Senate, 
approximately a portion of title I funding would, for the first time 
ever, be used to allow parents to obtain supplemental educational 
services for their children. These services include tutoring, after-
school services, and summer school programs.
  I am pleased that private, church-related and religiously-affiliated 
providers would be eligible to provide supplemental services to 
disadvantaged students. For the first time ever, Federal title I funds 
would be permitted to flow to private, faith-based educational 
providers. Another component of H.R. 1 would provide parents with the 
opportunity for a child trapped in a failing school to transfer to a 
better public school, including a charter school, with their 
transportation costs paid for. Although I would have preferred Federal 
funding being permitted to flow to private schools as well, I am glad 
that we obtained a good, first step toward the goal of greater 
accountability in our schools. H.R. 1 contains language to push States 
and local districts to take responsibility for ensuring teacher quality 
through testing and certification. It also protects teachers who are 
trying to maintain order in the classroom by shielding them from 
frivolous lawsuits. Finally, there are several provisions in the 
reconciled bill which will give rights to parents that were not 
available to them previously. Schools must now develop a policy to 
allow parents the right to inspect surveys given to their children as 
well as instructional material used as curriculum for their child's 
education. Parents must be notified about surveys and medical exams and 
will have the right to opt their child out of them. In addition, 
parents have new rights to see the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress (NAEP) test, comment on it, and to receive a response to their 
concerns. Parents may also choose to opt their child out of the NAEP 
exam.
  I am pleased with several aspects of H.R. 1, because it: Attempts to 
close the achievement gap; provides flexibility to States and school 
districts; promotes accountability and teacher excellence; increases 
parental involvement; provides for a limited education choice 
component; and finally, this legislation returns decisions regarding 
education back to the local level, where they belong.
  Our children are the future of this Nation. Now, more than ever, we 
need to guarantee that they will receive a quality education and that 
federal money will flow to where it is most effective. We need to 
support our kinds and push them to excel. We need to equip teachers to 
effectively educate our children. And we need to empower parents to be 
more involved in the lives of their children. Although there are still 
aspects of the conference report that I wish were stronger, I am 
pleased that we are taking incremental steps to raise the grades for 
our Nation's schools.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when we first began the debate on the 
education reauthorization bill, I came to the floor calling for three 
simple things--reform, resources, and results.
  Overall, I believe this education bill makes a significant step 
toward achieving these three goals, and I want to highlight some of the 
bill's important provisions.
  The bill includes improved targeting of federal funds to the neediest 
communities and increases support for Limited English Proficient and 
migrant students.
  It continues our federal commitment to improve public schools by 
reducing class sizes and overcrowding in order to provide safe and 
orderly places for learning. This will improve the performance of 
students and teachers in our public schools.
  Because I am a firm believer in school testing and accountability 
standards when properly structured, I am pleased that my colleagues 
were able to reach a compromise so that the federal government will pay 
its fair share in supporting the new standards in schools.
  This bill also maintains the emergency school repair and construction 
program, and ensures that every classroom will be led by a qualified 
teacher.
  But the provision of this bill of which I am most pleased is the 
Title V provision on afterschool programs. This Title includes the 
afterschool amendment that I offered with my colleague Senator Ensign.
  Studies have shown that services such as afterschool programs are 
some of the most important weapons against juvenile crime by keeping 
our kids out of the streets.
  Afterschool programs provide academically-enriched services during 
the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., which the FBI reports are the times 
when children are most likely to be involved in crimes and other 
delinquent behavior.
  This is why I strongly believe in the 21 Century Community Learning 
Centers program and am delighted that this authorization bill contains 
the first ever multi-year authorization for afterschool services.
  Although my amendment would have provided a total of $4.5 billion in 
funding for fiscal year 2008, I am extremely pleased that this bill 
makes a significant step forward in achieving this goal by authorizing 
over $300 million in additional funds for fiscal year 2002 for a total 
of $1.25 billion. This bill then increases funding levels by $250 
million each year for the next five years.
  This will allow for a total of $2.5 billion in 2007 and will provide 
nearly four

[[Page S13381]]

million children in need access to afterschool programs.
  Finally, I want to mention one thing this bill does not include that 
it should. The federal government needs to meet its commitment by 
contributing 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure toward the 
funding of special education programs.
  Providing full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities in 
Education Act would have helped alleviate some of the strain placed 
upon school districts to educate both regular and special education 
students.
  While I regret that we were not able to include mandatory full 
funding for special education programs, I know that my colleagues and I 
will not rest until this finally becomes a reality.
  Reform plus Resources equals Results. This is the recipe to a 
successful public school system. Just like any good recipe, we cannot 
reasonably expect to have a successful public education system if we 
are not willing to put forth the necessary resources.
  I believe that this Education Reauthorization bill symbolizes the 
willingness of all parties to put aside their differences and work 
toward the betterment of our children.
  Make no mistake, we still have a long way to go toward fully 
supporting our public education system, but I believe that this bill is 
a positive step forward in achieving this goal.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the final 
conference report on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, 
and I commend Senator Kennedy and all the conferees for their hours of 
negotiations to forge consensus on this vital legislation.
  This package outlines our major Federal framework for education 
policy for the coming years. The bill requires new emphasis on 
achievement through annual testing and school report cards, but it also 
calls for new investments to reach these higher education goals. We 
must have higher education standards. This bill creates new goals 
through the Adequate Yearly Progress, AYP, standards, which charts a 
12-year strategy to achieve education goals, with meaningful 
measurement along the way, to ensure that all children, especially 
disadvantaged students, get help and make strides. Students in schools 
that are struggling and fail to meet the standards will have the option 
of after-school tutoring, which is a good compromise to ensure help to 
students without using controversial private school vouchers that drain 
needed resources from public schools.
  While high standards are crucial, it takes real resources to achieve 
them. This legislation authorizes meaningful increases in title I 
funding for disadvantaged schools and IDEA. This year, West Virginia 
received $73.7 million in title I funding. Today's legislation 
authorizes new investments in title I; depending on the final 
negotiations in the pending Labor-HHS-Education appropriation 
conference, West Virginia will receive between $78.8 million to $80.9 
million for title I, which will be essential to achieving our new 
goals. However, pushing for the additional resources is not a single 
event; it will mean hard work on appropriations for the next 6 years. I 
am committed to working with Senator Kennedy and others to deliver on 
the needed funding to fulfill our promises on education.
  This is a major legislative initiative. I particularly want to note 
the emphasis on reading for young children. Teaching a child to read, 
and read well, is a fundamental building block for education. We should 
be proud of the bill's provisions highlighting reading and literacy, 
and its special support for reading programs for preschool and early 
grades. I am also pleased about the new emphasis on drop-prevent 
programs and parental involvement. In addition, this legislation 
protects and continues some key education programs, including the Safe 
and Drug-Free School program which I worked to create more than a 
decade ago. We all understand the importance of school safety and 
protecting children from the dangers of drugs and alcohol.
  Our bill requires that all teachers be qualified in their subjects by 
the school year beginning in 2005. This will be a challenge in West 
Virginia and many States, especially in crucial subject areas like math 
and science. When I talk with business leaders in my State, they bring 
up the importance and the difficulties of attracting teachers who are 
qualified, especially in math and science. Given the national shortage 
of teachers, this will be hard to achieve, but we simply must ensure 
that our teachers are qualified in their subjects if we hope to achieve 
the adequate yearly progress standards.
  In the Senate, we voted to fulfill our Federal commitment to fully 
fund the IDEA program, which suggests that the Federal Government pay 
40 percent of the costs of educating children with disabilities. 
However, while progress was made on better funding for IDEA, we did not 
reach the Senate goal of full mandatory funding, and this is a real 
disappointment to me.
  We need accountability and high standards, but we also need 
investments to achieve those key goals. This legislation provides the 
framework for success. It will up to President Bush and the Congress to 
work together over the coming years to secure the investment needed to 
fill in this bold plan for education reform.
  Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on one of 
the most important pieces of legislation that we have debated this 
year. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act has provided the 
framework for the Federal role in education for more than 35 years. The 
conference report currently before us, the ``No Child Left Behind 
Act,'' will chart the course for the Federal role in education for the 
next 6 years and beyond.
  I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting 
our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. The Federal Government 
has an important role to play in supporting our States and school 
districts as they carry out one of their most important 
responsibilities, the education of our children.
  Every child in this country has the right to a free public education. 
Every child. That is an awesome responsibility, and one that should not 
have to be shouldered by local communities alone. The States and the 
Federal Government are partners in this worthy goal, and ESEA is the 
document that outlines the Federal Government's responsibilities to our 
Nation's children, to those who educate them, and to our States and 
local school districts.
  It is with this conference report that we must find the right balance 
between local control and Federal targeting and accountability 
guidelines for the Federal dollars that are so crucial to local school 
districts throughout the United States.
  I remain opposed to the new federally-mandated annual tests in grades 
3-8. I am concerned that adding another layer of testing could result 
in a generation of students who know how to take tests, but who don't 
have the skills necessary to become successful adults. I am pleased 
that the conference committee retained a Senate provision to ensure 
that the tests that are used are of a high quality and that the 
conference included language to ensure that the test results are easy 
to understand and are useful for teachers and school districts to help 
improve student achievement.
  I fear that this new annual testing requirement will 
disproportionately affect disadvantaged students. We should ensure that 
all students have an equal opportunity to succeed in school. I am 
pleased that this conference report authorizes a 20-percent increase in 
title I funding for fiscal year 2002 and that it authorizes additional 
increases for this crucial funding in each of the next 5 years, 2003-
2007. I am also pleased that the conference report includes language to 
ensure that these dollars are targeted to students who need them the 
most. I will continue to work to ensure that Title I is fully funded.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes language to ensure 
that the States will not have to implement or administer this new 
Federal testing mandate unless the Federal Government provides a 
specific amount of funding. While the true cost of this mandate is 
still unclear, it is clear that the Federal Government should provide 
adequate funding for this new requirement.
  I regret that the House-Senate conference voted to strip a Senate 
provision that would have guaranteed full funding of the federal share 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This action, 
coupled with the new Federal testing mandate, could

[[Page S13382]]

push already stretched local education budgets to the breaking point. I 
will continue to work for fiscally responsible full funding of the 
Federal share of IDEA when the Senate considers reauthorization of that 
important law next year.
  This debate gave Congress the opportunity to strengthen public 
education in America. Unfortunately, many of the provisions contained 
in the conference may undermine public education by blurring the lines 
between public and private, between church and state, and between local 
control and Federal mandates. Because this conference does not provide 
the resources necessary to implement its goals, it will leave many 
children behind. For those reasons, I will vote against it.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 
President Bush has provided the leadership for this landmark education 
reform bill. I also commend the conference members and Senate 
leadership on forging an agreement that revises and improves the role 
of the Federal Government in the education of our children.
  The education of the children and youth of our Nation is a cause I 
have served for many years. In fact, my first job, upon graduation from 
Clemson, was as a teacher and coach. Later, I served as the County 
Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, SC. There have been 
many changes over the years within the educational system of our Nation 
in structure, policy, technology and methods. However, there are 
principles which remain constant. The fundamentals of successful 
teaching, caring teachers, prepared students, and involved parents, 
have not changed. This conference report builds on those fundamentals.
  This legislation reflects the principles set down by President Bush 
in his education reform proposal. While it does not include all that we 
might have wished, I believe that it will serve the students of the 
Nation well. The President asked us to link funding to scholastic 
achievement and accountability, expand parental options, maintain local 
control, and improve the flexibility of Federal educational programs. 
This conference report delivers on all of these reforms.
  First, I am very pleased with the accountability provisions of this 
legislation. I believe the testing and reporting provisions are the 
most promising reforms. School performance reports and statewide 
results will give parents and educators much-needed information about 
their students' progress. These provisions, along with the expanded 
school choice provisions, should provide our schools with sufficient 
incentives to make improvements.
  The streamlining of Department of Education programs will allow local 
schools to focus on educating children rather than filing paperwork. As 
a former Governor, I am especially pleased that the legislation will 
also enhance local control by allowing local school boards more 
discretion in how they spend their education funds.
  In addition, the legislation authorizes a number of specific programs 
which I supported as the Senate debated this bill and I am pleased to 
see these included in the conference report. The President's Early 
Reading First program will help boost reading readiness for children in 
high-poverty areas. The Troops-to-Teachers Program is an innovative 
approach to bring experienced individuals into the classroom and helps 
our former Servicemembers with their transition to civilian life. 
Finally, I strongly supported an amendment, the `'Boy Scouts of America 
Equal Access Act.'' This provision will ensure that our patriotic youth 
groups will be allowed access to public schools.
  In South Carolina, while we are improving in our educational 
performance, we have a long way to go. This legislation, will greatly 
assist us in our goal to leave no South Carolina child behind. Again, I 
thank the President for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to 
join in my support of this legislation which will help improve the 
education of the youth and children of our great Nation.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if there is one thing that the Senate 
can agree on, it is the obligation we have to help prepare our children 
for the future. Even as we recognize the importance of education, we 
must ask ourselves, if this government function is so important, how do 
we best meet this obligation?
  This bill does not meet our children's education needs in the best 
way possible. This bill throws money at problems that can ultimately 
only be resolved by more parental involvement, and it violates our 
Nation's long-held tradition of federalism in which duties not 
expressly assigned to the Federal Government are assigned to the State 
and local level. By seeking to abolish the role that State and local 
governments, specifically locally elected school boards, have in our 
children's education, I fear will put us on the slippery slope to the 
eventual federalization of all education in this country.
  Despite its grave faults, the conference report to H.R. 1, the Better 
Education for Students and Teachers Act contains several provisions 
that I favor.
  The bill contains a modest performance partnership provision that 
will help us build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act that I 
worked to help pass in the 106th Congress that allows States to 
consolidate Federal education programs to meet local needs.
  H.R. 1 also expands local flexibility and control by block-granting 
funds, consolidating many programs, and includes another amendment that 
I sponsored to allow local districts to spend title II funds, if they 
desire, on pupil services personnel.
  On balance, however, these token allowances to local control are 
insufficient to outweigh the all out assault on local control 
represented by this bill.
  As a former Governor and mayor, I've seen how well State and local 
governments can respond to the needs of the people they serve. The 
Federal Government cannot and does not have a better understanding of 
how to serve the millions of students in local school districts across 
this great country. That is the responsibility of sovereign local 
school boards working together with parents, educators and community 
leaders. Congress is not the national school board and any attempt by 
it to play that role will result in a Federal curriculum of one-size-
fits-all programs that fail to prepare a nation of students for the 
challenges ahead.
  Our forefathers specifically warned us against the urge to federalize 
in the 10th amendment:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are 
     reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.''

  Education is one such responsibility. Since our country's creation, 
those at the local level have been responsible for educating our 
children. In fact, only in the past 35 years has the Federal Government 
even had much of a role in education policy, albeit a small one.
  The reason for this is that the educational environments of our 
children greatly vary by region, just as the economies of our Nation's 
regions greatly vary. Therefore, universal education solutions will 
always elude us.
  As my colleagues know, the Federal Government currently provides 
approximately 7 percent of all money spent on education in America, 
while 93 percent is spent by local and State educators. Indeed, in 
spite of this limited expenditure of Federal funds, Congress is saying 
with this bill that the Federal Government has the right to dictate 
that every school district in America will test their students from 
grades 3 through 8.
  This testing will occur regardless of how well students are 
performing in their particular school districts, and despite the fact 
that most of our states have mechanisms already in place that test 
students' educational performances.
  I can assure you that there are many teachers in Ohio who are going 
to be saying, ``here we go again.'' We already have in place statewide 
standardized tests in Ohio, which were controversial enough when they 
were established, I speak from first-hand experience here. Yet these 
tests have been good measures of the progress students are making and 
were, in fact, recently revised to be even more effective. Even these 
statewide tests have been criticized by local voices, however, for 
being too centralized to be effective. That's because the tradition of 
local control of education is zealously guarded in our Nation and will 
not be easily surrendered.

[[Page S13383]]

  This bill also steps on State and local control in its provisions 
addressing failing schools. What this bill fails to appreciate is that 
many states, such as my home State of Ohio, are already addressing the 
needs of failing schools by increasing accountability, measuring school 
performance, building the capacity of local schools and district 
leaders, and providing significant resource assistance to low-
performing and at-risk schools.
  Also under H.R. 1, the Federal Government would be able to tell 
States that its teachers in many schools must meet certain Federal 
qualification and certification requirements.
  Further, the Federal Government would tell school districts how to 
spend funds in a number of areas including: reading; teacher 
development; technology; and programs for students with limited English 
language skills, instead of providing States and local school districts 
with full flexibility to spend funds on their own identified 
priorities.
  Many groups, from the American Association of School Administrators 
to the National Conference of State Legislators are opposing passage of 
this conference report, in large part because of its increase in the 
scope and influence of the Federal Government into education matters 
best left to our States and localities.
  None of these provisions are, on their face, bad for education. What 
is troubling is the direction in which these measures lead us. Make no 
mistake, with this bill we take a giant leap forward toward 
federalizing our education system. We should not let Federal 
bureaucrats become the national school board.
  Besides violating a long-held principle regarding State and local 
control over schools, the bill's fatal flaw is that it increases 
authorized spending for education by more than 41 percent over last 
year's budget.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, ESEA spending 
totaled $18.6 billion in fiscal year 2001. The total authorization 
level for this conference report for fiscal year 2002 is $26.3 billion. 
If this level of funding is appropriated, that is more than a 41-
percent increase. However, according to CRS, 16 of the programs listed 
in this ESEA bill are listed at unspecified authorization levels, and, 
therefore, are not included in that $26.3 billion level. So the final 
cost to the taxpayer may well be higher.
  When you consider that the House and Senate agreed to a budget 
resolution that included a modest increase in Federal spending over 
last year's budget of approximately 5 percent, it's obvious that if we 
are to fund ESEA with a 41-percent increase, many legitimate functions 
that are the true responsibility of the Federal Government may not be 
met. Our situation has been exacerbated by a war and a recession.
  The response to these concerns are, of course, ``But Senator 
Voinovich, are you saying that our children do not deserve all that we 
can provide them?'' My response to that shallow criticism is, in fact, 
``Yes, our children deserve all that we can provide them, such as a 
strong military, and adequate funding for transportation and health 
research, prescription drugs and unemployment insurance and all the 
myriad other worthy efforts in which the Federal Government engages.''
  We pursue this bill and provide this unsustainable amount of funding 
authorization as if our Federal Government has no other obligations. In 
a perfect world, I would love to be able to provide this much money for 
education, but a perfect world isn't governed by a budget resolution 
and a perfect world doesn't come with other expensive priorities that 
must fit within a finite pool of dollars.
  It is high-time for Congress to stand-up and show that it has the 
courage to be fiscally responsible, to prioritize our spending on the 
basis of those responsibilities that are truly Federal in nature, and 
to make the tough choices. It is completely irresponsible to issue new 
debt and further burden our children in the name of preparing them for 
their futures. The two are irreconcilable and highlight one of the 
major faults of this bill.
  While I realize that the conference report to H.R. 1 will pass and 
will likely be signed into law, I cannot in good conscience vote in 
favor of this legislation. It is a well-intentioned bill but spends far 
too much money at a time when we can least afford it, and on priorities 
that are better left to our State and local governments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the No Child Left Behind Act provides the 
authorization for Federal assistance to States for the education of the 
children of our Nation.
  I support this conference report, and I am pleased with the emphasis 
on flexibility it permits for State and local educators. I appreciate 
very much the courtesies shown to me during the consideration of this 
bill by the chairman, Mr. Kennedy, and ranking member, Mr. Gregg, of 
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The conference 
report includes several programs which are of particular interest to 
me, and were the subject of an amendment I offered and was accepted by 
the Senate during our initial consideration of H.R. 1.
  The National Writing Project is one such program. This provides 
teacher training in the effective teaching of writing at 164 sites 
located in 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It has 
been a Federal program for 10 years, and is the only Federal assistance 
program aimed at writing.
  Another area of interest is targeted to young children before they 
begin school, and helps ensure they are ready to learn when they arrive 
at school. The public television program, Ready to Learn, was launched 
in 1994, and was initially authorized by legislation authored by the 
chairman and myself. The essence of Ready to Learn is a full day of 
non-violent, commercial-free, educational children's television 
programming broadcast free of charge to every American household. This 
daily broadcast includes some of the most popular, award-winning and 
engaging programming available today such as Arthur, Clifford, and 
Reading Between the Lions.
  Other programs that have proved to be of great assistance to local 
school districts which are included provide grants for arts, civics, 
and foreign language education. These grants enable schools to provide 
enhanced, competitive education opportunities to students in all parts 
of the country.
  I am especially pleased with the opportunities authorized in reading 
instruction and assessment. The bill provides incentives to schools to 
seek out programs with research based and proven methods as described 
by the National Reading Panel.
  Also authorized is funding for the National Board of Teaching 
Standards, which is responsible for providing a voluntary assessment 
base for teachers in all disciplines. This is a very sought after 
resource for professional development as well as assessment. The 
teachers in my State, for example, are given financial incentive to 
seek the certification of the board. Teachers report that the process 
for the certification makes them better and happier teachers.
  These are a few of the programs in which I've been personally 
involved throughout the consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  I am very hopeful that the new education authorizations and the 
reauthorization of effective education programs will bring better 
learning opportunities to all of America's students.
  Mr. NELSON OF Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to announce my 
opposition to this conference report.
  During my campaign for the Senate last year I promised the people of 
Nebraska that if George W. Bush occupied the White House, I would 
support him when I believed he was right, and oppose him when I thought 
he was wrong. In my first year in the Senate, I have worked with the 
Bush administration to negotiate a tax cut, craft a compromise on a 
Patient's Bill of Rights, and, recently, negotiate an economic stimulus 
package. I have kept my promise to work with President Bush when he is 
right, and now I must keep my promise to oppose him when he is wrong.
  As Governor of Nebraska, I repeatedly protested the Federal 
Government's practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on the 
States, requiring the States to do something without providing the 
adequate funding for them to do it.
  The President's plan will impose a massive unfunded mandate on 
Nebraska in the form of annual testing,

[[Page S13384]]

and it fails to provide relief from a previous mandate imposed by the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Because of these mandates, 
I do not believe that the President's plan will improve education in 
Nebraska and I am deeply concerned that it may likely cause greater 
financial harm.
  The lack of IDEA funding is the bill's biggest failure, and my 
primary reason for opposing it. When Congress passed the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, it promised to pay 40 percent 
of the cost of educating children with special needs. Since then, it 
has never contributed more than 15 percent of the funding for special 
education, with the States left to cover the shortfall, placing a 
greater strain on local property taxes.
  When the Senate originally passed this bill in June, it included an 
amendment by Senators Harkin and Hagel to finally require the Federal 
Government to pay its 40 percent share of the costs of special 
education. Unfortunately, the final version does not include the 
Harkin-Hagel plan, depriving the State of Nebraska more than $300 
million over the next 5 years. The failure to fully fund IDEA short 
changes not only the services provided to students with disabilities, 
but all students by forcing reductions in other State and local 
education programs.
  The bill will also impose costly, burdensome, and, some would argue, 
duplicative annual testing requirements on Nebraska's schools. The 
President has said that these tests will provide accountability for 
schools that fail to properly educate their students, but Nebraska 
schools are already holding themselves accountable.
  We have a rigorous program of standards and assessments in place and 
our students consistently rank among the best in the Nation. Local 
schools and community leaders have worked hard with the State 
Department of Education to put this system in place and we know it is 
working. The State of Nebraska has no reservations about being held 
accountable for educating its students. But I believe the people of 
Nebraska have every right to demand accountability from the Federal 
Government and I do not believe they are getting it with this bill.
  This legislation will require Nebraska to develop and administer a 
dozen additional tests each year to be in compliance but it does not 
provide adequate funding to do so. Across the Nation, fewer than a 
third of the States have assessments in place that will satisfy the 
requirements of this bill. But States are already spending in excess of 
the $400 million provided by the bill on their assessment programs, 
before you factor in the new tests. We know from the outset that this 
is going to cost States a considerable amount of money at a time when 
taxpayer dollars are already scarce.
  That is not my idea of accountability. Combined with the failure to 
fully fund IDEA this marks a retreat from accountability.
  The National Governors Association recently announced that 
collectively the States will report a $35 billion deficit this year. In 
2001, the State of Nebraska suffered a $220 million budget shortfall. 
To make up for the shortfall caused by these unfunded mandates, local 
governments will have to dramatically cut education spending, or 
significantly increase property taxes. As a former Governor who has had 
to deal with the challenges of balancing State budgets, neither of 
these options is acceptable in my estimation.
  This will be a difficult vote for me. The President and most of my 
colleagues, both Democrat and Republican support this legislation. I 
know that my colleagues have worked very hard to reach this agreement 
and I appreciate their hard work. There are some victories to 
celebrate. The bill provides a significant increase in overall funding, 
better targeting of title I resources, greater flexibility, some 
additional funding for rural schools, and mentoring legislation that I 
worked on with Congressman Osborne.
  But on balance, I do not believe that these ultimately outweigh the 
financial problems that the plan will create within local schools and 
the State budget, and accordingly, I must vote no on this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support, with some reservations, the the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization conference 
report, which the Senate is about to overwhelmingly adopt. While I 
support this legislation as a whole, I continue to have some concerns 
about testing provisions which it contains, and I believe that the 
Congress must monitor the impact of these provisions on students. I 
also regret that the Senate provision requiring Congress to fully fund 
the 40 percent of special education costs, was not retained in the 
conference report. Keeping this commitment is critical and we must 
address this issue next year during reauthorization of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
  Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has sought to 
help our K thru 12 students learn in an appropriate learning 
environment as well as assist school communities in meeting new and 
growing challenges. The work that we have concluded today seeks to help 
all students make progress toward reaching their full potential. It 
sets high standards for all children and provides flexible Federal 
support that focuses on initiatives that we know are effective, such 
as: smaller classes, high quality teachers, after-school programs, 
technology and technology training for teachers, targeting resources to 
title I for educationally disadvantaged students, support for students 
with limited English proficiency, an expanded reading program, a strong 
Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, and guarantees of a quality 
education for homeless kids. Therefore, on balance, I believe this is a 
good bill, not just because of what it does, but because of what it 
does not do. We successfully defeated vouchers, block grants, the 
repeal of After-School programs and the repeal of funding for emergency 
school repair and construction.
  I am especially pleased that this compromise reform legislation 
provides some needed support to low performing schools. Struggling 
schools will be identified for extra help so that school improvement 
funds can be targeted where they are most needed. Students would have 
the option of attending other schools, including public charter 
schools. The legislation authorizes $500 million in direct grants to 
local school districts to help improve low-performing schools most in 
need of assistance. It sets a 12-year goal for States and schools to 
close the achievement gaps between rich and poor, and minority and non-
minority students. The bill also ensures that parents will have better 
information about their local schools through annual report cards and 
strong parent involvement.
  The Reading First provisions of the legislation authorize an 
important new initiative that provides nearly $1 billion for States and 
local school districts to improve reading education, and help teachers 
get ready to ensure that all children become proficient readers. I am 
pleased that an amendment I offered, to permit funds under this program 
to be used for family literacy programs, was retained. The conference 
report also retained two additional amendments that I offered to ensure 
that teachers are trained to effectively use technology in the 
classroom to improve teaching and learning.
  Though not all that I had hoped for, this bipartisan legislation 
contains reforms that seeks to provide all of our students with a much 
greater opportunity to learn and to succeed.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, today the Senate will vote to pass 
comprehensive education reform legislation in the form of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 2001.
  This important legislation contains the Native American Education 
Improvement Act of 2001 which I was proud to have introduced in January 
2000, along with Senator Inouye, to improve the education of Native 
American youth across the country.
  I would first like to thank the Bush administration and the conferees 
for working with the Indian Affairs Committee to work on the Indian 
portion of this legislation to benefit the schools in Indian country 
and the education of Native children.
  In 1965, Congress passed The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
ESEA, which is broad-sweeping legislation that provides funding for 
various educational programs in an effort to assist underprivileged 
students and school districts. While the original focus of ESEA was to 
be a supplemental source for needy public schools,

[[Page S13385]]

the ESEA now provides funds to and affects virtually every public 
school in the nation.
  As a former teacher and one who knows all-too-well the problems faced 
by Indian youngsters, I strongly believe that education holds the key 
to individual accomplishment, the promotion of developed Native 
communities, and real self determination.
  I believe that the Native American Education Improvement Act of 2001 
is legislation that improves the conditions and operations of Bureau 
and tribally-operated schools.
  This act represents more than 2 years' worth of committee hearings to 
develop a comprehensive set of reforms that address all areas of BIA 
and tribally-operated schools in issues that include accreditation, 
accountability, the recruitment of Indian teachers, and the 
construction of Indian schools.
  I note that this legislation contains an innovative specification 
requiring accreditation. Twenty-four months after enactment of this 
act, Bureau funded schools must be accredited or in the process of 
obtaining accreditation by one of the following: an approved tribal 
accrediting body; or a regional accreditation agency; or in accordance 
with State accreditation standards.
  The act also requires a report to be completed by the Secretary of 
Education and Secretary of Interior in consultation with tribes and 
Indian education organizations leading to the establishment of a 
``National Tribal Accrediting Agency.''
  Quality assurance mechanisms are included in this act regarding the 
failure of a school to achieve or maintain accreditation and any 
underlying staffing, curriculum, or other programmatic problems in the 
school that contributed to the lack of or loss of accreditation.
  Indian kids around the country need a solid education that will give 
them the tools they need to excel in today's competitive world. With 
the passage of this act the Senate declares that it will no longer 
tolerate schools that fail, year after year, with no consequences to 
the schools but plenty of consequences for the children.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, one of the most important issues facing 
our Nation continues to be the education of our children. Providing a 
solid, quality education for each and every child is critical not only 
to the prosperity of our Nation in the years ahead, but also to 
ensuring that all our children reach their full potential.
  Whether we work in the private sector or in government, we all have 
an obligation to develop and implement initiatives that strengthen the 
quality of education we offer our children. It is essential that we 
provide our children with the essential academic tools they need to 
succeed professionally, economically and personally.
  Unfortunately, we can no longer take for granted that our children 
are learning to master even the most basic skill of reading. A recent 
survey reported that less than one-third of fourth- graders in America 
are ``proficient readers.'' In fact, 40 million Americans cannot fill 
out a job application or read a menu in a restaurant much less a 
computer menu. In this high-tech information age, these Americans will 
be lost and that is unacceptable.
  In addition, American children lack basic knowledge of their Nation's 
cultural and historical traditions. For example, a recent report 
indicated that half of American high school seniors did not know when 
Lincoln was President; did not know the significance of ``Brown v. 
Board of Education''; and had no understanding of the aims of American 
foreign policy, either before or after World War II.
  Since the tragic events of September 11, the American people, 
especially our young citizens, have demonstrated through their courage 
and generosity that they are prepared to meet the challenges that face 
our Nation. But we must help them in their quest for knowledge and 
instruction.
  We must work to ensure that our students do not continue down the 
path of cultural illiteracy and educational under-performance. But how? 
Well, one major step in the right direction is to take away power from 
education bureaucrats and return it to those on the front lines of 
education--the local schools, the local teachers and the local parents.
  Fortunately, the education authorization bill before the Senate today 
is a step in that direction. This bill provides support and guidance to 
our State and local communities to strengthen our schools, while also 
giving much needed flexibility for every State related to the use of 
Federal education dollars. This education bill contains many 
initiatives that will help ensure that more Federal education dollars 
reach our classrooms rather than being lost in bureaucratic black hole.

  This bill also strives to improve the quality of our Nation's 
teaching force by allocating $3 billion for recruiting and training 
good teachers. We must ensure that our teachers are continually 
improving their skills and retain their desire to teach. We also need 
to ensure that we recruit the brightest and enthusiastic students into 
the teaching profession.
  This measure helps make schools more accommodating and friendly for 
parents. In addition, it works to ensure that parents are better 
informed about the public education system by providing pertinent 
information regarding their child's school. Annual report cards 
pertaining to each school's specific performance, along with statewide 
performance results, will be available for public view.
  One of the most important factors in our children's success in school 
is parental involvement. Parents are our first teachers. Our first 
classroom is the home, where we learn the value of hard work, respect, 
and the difference between right and wrong. As I have said before, the 
home is the most important Department of Education.
  Parental involvement is the best guarantee that a child will succeed 
in school. I am genuinely excited when I think of the many reforms 
taking place across the country--namely school vouchers and charter 
schools--that are wisely built on this premise: Let parents decide 
where their children's educational needs will best be met.
  In the broadest sense, this is what school choice is all about.
  School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded 
opportunities for our children to get a quality education. Our public 
school system has many good schools, but there are many schools that 
are broken. Instead of serving as a gateway to advancement, these 
schools have become dead-end places of despair and low achievement. In 
urban settings, the subject performance of 17-year-old African-American 
and Hispanic students is at the same level as 13-year-old-white 
students. This is an unacceptable and embarrassing failure on the part 
of our public schools.
  Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where 
school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority school 
children are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: 
test scores and performance are up.
  We need more such experiments, and I am gravely disappointed that 
this authorization bill failed to contain such a provision. Repeatedly, 
I have proposed legislation for a 3-year Nationwide test of the voucher 
program. It would be funded not by draining money away from the public 
schools but by eliminating Federal pork barrel spending and corporate 
tax loopholes.
  This is an important component that sadly was left out of this 
measure. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to provide parents and our students with choices to ensure 
that our children, no matter what their family's income, have access to 
the best possible education for their unique academic needs.
  Finally, I am very disappointed that the conferees eliminated an 
important provision adopted during the Senate debate that would have 
ensured that the federal government finally fulfill its obligation to 
fund 40 percent of the cost for meeting the special educational needs 
of our nation's children through the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
  My dear friend and colleague, Senator Hagel, fought valiantly for 
this provision but unfortunately it was watered down. This is 
unacceptable. Congress needs to follow the laws it makes and provide 
full funding for the Federal portion of IDEA. We ask our schools to 
educate children with disabilities, but we don't give them enough money 
for the expensive evaluations, equipment and services needed to do 
that. There

[[Page S13386]]

are 6 million children that receive special education funding, so let's 
fully support their academic needs.
  James Madison once wrote that without an educated electorate, the 
American experiment would become ``a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps 
both.'' Let us stop the slide in the performance of our students. Let 
us return the control of education to our local communities. Let us 
renew our trust in our parents and teachers and do what is best for our 
children.
  This is why I am supporting this measure today. While it could be 
strengthened, the bill does make needed strides to improve our Nation's 
schools.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to put my full support behind 
the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act.
  It has been a true honor to serve on the conference committee for 
this important legislation, especially as a freshman Member of the 
Senate.
  I would first thank the leaders of the conference for their hard work 
and determination to complete this legislation for the President's 
signature this year. Senators Kennedy and Gregg worked every day with 
great determination on this legislation without partisan rancor, and 
Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller showed the same 
determination and steadfastness.
  I am pleased that Congress has finally completed action on one of 
President Bush's top domestic priorities this year. President Bush and 
Secretary Paige deserve commendation for their commitment not only to 
this legislation, but also to the education of our Nation's children. 
Never before has a President shown such commitment to the issue of 
education.
  In March I addressed this body for the first time as a U.S. Senator 
on the topic of education. Little did I know the opportunity I would be 
given to be a member of the conference committee to reauthorize of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  At that time I stated the following:

       Our public schools are failing our children. And unless we 
     address this problem now--today--we will bear the 
     consequences for a generation or more. Let's not forget: 
     today's students are tomorrow's leaders--in business, 
     technology, engineering, government and every other field. If 
     even the brightest of our young people can't compete in the 
     classroom with their colleagues abroad in math and science, 
     how will they be able to compete with them as adults in the 
     world of business? How can we expect them to develop into the 
     innovators America needs to maintain--and, yes, expand--her 
     dominant role in the global marketplace? We need to make sure 
     every single student in America graduates with the basic 
     skills in communications, math, and information technology 
     that are necessary to excel in the New Economy. As a nation, 
     we simply cannot afford to accept the status quo.
  With the passage of this legislation I believe that our schools will 
improve. And if they fail, there will be consequences. This legislation 
states loud and clear that the status quo is not acceptable. Students 
will have the opportunities to be tomorrow's leaders by having access 
to technology and other advanced programs that are needed for continued 
excellence. Our disadvantaged children will be given the assistance 
they need, and deserve, to succeed in the global marketplace of the 
future.
  In that same speech I mentioned that my home State of Nevada faces 
many obstacles in obtaining title I funds for our eligible children. 
Title I dollars are the largest source of assistance that states 
receive from the Federal Government.
  The No Child Left Behind Act will be particularly beneficial to title 
I eligible students in my home State of Nevada by recognizing that 
families move around and children are often unaccounted for when 
Federal funds are dispensed from the Federal Government to States. The 
State of Nevada has been particularly hard hit in the past when the 
most recent and accurate ``kid counts'' were not available.
  It is our responsibility to ensure that title I dollars are properly 
and fairly sent to each State. My population update provision, that is 
an important part of this legislation, will ensure that this happens 
every year. As a member of the conference committee, I worked hard to 
ensure that this provision I offered as an amendment during the 
Senate's consideration of this legislation was included in the final 
bill. This amendment requires the Department of Commerce and the 
Department of Education to produce annually updated data on the number 
of title I eligible children in each state so that title I dollars can 
be accurately allocated to the States.
  The annual population update provision in this legislation states:

       The Secretary shall use annually updated data, for purposes 
     of carrying out section 1124, on the number of children, aged 
     5 to 17, inclusive, from families below the poverty level for 
     counties or local educational agencies published by the 
     Department of Commerce. . . .

  To further clarify this language, the following statement is included 
in the conference report that accompanies this legislation:

       The Conferees strongly urge the Department of Education and 
     the Department of Commerce to work collaboratively to produce 
     annually updated data on the number of poor children as soon 
     as possible, but not later than March 2003. The conferees 
     believe it is imperative that the departments use annually 
     updated data, as produced by the Department of Commerce, as 
     provided for in the Conference agreement. The Conferees 
     recognize that additional resources will likely be necessary 
     to produce annually updated data and therefore expect the 
     Departments of Commerce and Education to submit budget 
     requests that reflect the efforts that will be necessary 
     to carry out this new responsibility.

  It is imperative that the Secretary recognizes the vital importance 
of this provision to children not only in Nevada, but also in every 
other State in the Nation. After all, these funds represent the largest 
source of Federal funds to states and local school districts, and it is 
only fair that the funds are properly and fairly distributed. I look 
forward to working with both the Secretary of Education and the 
Secretary of Commerce in implementing this provision.
  This conference agreement that is before us today also provides 
States and local school districts with an unprecedented level of 
flexibility. States and local school districts will finally be able to 
spend Federal education dollars in a manner that will best suit their 
unique needs. The Federal Government has long been too prescriptive as 
to how Federal funds could be spent. School districts will now have the 
freedom to provide additional funds to the children that need the most 
help.
  This flexibility will come with added responsibility, but it is a 
challenge that I believe all States and local school districts will be 
willing and, quite frankly, satisfied to accept. In giving these 
entities increased flexibility, we are requiring a higher level of 
accountability for student achievement. We do not want to create 
another layer of bureaucracy that tells schools precisely how to 
measure student achievement. We simply want to ensure that all students 
are performing at grade-level and that their school is doing what it is 
supposed to do: educate students. By annually testing students, 
parents, teachers, and the students themselves will finally know 
whether or not their school is doing its job.
  If a school is failing to properly educate children, we do not want 
to immediately punish that school. We understand that change is 
difficult, and some years are going to be worse than others. However, 
we do expect to see results. If a school is failing, the Federal 
Government will provide technical support to assist in improving 
student's test scores. However, the burden ultimately lies with each 
school to show improvement year to year. The Federal Government cannot 
simply stand by and watch some of our Nation's public schools fail to 
educate our children. Their futures are simply too important to waste.
  Parents, teachers, and administrators will also benefit from the 
passage of this landmark legislation. Parents will be provided with 
annual report cards on the performance of the school their child 
attends. If the school is failing, parents will be given a choice of 
where to send their child to school, including charter schools. If a 
school is chronically or persistently failing, a parent will be given 
federal funds for supplemental services for their child. This includes 
private tutoring services by any entity of the parent's choice.
  Teachers and administrators will be given more opportunities for 
extensive professional development. States and local school districts 
will be able to use the funds provided by this section of

[[Page S13387]]

the bill in any number of ways that they believe will most benefit 
their teachers. Professional development should be held in higher 
esteem than it has in the past. For the first time, teachers will be 
able to enjoy comprehensive professional development opportunities that 
will truly enrich their knowledge and further improve their teaching 
skills.
  Teachers will also be given legal protections from frivolous 
lawsuits--a provision I have championed with several of my colleagues 
from the very beginning. A teacher can no longer be sued for something 
that he or she may do in the normal course of his or her daily duties. 
It is time that students and parents realize the real day-to-day 
responsibilities that teachers have and respect them to use their best 
judgment to properly remedy classroom mishaps.
  Above all else, the real winners in this legislation are the students 
themselves. We are finally providing the most needy students with the 
support they need to get an appropriate education. We are providing 
their teachers with the tools they need to teach these students. We are 
providing their administrators with the training they need to be the 
most effective leaders they can be for these students. We are providing 
them with access to technology, arts and music, and many other 
important educational opportunities to ensure that they leave our 
public education system as well-rounded students prepared for the 
challenges of the global economy.
  I am pleased with the final product that this conference committee 
has produced. I can truly say that the education system in this country 
is receiving a much-deserved and much-needed facelift because of this 
legislation. Nevadans should also applaud this legislation. Federal 
dollars will finally flow into the State at the rate they should and 
will finally be utilized in ways that will most benefit the greatest 
number of needy students.
  The education of our children is one of the most important issues 
that will come before Congress. I believe that Congress has accepted 
this responsibility wholeheartedly with the passage of this 
legislation. This legislation ensures that current and future 
generations receive the education they deserve to succeed in this great 
country.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the conference 
report on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, ESEA, which expands and improves the Federal Government's 
commitment to education.
  In my view, there is no more important issue before the Congress than 
education. As our economy becomes increasingly global and based on high 
technology, its future is increasingly dependent on the quality of our 
workforce. The better our educational system is, the stronger our 
economy and our Nation will be. That's why, as a nation, we should make 
education our top priority.
  Some have suggested that local school boards should be left alone to 
solve these problems on their own. But I disagree. In general, I do 
support local control of education. But local control doesn't mean much 
if you don't have adequate resources within your control. And it's not 
enough to leave the problem to States, which can pit urban areas 
against suburban communities, a fight with no winners.
  No, if we are serious about education, we need to make it a national 
priority. And we need to ensure that our National Government plays an 
active and aggressive role.
  I am pleased that the conference report on the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Better Education for 
Students and Teachers Act, takes a significant step toward increasing 
our Federal commitment to education. I want to commend Chairman Kennedy 
and Ranking Member Gregg for their tireless work in developing this 
legislation.
  This legislation requires States to set high standards for every 
student and strengthens Federal incentives to boost low-performing 
schools and significantly improve education achievement. It has strong 
accountability measures that I hope will help narrow the educational 
achievement gaps that threaten every child's access to the American 
dream. And, it better targets funding to schools serving the neediest 
students, to make sure that they have the resources to hire and train 
well-qualified teachers, pay for additional instruction, and increase 
access to after-school and school safety programs.
  In particular, I want to note that the final conference report 
contains a provision I authored to promote financial literacy. 
Unfortunately, when it comes to personal finances, young Americans 
unfortunately do not have the skills they need. Too few understand the 
details of managing a checking account, using a credit card, saving for 
retirement, or paying their taxes. It's a serious problem and it's time 
for our education system to address it more effectively.
  We need to teach all our children the skills they need, including the 
fundamental principles involved with earning, spending, saving and 
investing, so they can manage their own money and succeed in our 
society.
  I am not alone in advocating the importance of financial literacy. 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said that: ``Improving 
basic financial education at the elementary and secondary school levels 
is essential to providing a foundation for financial literacy that can 
help prevent younger people from making poor financial decisions.''
  The amendment I authored, along with Senators Enzi, Akaka and Harkin, 
will include financial education as an allowable use in the local 
innovative education grant program, which funds innovative educational 
improvement programs. Elementary and secondary schools will be able to 
apply for Federal funds for activities to promote financial education, 
such as disseminating and encouraging the best practices for teaching 
the basic principles of personal financial literacy, including the 
basic principles involved with earning, spending, saving and investing. 
As a result, schools will have access to resources to allow them to 
include financial education as part of the basic educational 
curriculum. I am grateful to the conferees for including this important 
provision in the final conference report.
  I do have some reservations about this legislation, however. In 
particular, I am concerned that the testing provisions may impose 
significant burdens on schools without providing them with adequate 
resources to help them implement the requirements. In addition, I have 
serious questions about subjecting young children to a battery of tests 
every year. We do not have sufficient information to know whether 
constant testing is the best way to monitor our children's educational 
progress, and indeed, the pressure of such tests may detract from their 
educational experiences. I hope that Congress will closely monitor the 
implementation of these and other provisions to ensure that they do not 
undermine the worthwhile reform efforts in this legislation.
  Of course, reauthorization of ESEA is not the only critical education 
issue we will face in this Congress. Next year, we will be 
reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, 
which has meant so much to children with disabilities in New Jersey and 
across the country. Unfortunately, however, we have drastically 
underfunded this program, which has imposed a tremendous burden on 
local communities in New Jersey and across the Nation.
  In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3 
percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other 
programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs. 
Or, local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened, have to pay 
increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be 
sharing.
  I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned 
constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for 
the services mandated under IDEA.
  One woman, for example, wrote: ``My son is currently enrolled in our 
district's preschool disabled program. He is autistic and requires a 
full day program with intensive, 1:1 teaching. He is one of four 
children in the class, all with similar needs. Not only does this 
program require extra staffing, it also requires very specialized 
training.

[[Page S13388]]

Thanks to the incredible teachers and support staff, Kevin is making 
wonderful progress. This, of course, would not be possible without the 
funding provided by the school district.''
  This woman then went on to note that in her town, special education 
costs have increased by 14 percent, 26 percent, and 11 percent over the 
last 3 years, while revenues have only increased by 3 percent annually. 
The result has been that the school district has had to use funds 
intended for regular education in order to cover the special education 
costs.
  Another parent, whose son has Down syndrome said, ``It makes me very 
concerned when administrators are phrasing things in a way that makes 
it sound like special ed is denying the other kids. It's not special 
education that's denying them. It's the funding mechanism that's doing 
it.''
  Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped that we would fulfill our 
commitment to the States, fully funding the Federal share of 40 percent 
of the average cost per pupil that we envisioned when IDEA first passed 
the Congress. Unfortunately, the conference committee rejected full 
funding of IDEA. I was very disappointed that we missed this 
opportunity to ease the burden on local communities, but remain 
committed to working to increase the Federal share of IDEA spending in 
next year's reauthorization.
  With this education reform bill we are taking significant strides to 
enhance our educational system and provide every child with the 
opportunity they deserve to achieve their full potential. I am pleased 
to support the conference report.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I join my Senate colleagues in 
support of the conference agreement to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, ESEA. I want to thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for all 
of the long hours I know they put into this legislation, and all of the 
conferees for that matter.
  Now, do I agree with all of the provisions in this bill? No. Does 
this bill contain everything? No. But I do think it is heading in the 
right direction, and I do look forward to working with members on many 
provisions contained within this bill and those not within this bill. 
This legislation is certainly not perfect, and I bet that much of what 
it contains will be revisited.
  There is nothing more important than making sure our kids have the 
educational tools they need to get ahead in today's competitive world. 
That means making sure our schools are top notch, making sure students 
have access to technology and up-to-date learning materials, and our 
teachers are equipped with the skills and tools they need to be their 
best.
  I believe that for the most part, the conferees have done a good job 
coming up with a plan that will enable our children to compete in 
tomorrow's economy. Companies moving to a new State place a high 
priority on a quality education system and access to trained workers. 
Montana's schools are among the best in the Nation. However, there is 
more that needs to be done and areas where additional improvements need 
to be made, such as in science and math. In order to ensure a quality 
education and future for young Montanans, we must focus on critical 
areas.
  I am pleased to see that conferees recognize that schools in rural 
areas and small America often require additional assistance in 
implementing high technology programs and other advanced curriculum. So 
many schools in small rural towns are isolated and technology can offer 
rural students opportunities that they otherwise would not have. 
Ensuring that students in rural areas are as technologically literate 
as students in more urban areas is vital. I believe the conferees have 
shown their commitment to improve achievement in rural areas and have 
made sure that rural kids will have the tools they need to participate 
in the complex economy of the 21st century.
  Montana has done a lot in the area of distance learning. There is a 
capability, in many schools to give children a wider variety of 
classes, and this bill will only help to enhance that. We must also 
focus on making sure our children have a good learning environment. All 
the funding, technology and books in the world won't help our children 
if they do not have a good environment in which to learn.
  We must ensure that Montana parents and teachers retain control over 
education decisions, that Federal funds are targeted toward Montana's 
needs, and that Federal rules don't interfere with our ability to teach 
our children. States must be able to free themselves from Federal red 
tape and have the opportunity to use this flexibility to boost student 
achievement. Whenever possible, decisions about the education of our 
children should be made at the local level. Montana parents and 
educators know best what works for Montana kids, and I am glad to see 
that this conference agreement allows for that.
  At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the Federal 
Government makes important investments in our children, such as 
educating students who live on Federal land. I am pleased to see that 
this conference report also goes a long way to support Impact Aid and 
fulfill the Federal Government's continuing responsibility to the 
education of children living on military bases, Indian reservations, or 
other Federal property. The conference committee has ensured these 
programs retain high quality and provide for not only the basic 
elementary and secondary educational needs, but culturally related 
academic needs as well.
  I think this agreement, while not perfect, does lay some groundwork 
and provides an important partnership between Federal, State, and local 
efforts to educate children and includes ridding some Federal mandates 
that burden local educators. Rules that make sense in New York are 
often restrictive and expensive in Havre, MT. I'm glad to see that our 
local schools will have the flexibility they need to better educate our 
children.
  I must say that I have some concerns over the assessment requirements 
contained in this bill and the funding of these assessments. In a State 
like Montana, where money is often hard to come by, we have a difficult 
time funding the few tests currently required. The Federal Government 
must obligate funds toward these new testing requirements, States 
cannot be left with an unfunded mandate.
  Congress has correctly asked schools to teach our disabled children. 
Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the funding for such activities has 
come from the Federal Government. That means local school districts, 
always forced to squeeze shrinking tax dollars, are often times asked 
to pay thousands of dollars to comply with inflexible Federal rules 
that many times disregard small rural school districts. It is 
imperative that we fulfill our promise to fully fund IDEA. While we 
still have a long way to go, I do believe we have made great strides, 
and we are heading in the right direction, toward full funding. Full 
funding of IDEA has always been extremely important to me, and I will 
continue my work with educators and school boards to make sure that we 
fund a larger percentage of the costs of this program. I have great 
confidence that the Senate will also continue working to this end.
  States and locals must have the funds to develop high-quality 
professional development programs, address teacher shortages, and 
provide incentives to retain quality teachers. Some of the most 
important provisions in this legislation concern teachers. Teachers are 
our greatest educational resources and have such a great impact on a 
child's life. I am glad to see that this legislation goes a long way to 
ensure technology and training opportunities for our teachers.
  As Congress continues to consider various education programs, I will 
be actively involved to make sure Montana's needs are addressed. I will 
fight against a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach that in my opinion, 
tends to do more harm to a quality education than good, and will fight 
to ensure that significant investment is provided to all children and 
their teachers.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
support for the education reform package that is now before the Senate. 
After debating this issue for almost three years, I am pleased we have 
reached a bi-partisan agreement on a package that puts our children's 
future ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and 
attention for too

[[Page S13389]]

long. In my opinion, the proposal before the Senate represents an 
important step in the right direction by recognizing the right of every 
child to receive a high quality education.
  Before I describe why I think this proposal is important for our 
nation's future and my home State of Arkansas, I want to look back for 
a moment on how we arrived at where we are today.
  I doubt many of my colleagues remember what we did or debated in the 
Senate on May 9, 2000. I remember that date very well because that's 
the day I joined 9 of my Senate New Democratic colleagues in offering a 
bold ESEA education reform plan known as the Three R's bill.
  Prior to introducing our amendment, we had spend months drafting our 
bill and were very proud of the finished product. That day we arranged 
to come to the floor as a group to talk about why we felt our 
innovative approach combined the best ideas of both parties in a way 
that would allow both Democrats and Republicans to move beyond the 
partisan stalemate that had stalled progress for so long.
  Needless to say, we were disappointed when our amendment attracted 
only 13 votes. Normally, I might hesitate to remind my colleagues and 
constituents of a vote like that. But I felt as strongly then as I do 
today, that the proposal we crafted provided an opportunity to improve 
our system of public education by refocusing our attention on academic 
progress instead of on bureaucracy and process.
  Fundamentally, we believe that by combining the concepts of increased 
funding, targeting, local autonomy and meaningful accountability, 
States and local school districts will have the tools they need to 
raise academic achievement and deliver on the promise of equal 
opportunity for every child.
  So as I have listened to many of the comments delivered on the floor 
today, I can not help but reflect back on May 9 of last year when I 
joined Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh and other Senate New Democrats 
on the Senate floor to unveil these fundamental principles. I am 
gratified that many of the priorities we spoke of that day have been 
incorporated into the final agreement we will hopefully adopt later 
today.
  That having been said, I know many of my colleagues played a critical 
role in fashioning this very important legislation. I especially want 
to express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for 
their tireless efforts on behalf of our nation's school children. As 
someone who has followed the progress of this bill very closely, I 
think each Member of this body owes the managers of this bill a debt of 
gratitude for bringing Senators with very different points of view 
together to find common ground on this critical issue. I applaud their 
leadership and I congratulate their success.
  As I noted previously, I support this bipartisan compromise because 
it contains many of the elements that I think are essential to foster 
academic success. It provides school districts with the resources they 
need to meet higher standards. It expands access in Arkansas to funding 
for teacher quality, English language instruction, and after-school 
programs by distributing resources through a reliable formula based on 
need, not on the ability of school districts to fill out a federal 
grant application. And finally, and most importantly, in exchange for 
more flexibility and resources, it holds states and school districts 
accountable for the academic performance of all children.
  I do want to highlight one component of this legislation that I had a 
direct role in shaping. During consideration of the Senate reform bill 
in May, I successfully offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy and 
others calling on Congress to substantially increase funding to enable 
language minority students to master English and achieve high levels of 
learning in all subjects. More importantly for my State of Arkansas, 
under the approach I promoted, funding will now be distributed to 
States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the 
number of students who need help with their English proficiency.
  Currently, even though Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase 
in the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students during the 
last decade, my State does very poorly in accessing Federal funding to 
meet the needs of these students because the bulk of the funding is 
distributed through a maze of competitive grants.
  I am pleased the conferees accepted the funding level and the reforms 
I advocated. This new approach represents a dramatic improvement over 
the current system and will greatly benefit schools and students in my 
state.
  Ultimately, I believe all of the reforms that are contained in this 
bill will make an important difference in the future of our children 
and our nation. So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
urge the adoption of this truly landmark legislation.
  Unfortunately, I fell compelled to mention one aspect of this 
legislation that dampens my excitement for its passage. Even though I 
believe the bill on balance represents a major improvement over the 
current federal framework, I am very disappointed that we are once 
again denying the promise we made to our constituents in 1975 to pay 40 
percent of the costs of serving students under IDEA.
  In my opinion, our failure to live up to this promise undermines to 
some extent the very reforms we seek to advance. While Congress and the 
Administration continue to ignore the commitment we made 26 years ago, 
school districts are forced to direct more and more state and local 
revenues away from classroom instruction to pay the Federal share of 
the bill. I will continue to work in the Senate to reverse this record 
of inaction which is profoundly unfair to school districts, teachers, 
and the students they serve.
  I want to close, by thanking all of my colleagues who spent many 
weeks and months negotiating this agreement. Even though progress has 
been slow at times, the way Democrats and Republicans have worked 
together on this bill is a model I hope we can repeat often in the 
future. I already mentioned Senators Kennedy and Gregg without whom 
this bill would not be possible. I also want to say a special word of 
thanks to Senators Lieberman and Bayh who demonstrated real leadership 
by talking about many of the reforms we are about to ratify before 
those ideas were very popular. They deserve a lot of credit for the 
final agreement they helped draft and I was honored to join them in 
crafting the original Three R's proposals that is clearly reflected in 
the bill before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also thank Senator Kennedy for getting a 
good target formula in this bill.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine whose fingerprints are 
all over this bill--especially in the area of Rural-Flex and Ed-Flex, 
which she basically designed, and the reading programs. She has put a 
significant amount of time and effort into this bill, and it paid off 
royally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin by saluting the outstanding 
leadership of Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg. It is due to their 
tireless efforts, their commitment to a quality education, and their 
persistence and hard work that we can celebrate today the passage of 
landmark education reform legislation. It has been a great pleasure to 
work with them, with Secretary of Education Paige, and with the 
President to reach this day.
  During the past year, it has been a pleasure to work with my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle as well as with the President 
and the Secretary of Education on this landmark education legislation.
  In approaching the reauthorization of the ESEA, I had three goals. 
One was to provide greater flexibility and more funding to our small or 
rural school districts. The second was to strengthen and put greater 
emphasis on early reading programs so that we could in fact achieve the 
goal of leaving no child behind. The third was fulfilling the Federal 
commitment to funding its share of special education costs.
  I am very pleased that we will realize the first two objectives 
through the Rural Education Achievement Program as well as the Reading 
First Program included in this bill. Although I am disappointed by the 
failure of the IDEA mandatory funding amendments, I know the Senate 
support for IDEA full funding will carry over into next year. And it 
will remain one of my highest priorities.

[[Page S13390]]

  The No Child Left Behind Act includes many innovative and promising 
reforms. Among the improvements is the Rural Education Achievement 
Program which I authored. The program would benefit school districts 
with fewer than 600 students in rural communities. More than 35 percent 
of all school districts in the United States have 600 or fewer 
students. In Maine, the percentage is even higher: 56 percent of our 
284 school districts have fewer than 600 students.
  Rural school districts encounter two specific problems with the 
current system of Federal funding.
  The first is that formula grants often do not reach small, rural 
schools in amounts sufficient to achieve the goals of the programs. 
These grants are based on school district enrollment, and, therefore, 
smaller districts often do not receive enough funding from any single 
grant to carry out a meaningful activity. One Maine district, for 
example, received a whopping $28 to fund a district-wide Safe and Drug-
free School program. This amount is certainly not sufficient to achieve 
the goal of that Federal program, yet the school district could not use 
the funds for any other program.
  Second, rural schools are often shut out of the competitive grant 
process because they lack the administrative staff and the grant 
writers that large school districts have to apply for competitive 
grants from the Federal Government. So they do not get to participate 
in those programs at all. To eliminate this inequity and give rural 
schools more flexibility to meet local needs, our legislation will 
allow rural districts to combine the funds from four categorical grant 
programs and use them to address that school district's highest 
priorities.
  In one school district, that might mean hiring a reading specialist 
or math teacher. In another, the priority might be upgrading the 
science lab or increasing professional development or buying a new 
computer for the library. Whatever the need of that district, the money 
could be combined for that purpose.
  Let me give you a specific example of what these two initiatives 
would mean for one Maine school district in northern Maine. The 
Frenchville and St. Agatha school system, which serves 346 students, 
receives four separate formula grants ranging from $1,705 for Safe and 
Drug Free Schools to $10,045 under the Class Size Reduction Act. How do 
you fight drug use with $1,700? And how do you reduce class sizes with 
$10,000? The grants are so small they are not really useful in 
accomplishing the goals of the program. The total for all four programs 
is just over $16,000. Yet each requires separate reporting and 
compliance standards, and each is used for different--federally 
mandated--purposes.
  Superintendent Jerry White told me that he needs to submit eight 
separate reports, for four programs, to receive the $16,000. Under our 
bill, his school district would be freed from the multiple applications 
and reports; paperwork and bureaucracy would be reduced, and the school 
would be able to make better use of its Federal funding.
  The other problem facing small rural districts is their lack of 
administrative capacity. In some cases, the superintendent acts as the 
sole administrator. With such minimal administrative resources, the 
school district has no opportunity to apply for competitive grants. 
Here in Washington, we are surrounded by large urban school districts, 
each with more than 100,000 students and often having a central 
administrative office with specialized staff and professional grant 
writers. How can rural districts with a single administrator be 
expected to compete for the same grant opportunities?
  To compensate for the inequity, our legislation provides supplemental 
funding. In the case of the Frenchville district, schools would receive 
an additional $34,000. Combined with the $16,000 already provided, the 
Rural Education Achievement Program would make sure the District had 
$50,000 and the flexibility to use these funds for its most pressing 
needs. That $50,000 can make a real difference in the education of 
school children in northern Maine. The district could hire a math 
teacher or a reading specialist, whatever it needed. The district could 
purchase technology, upgrade professional development efforts, or 
engage in any other local reforms.
  With this tremendous flexibility and additional funding come 
responsibility and accountability. In return for the advantages our 
bill provides, participating districts would be held accountable for 
demonstrating improved student performance over a 3-year period.
  The focus of the No Child Left Behind Act is accountability, and 
rural schools are no exception. Schools will be held responsible for 
what is really important--improved student achievement--rather than for 
time-consuming paperwork. As Superintendent White told me, ``Give me 
the resources I need plus the flexibility to use them, and I am happy 
to be held accountable for improved student performance. It will 
happen.'' I know most superintendents feel exactly the same way.

  I am equally delighted that today's education bill will include 
significant new resources for early reading intervention programs. 
Unfortunately, today, in many schools, there are few services available 
to help a child who has a reading difficulty. Oftentimes, no help is 
provided at all until that child reaches the third grade and is 
identified for special education.
  For students who have reached the third grade without the ability to 
read, every paragraph, every assignment, every day in the classroom is 
a struggle. They constantly battle embarrassment and feelings of 
inadequacy, and they fall further and further behind. It is no wonder 
so many children without basic reading skills lose their natural 
curiosity and excitement for learning.
  The two new reading programs--Reading First and Early Reading First--
in this legislation are based on the principle that if we act swiftly 
and teach reading effectively in the early grades, we will provide our 
children with a solid foundation for future academic success. Indeed, 
the best way to ensure that no child is left behind is to teach every 
child to read.
  If a child's reading difficulty is detected early, and he or she 
receives help in kindergarten or the first grade, that child has a 90 
to 95 percent chance of becoming a good reader. These early 
intervention programs work. They are a wonderful investment.
  By contrast, if intervention does not occur during the period between 
kindergarten and third grade, the ``window of literacy'' closes and the 
chances of that child ever becoming a good reader plummet. Moreover, if 
a child with reading disabilities becomes part of the special education 
system, the chances of his or her leaving special education are less 
than 5 percent. So this is a program that is going to improve the 
quality of life for these children, help them to become successful, 
and, in many cases, will avoid the need for special education and all 
the costs involved in providing that kind of education. These are truly 
investments that make sense.
  Other than involved parents, a good teacher with proper literacy 
training is the single most important prerequisite to a student's 
reading success. We also know that reading is the gateway to learning 
other subjects and to future academic achievement. That is why it is so 
important that this bill make such a national commitment to reading 
programs.
  Reading First is a comprehensive approach to promoting literacy in 
reading in all 50 States. It will support the efforts in States, such 
as Maine, that have already made great strides under the Reading 
Excellence Act in promoting literacy. Indeed, I am very proud of the 
work the State of Maine has done. Our fourth graders lead the Nation 
year after year in reading and other subjects.
  President Bush deserves enormous credit for placing reading at the 
top of our education agenda. The First Lady, Laura Bush, has also 
repeatedly highlighted the importance of reading. President Bush also 
deserves credit for being willing to work with us, the Members on both 
sides of the aisle, to hammer out the best possible education reform 
legislation.
  Again, I thank the President for all of his efforts, and Senator 
Gregg and Senator Kennedy, because without their combined leadership we 
would not be here today. Thanks to their hard work, we have quality 
legislation before us today that will reform the public education 
system and bring our nation closer to the goal of providing every child 
with an opportunity to succeed.

[[Page S13391]]

  With the improvements in rural education, and the emphasis in this 
bill on reading, flexibility, and accountability, as well as a host of 
other reforms, I am delighted to support this reauthorization of ESEA 
and to see our hard work and efforts over the past year come to 
fruition.
  I am convinced this legislation is going to make a real difference 
for the children of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
our friend and colleague, the only Member of this body who has been 
both a teacher and a school board member and has led the country, 
really, understanding that smaller class sizes give the best 
opportunity for children to learn. She has been an invaluable member of 
our Education Committee and our Human Services Committee.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. 
I thank Senator Kennedy, and all of his staff, for the hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of hours they have put into making this bill a 
success.
  I do rise today to express my support for the ESEA conference report 
and to highlight some of my concerns with the bill.
  Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has helped 
students in our schools have more equal access and be more effective 
than ever before. It is important we renew our Federal education 
policies in order to keep up with the growing challenges that face our 
schools.
  While I do not agree with everything in the bill, I do believe 
Congress must move forward with education reform to provide the support 
that our students need today.
  Throughout this process, five principles have guided my 
consideration.
  First, I believe we have to invest in what we know works.
  Second, we have to protect disadvantaged students and make sure they 
get the extra help they need.
  Third, we have to make sure taxpayer dollars stay in public schools.
  Fourth, we have to help our students meet national education goals.
  And finally, we have to set high standards and provide the resources 
so all students can meet them.
  On balance, I believe this bill meets all of my principles.
  This is a bipartisan win for our students. I am proud that as we 
moved forward we left behind some of the most troubling proposals: from 
vouchers to Straight A's. This bill requires high standards for all 
children and provides flexible Federal support that focuses on the 
things that we know work, including smaller classes, high-quality 
teachers, afterschool programs, technology and technology training for 
our teachers, support for students with limited-English proficiency, a 
strong Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, guarantees of a quality 
education for homeless students, and more resources for disadvantaged 
students.
  While I support the bill overall, I do continue to have significant 
concerns about some of the mandates in the bill. I believe Congress 
must now closely monitor how this bill impacts students.
  My top concern, of course, is the funding in the bill. While we have 
made progress in securing an additional $4 billion, I fear the funding 
level will be short of what our communities will need to carry out the 
mandates in the bill.
  In part to ease this burden, I believe we must fully fund special 
education next year. Almost every member of our conference committee 
expressed a commitment to fulfilling the promise of full funding when 
IDEA is reauthorized. Keeping that commitment is critical to the 
success of education reform.
  I remain concerned, as well, about how the new tests will be used and 
about the Federal Government setting the formula to measure student 
progress. We now have a responsibility to make sure these mandates do 
not end up holding children back. If this bill leads to more crowded 
classrooms, fewer high-quality teachers, or a focus on testing instead 
of learning, then we will have to revisit these mandates.
  But, on balance, this bill takes important steps forward to improve 
our public schools. While I am not pleased with every provision, I do 
not want the Federal Government to miss this opportunity to help 
students throughout the country make progress.
  So, again, I thank Senator Kennedy and his staff and my staff, 
including Bethany Little, for the tremendous amount of work they have 
done to get us to this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas, who has been a key player on this bill in a variety of 
different areas. He worked very hard on the flexibility issues, the 
bilingual issues, the merit pay issues, and teacher tenure. All sorts 
of different parts of this bill have been impacted by his influence. He 
has been great to work with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I am so pleased today to be able to 
rise in support of this legislation. I think it is an exciting day and 
a memorable day for America that we adopt this legislation.
  As a member of the Health and Education Committee and a member of the 
conference committee on this bill, I have worked long and hard with my 
colleagues to ensure that the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Act comes to fruition.
  I especially want to thank President Bush. When he came to 
Washington, he came with a vision to reform education. This is a big 
step toward the fulfillment of that vision.
  President Bush shows a true compassion for helping disadvantaged 
students gain the tools to succeed, a compassion he gained in his work 
as Governor. It is that vision and compassion that have gotten us to 
this point of final passage. President Bush is to be commended for his 
efforts and his vision.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for his leadership on the committee, and for 
his chairmanship, his perseverance, and his willingness to reach 
compromise and agreement on a number of issues.
  It has been a great pleasure for me to be able to work with Senator 
Gregg, as he has, through all the twists and turns in the long road of 
this past year, continued to fight for accountability and expanded 
options for parents. I admire his commitment to this legislation, and I 
am proud to have worked with him and to serve under his leadership on 
the HELP Committee.

  Starting in the early months of 1999, the Senate Health and Education 
Committee began holding hearings on ESEA. The Senate attempted to pass 
an ESEA reauthorization bill during the 106th Congress, but was not 
successful. Almost three years later, final passage is before us.
  The impetus that has gotten to this point after a long and arduous 
process is our President. President Bush has made education his number 
one domestic priority, and has injected new ideas and a deep sense of 
passion into this debate. Without his leadership, we would not be here 
today.
  This bill reflects the themes that were laid out by the President 
last year: accountability, parental options, flexibility, and funding 
what works.
  This legislation will finally inject new accountability into the 
title I program. For too long, we have provided billions of dollars in 
funding without seeing any results. In the past, we have let our 
poorest children down--no longer will we let this happen.
  Our Nation has a right to expect all of our children to learn, and 
this legislation will help local school districts identify their 
weaknesses and address them.
  Schools, for the first time, will be held to a high standard. It is 
time that we stop making excuses and expect results from our schools. 
There will be stumbling blocks along the way, and this bill is not 
perfect, but the education of our children is too vital to delay 
education reform.
  There are a number of components that I am particularly pleased to 
see included in the bill. The provision regarding supplemental 
services, for which Senator Gregg has worked so diligently, is one of 
them.
  Under this legislation, in approximately 3,000 schools across the 
country, parents will have an immediate option to get help for their 
children through tutoring at their local Sylvan Center or afterschool 
program.

[[Page S13392]]

  Because of this legislation, over 200 schools in Arkansas will now 
provide public school choice immediately to parents to allow them to 
send their children to a higher performing public school. I am very 
pleased with the provision called transferability that will allow every 
school district in the country to shift up to 50 percent of Federal 
funds between formula grant programs, with the exception of title I. 
This will allow school districts to address priorities from year to 
year as they see fit.
  I am also very pleased with the rural education initiative, proposed 
and championed by Senator Collins, that will allow over 100 school 
districts in Arkansas to receive additional funding and flexibility 
over their formula funds.
  As Senator Gregg mentioned, I am particularly glad to have been 
involved in the bilingual reforms that will now ensure fairness in the 
distribution of dollars by turning the bilingual program into a formula 
grant program. It will benefit States such as Arkansas that never did 
well in the competitive grant competitions. For the first time, States 
must now set objectives for students to learn English, a component that 
was amazingly absent from the previous bilingual program.
  I am glad to have been able to offer an amendment that allowed 
professional development funds for our teachers to now be used to 
reward the best teachers. That is a very commonsense and important 
reform in allowing those teacher development funds to be used in 
programs to reward those teachers who have the best record of 
performance.
  This legislation is a giant step in education reform and represents a 
bipartisan agreement between Republicans, Democrats, the House, the 
Senate, and the administration. I am pleased to have worked on the bill 
and look forward to President Bush signing it into law. I thank him for 
his vision and leadership. Education reform was a fleeting thought a 
year ago. Thanks to George W. Bush, it is now a reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and 
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry understands 
that leadership in local schools makes an extraordinary difference. We 
have seen constant examples of that. He has had a focus and attention 
particularly on having good principals in the schools. He has 
introduced a number of pieces of legislation. We have drawn on them 
heavily. He is one who is deeply concerned and involved in the 
education issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida.) The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and 
congratulating him on his extraordinary leadership in this effort. I 
thank Senator Gregg also for his cooperation and leadership. Senator 
Kennedy, as we all know, has been fighting for and pushing for 
education reform for a long time. He has been our leading voice in the 
Senate on the subject of education. His tenacity in pursuing this in 
moments that even appeared to be bleak--and I thank his staff also for 
that--have helped to bring us to this moment.
  It gives me great pleasure to come to the Senate floor today to talk 
about, and to lend my support to, the conference report for H.R. 1, the 
No Child Left Behind Act. This is groundbreaking legislation that 
enhances the Federal Government's commitment to our Nation's public 
education system, dramatically reconfigures the federal role in public 
education, and embraces many of the principles and programs that I 
believe are critical to improving the public education system.
  This bill represents a true coming together of Republicans and 
Democrats, and both sides made important compromises in order to arrive 
at this point. I have come to the floor many times over the past few 
years to express my belief that we were past due to break the partisan 
gridlock over education reform, and to come together around the 
programs, policies, and initiatives that members of both parties could 
agree are critical to improving public education. For years we spun our 
wheels as we tried to reform the public education system, Republicans 
calling for a diminished Federal role, Democrats calling for more 
programs and greater funding levels. I was of the opinion that there 
was significant room for consensus on public education reform, and last 
year I worked with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce 
legislation that would help break the stalemate and move beyond the 
tired, partisan debates of the past. Our education proposal became the 
foundation of the bill before us today. I am extraordinarily pleased 
that Republicans and Democrats came together to adopt a fresh, new 
approach to improving public education, one that focuses on increasing 
student achievement and that provides increased resources and 
flexibility in exchange for increased accountability.
  The No Child Left Behind Act provides public schools with more 
funding and flexibility in return for demanding accountability for 
results. I am convinced that a strong accountability system is the 
linchpin of this reform. For the first time, the Federal Government 
will put into place an accountability system that will hold States, 
schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning 
of their children and closing the achievement gap between rich and poor 
and between minorities and non-minorities. The accountability 
provisions in this bill sharply redefine the definition of adequate 
yearly progress to ensure that schools and districts are making 
demonstrable gains in closing the achievement gap. This legislation 
requires States, districts, and schools to set annual goals for raising 
student achievement so that all students achieve proficiency in 12 
years. The bill applies performance standards and consequences not only 
to the title I program but to all major programs. And in addition to 
requiring tough corrective actions for chronically failing schools, it 
gives students in failing schools the right to either transfer to a 
better public school or obtain supplemental services.
  This bill puts in place a new accountability system, which is a vital 
first step to improving student achievement. But implementing and 
enforcing the accountability system are equally as important as 
creating one. The Federal Government must follow through on its 
commitment to hold schools accountable for student achievement or the 
legislation that we are passing today will do little to change the 
status quo. I urge the administration to vigorously implement and 
enforce the provisions of this new law.
  Another key component of this bill is the expansion of public school 
choice and charter schools. I strongly support increasing the 
educational options available to parents within the public school 
framework, and in fact, expanding public school choice has been one of 
my education reform priorities. I believe that choice and competition 
within the public school system are vital ingredients to increasing 
accountability and improving our schools. I am pleased that the No 
Child Left Behind Act strengthens the Federal charter school program 
and authorizes the inter-and intra-district choice initiative. The 
legislation also requires states and local districts to issue detailed 
report cards with data on school performance so that parents can be 
better informed about the quality of their child's schools and can make 
educated decisions about which school their child should attend.
  This bill does an excellent job of targeting federal education funds 
to public schools with large numbers of poor children. The title I 
program was originally designed to compensate for spending gaps left by 
state and local education funding in order to help level the playing 
field for children in low-income school districts. However, despite the 
goal of sending funds to those very low-income schools, over the years, 
money has been directed to communities with extremely low poverty rates 
and in some instances does not reach the country's poorest schools at 
all. This legislation funnels new title I funding through the targeted 
grant formula, which will ensure that the neediest communities receive 
additional funding.
  I am extremely pleased that the conference report includes my 
amendments to improve school leadership and increase alternative 
education opportunities, which were part of the education reform bill 
that Senator Gordon

[[Page S13393]]

Smith and I introduced during the 106th Congress. Focusing on school 
leadership is critical to ensuring that the ambitions reforms contain 
din this legislation are successfully implemented in the schools. Many 
of today's principals are reaching the age at which they could choose 
to retire, and evidence has pointed to a decline in the number of 
candidates for each opening. If we don't stem the flow of retirees and 
buoy up the numbers of aspiring principals, we will face a crucial 
school leadership crisis--one that could debilitate meaningful 
education reform. A good principal can create a climate that fosters 
excellence in teaching and learning, while an ineffective one can 
quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers. I can tell 
you unequivocally that I have never been in a blue-ribbon school that 
doesn't have a blue-ribbon principal. And I'm sure that my colleagues 
have noticed this, too when they have visited schools in their 
respective States. Without a good leader as principal, it is difficult 
to instigate or sustain any meaningful chance and schools cannot be 
transformed, restructured, or reconstituted without leadership.
  Our amendment addressed this critical problem in school leadership by 
giving States greater flexibility in the use of their title II dollars 
so that funding can be used to retain high-quality principles and to 
improve principal quality. By expanding the list of authorized uses of 
funds, this amendment will allow States and school districts to use 
Federal dollars to ensure that principals have the instructional skills 
to help teachers teach, implement alternative routes for principal 
certification, or mentor new principals, and to provide principals with 
high-quality professional development.

  The conference agreement also includes our amendment on alternative 
education opportunities. The presence of chronically disruptive 
students in schools interferes with the learning opportunities for 
other students. One way to ensure safe schools and manageable 
classrooms has been to require the removal of disruptive and dangerous 
students. While expulsion and suspensions may make schools safer and 
more manageable, students' problems do not go away when they are 
removed from the classroom--the problems just go somewhere else. The 
consensus among educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is 
that it is vital for expelled students to receive educational 
counseling or other services to help modify their behavior while they 
are away from school. Without such services, students generally return 
to school no better disciplined and no better able to manage their 
anger or peaceably resolve disputes. Our amendment enable States and 
school districts to develop, establish, or improve alternative 
educational opportunities for violent or drug abusing students under 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools program.
  This bill is a compromise, and thus, everyone can point to things 
that they wish were done differently. I echo the comments made by my 
colleagues, in particular Senator Jeffords, who have decried the lost 
opportunity to include in this bill guaranteed full funding for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This bill fails to deliver 
on the Federal Governments commitment to fully fund special education, 
and it does this just as it places substantial new requirements on 
schools. Perhaps most disconcerting, all of this comes at a time when 
state budgets are in deficit. According to the National Governors' 
Association, states are facing a $35 billion shortfall due to the 
national recession, and states have already begun paring back their 
education budgets. The No Child Left Behind Act contains significant, 
meaningful reforms, but these reforms cannot succeed without sufficient 
resources. We expect about a 20 percent increase in education funding 
this year, which is a tremendous step forward. But we need to continue 
to make resources a priority--we need to fully fund IDEA--we must not 
thrust new requirements on schools without providing them with 
sufficient resources to implement reforms.
  I also have concerns about the mandatory testing provisions contained 
in the bill. This legislation requires the testing of all students in 
math and reading in grades 3-8. I am not opposed to testing, in fact, I 
think that tests are important so that we know year to year how well 
students are achieving. It is critically important to be able to 
identify where gaps exists so that efforts can be focused on closing 
them. When used correctly, good tests provide information that helps 
teachers understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of students 
and tailor instruction to respond to the needs of students with 
targeted teaching and appropriate materials. My concern is that once we 
know where the gaps exist, once we know how a child needs to be helped, 
we will not provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students 
are able to reach proficiency. It is my sincere hope that Congress and 
the States will continue to recognize that reform and resources go 
hand-in-hand. Resources without accountability is a waste of money, and 
accountability without resources is a waste of time. The two together 
are key to successful reform.
  I would like to congratulate the conferees for their tremendous work 
on this legislation. I am excited and encouraged by the reforms in this 
bill. I believe that they will have a tremendous impact on raising 
student achievement by increasing accountability, improving teacher and 
principal quality, expanding flexibility, and increasing public school 
choice. This groundbreaking legislation has enormous potential. I hope 
that the Congress will live up to its commitment to provide states and 
schools with the resources they need to make these reforms work.
  We are now about to adopt a fresh new approach to improving public 
education in a way that focuses on improving student achievement and 
providing increased resources simultaneously. Though I will add to the 
voice of my colleagues in the Senate, the resources are not what they 
need to be to guarantee success.
  Last year, I joined with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce 
legislation that we hoped would break the stalemate, that would change 
the dialog. I would like to believe that thanks to the efforts of the 
Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Connecticut and others, we 
have contributed in a way that has helped to shift that dialog.
  We are now providing a strong accountability system which is the 
linchpin of reform, together with a reconfiguration of the role that 
the Federal Government plays in providing some resources and 
flexibility over the use of funds to the States in exchange for that 
strong accountability system. For the first time, the Federal 
Government is putting into place accountability that will hold States, 
schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning 
of their children and closing the achievement gap between the rich and 
the poor, between minorities and nonminorities.
  I am also pleased that the law includes a mechanism to target 
additional funding to schools with high concentrations of low-income 
students. Historically, title I has always been our focus of directing 
Federal funds to schools with large proportions of poor students, but 
Congress has not always met that goal. It is our hope that this 
increased targeting, for which I again congratulate Senator Kennedy, is 
going to be an important part of our achieving that.
  Another key component is the expansion of school choice in public 
schools together with the charter schools. I strongly support 
increasing educational options available to parents within the public 
school system framework. In fact, expanding public school choice has 
been one of my top education priorities. I am pleased that the No Child 
Left Behind Act strengthens that Federal charter program and authorizes 
the inter- and intradistrict school choice initiative.
  I am also pleased that it includes several amendments that I have 
proposed, one specifically to improve principals, to improve the 
strength of leadership. We can have all the rules we want and all the 
framework we want, but if you don't have adequate leadership in the 
schools, it is often hard to achieve. We have a method in here to help 
to increase that.
  We also include an amendment that I have introduced to enable States 
and school districts to help to develop, establish, and improve 
alternative educational opportunities for violent or

[[Page S13394]]

drug offending students under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. 
That is one way to guarantee that we will ensure safe classrooms, safe 
schools, manageable classrooms by removing disruptive students and 
dangerous students and making sure that those who are expelled receive 
educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior.
  This bill, as all legislation, is a compromise. Not everything meets 
everybody's eye. I do believe we have to push on to achieve the 
opportunity of guaranteeing full funding for individuals with 
disabilities education, and we have to guarantee the resources for this 
act.
  I congratulate Senator Kennedy and all those who have been part of 
this effort to bring this bill to the floor.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the 
Senator from Alabama who, as a member of the committee, played a 
significant role. This is such a complex bill. It required a lot of 
different people thinking about different parts of it. It has so many 
moving parts, it really is not the handiwork of one individual. It 
truly was the handiwork of a large number of Senators participating 
from both sides of the aisle. The Senator from Alabama played a major 
role in a variety of areas, especially in the discipline area and the 
safe and drug free schools. I very much appreciate the work he did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, It is a pleasure to see this bill come 
up now for what I believe will be its approval. We have worked hard on 
it. I know it was a thrill to see the bill come out of committee with a 
unanimous vote under the leadership of Senator Kennedy and ranking 
member, Senator Gregg. I thought that showed good bipartisan support. 
It languished a bit in conference with the House, and we struggled a 
bit. The President had to raise the level of heat a bit, but things 
have moved forward. It is exciting to see this bill move toward law.
  The President campaigned on education as one of his top themes. He 
talked about it constantly. He visited schools regularly. His wife was 
a teacher. He has honored that commitment by continuing to press a 
major education bill this year which will represent one of the largest 
increases in funding for education in recent years. It also represents 
a significant policy change that will allow more freedom for the school 
systems, that will put more money in local schools, that will help 
children who are being left behind and move them forward.
  I believe we should recognize and salute the leadership of the 
Secretary of Education, Rod Paige. He came here from Houston. He was 
chosen to be the superintendent of the Houston school system, comprised 
around 200,000 students. He believed that a 37-percent passing rate of 
the Texas test in Houston was unacceptable. In 5 years, with 
determination, sound policies and great leadership, he doubled the 
percentage of schoolchildren passing that test.
  I say that because there are some people who do not believe that 
progress is possible. I have seen school systems in every State in 
America. There are systems where teachers, parents, and leaders have 
come together to achieve significant increases in productivity and 
change. Certainly money is not the complete answer; it is also policy 
change, determination, and leadership. We have too many schools where 
children are locked into a failing system, and they have been falling 
behind. Nobody even knows or cares that they are falling behind. They 
can't go to any other school. They are required by law to attend this 
dysfunctional school. And that is just not good.
  The President understands this deeply. As Governor of Texas, he made 
education one of his highest priorities, and he has made it his number 
one domestic priority as President. He has helped us move forward to 
what I think is really historic legislation. It is an honor to be a 
part of it.
  Testing and accountability have been a matter of some debate. I do 
not believe tests are accurate reflections of a child's complete 
ability to learn and what they absolutely know. But it is true that you 
can determine through a test whether a child can do fundamental 
mathematics, whether a child knows fundamental science, and whether a 
child can read or not. It is a tragedy in America that we have been 
moving children through the school system, even to graduation, who 
can't read and write and they are making the lowest possible scores on 
tests. We have just accepted that. That is not a good way to do it.
  The President has said he is not going to leave any child behind, and 
we will make sure we achieve that goal. We are going to find out if 
children are falling behind. We will have a testing program in grades 3 
through 8 in math and reading that will not be Federal Government-
mandated tests, but state tests, and we will begin to learn. The 
newspaper editors, the business community, the teachers, the 
principals, the parents, and the students will know how the kids are 
doing in that school system. Some schools do better than others. We 
need to find out which ones are doing best and identify those that are 
not doing well. I think that is important. As Secretary Paige says, if 
you love the children and you care about them and you want them to 
learn so they can be successful throughout their lives, you will not 
allow them to fall behind.
  What we need to do is intervene early in the lives of children when 
they are falling behind--as soon as possible. Then we can make some 
progress. This bill says there can be supplemental services in a system 
that is not working and where kids are falling behind. They can get 
maybe $500 or $1,000 for outside tutoring for a child who is not 
keeping up because as you get further behind, a lot of bad things 
happen. Dr. Paige says that a child in the seventh, eighth, and ninth 
grades, if they are really behind, that is when they drop out. 
Normally, it is around the ninth grade. They can't keep up, they are 
behind and discouraged, and they drop out.
  We need to find out in the third grade, the fourth grade, and fifth 
grade how they are doing and make sure we then intervene, when the cost 
is not so great. We can increase their ability to be a functional and 
good student and help them go on to success. It is a lot like business 
management, frankly. It is just good supervision and having a system 
that does not allow the status quo to drift, but one where we care 
enough to make the tough decisions, apply tough love, to insist that 
children behave in the classroom, they do their homework, and teachers 
do their work. If teachers are not performing, they need to be held to 
account, and we need to create accountability in the system. If we do 
so, I believe we can make real progress.

  As a part of the compromise that went on in the legislation, some 
good language was put in to ensure that all this testing we require is 
paid for by the Federal Government, so it is not an unfunded mandate. 
We also have in the bill testing rules that guarantee States will not 
have their curriculum set by Washington. It will guarantee that the 
tests don't mandate a single type of learning in America. I think that 
process worked well as we went forward.
  The flexibility goal has been achieved in a number of ways. It is not 
as great as I would like to see it. I have visited, in the last 15 to 
18 months, 20 schools in Alabama and spent a lot of time talking with 
teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members. They felt 
very strongly. These are people who have given their lives to children. 
They have chosen to teach and to be involved in education. They have 
told me consistently that the Federal Government has too many rules and 
regulations that make their lives more difficult and actually 
complicate their ability to teach in a classroom. There is money, but 
it is only available for what the Federal Government says, not for what 
they know they need at a given time in their communities.
  I think we need to continue to improve in the area of flexibility. We 
have made some real progress in that, and I am happy we have made 
progress in this bill. But it could have been greater. I think our 
teachers and principals will like what they see. It is a step in the 
right direction.
  Alabama has established an exceedingly fine reading program that is 
being replicated by many States. Senator Kennedy's excellent school 
system in Massachusetts is always on the

[[Page S13395]]

cutting edge of things. They have appropriated $10 million to just 
study this program and implement some of it in their system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I salute the leadership on this 
legislation. I note that the IDEA program amendments that were passed 
in the House and the Senate were not included in this, which was a 
disappointment to me. But we will have an opportunity next year to 
reform that, during the reauthorization of IDEA.
  I believe education is one of the most important issues that faces 
our Naiton today. We need to do all we can to free States and 
localities from Federal regulation, assure accountability by setting 
high standards, and empower parents with choices and information.
  As Governor of Texas, President Bush recognized the importance of 
education and made it the centerpiece of his campaign for President. 
When he took office, he delivered on his promise by releasing a 
comprehensive plan for reform during the first days he was in office.
  I believe that President Bush's leadership has been essential to the 
Congress producing the historic reform legislation that was passed by 
the conference committee on December 11. Since the tragedy on September 
11 the Congress and the President have understandably been focused on 
the war on terrorism.
  I believe it is a credit to the leadership of President Bush that he 
was able to continue to make education reform a priority. He never lost 
sight of protecting our greatest resource, and children. His leadership 
never wavered and I believe we could not have reached the bipartisan 
compromise in the education conference without his influence.
  Secretary of Education Rod Paige was also essential to our efforts at 
reform. Secretary Paige's real-life experiences as Superintendent of 
the Houston school system were invaluable in helping us to formulate 
legislation that will truly foster reform for all our children.
  I would also like to recognize the leadership of Senators Gregg and 
Kennedy here in the Senate and Congressmen Boehner and Miller in the 
House. Even when our country was threatened and they could have 
abandoned this effort, they stayed focused and were able to hammer out 
their differences and come up with a good piece of legislation.
  While the legislation does not contain all the provisions that I 
would have liked to have seen in the bill, it does take some important 
steps toward improving the educational opportunities for all our 
children.
  The conference report includes testing in grades 3 through 8 in math 
and reading, which is the cornerstone of the President's plan. I am 
glad that we have recognized the need to measure the progress of our 
students. We must determine if our schools are actually teaching our 
children the skills they need to succeed. The only way to measure our 
students knowledge is through testing.
  While some have raised concerns about reliance on testing, I believe 
this legislation strikes an important balance to ensure that we bring 
accountability to the system without overburdening our State and local 
school systems.
  The bill significantly changes accountability standards with the goal 
of assuring that low income students are learning at a level that is 
equal to their peers. The States are charged with developing the tests 
based on their own curriculum. This is not a one-size-fits-all 
approach.
  The bill specifically prohibits federally sponsored national testing 
or Federal control over curriculum and sets up a series of controls to 
ensure that any national evaluating test such as NAEP must be fair and 
objective and does not test or evaluate a child's views, opinions, or 
beliefs.
  In addition, the bill includes a trigger mechanism so that State-
based testing requirements are paid for by the Federal Government thus 
avoiding an unfunded mandate.
  In Alabama, we have already recognized the importance of testing, we 
already test our students in virtually every year of school. I believe 
this legislation will assist Alabama in these efforts and the new funds 
will help to improve the current system.
  The legislation also includes a number of major new initiatives which 
give parents options when their children are trapped in failing 
schools.
  For the first time, parents whose child is trapped in a failing 
school will be able to take a portion of the monies available under 
title I for their child--approximately $500 to $1,000--and use it to 
get the child outside tutorial support. These services can come from 
public institutions, private providers, or faith-based educators.
  For children who have fallen behind because of lack of good services 
at their school, groups such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Catholic schools, 
Sylvan Learning Centers, and a variety of other agencies would be able 
to give these children the support they need to catch up in the areas 
of math and English.
  Another new opportunity provided for parents under this legislation 
involves public school choice. A parent whose child is trapped in a 
failing school will have the opportunity to send their child to another 
public school which is not failing and have the transportation costs 
paid for.
  This bill does not allow parents to access private schools, but it 
does provide parents the option to move their child to a better public 
school where they can get an adequate education.
  We believe this option will put pressure on those public schools 
within a major school system that are failing and will give these 
children a viable chance to succeed.
  I believe one of our most important goals is to give States and local 
communities more flexibility. After all, they are best suited to make 
decisions regarding their own children. While the legislation does not 
provide the flexibility that many of us would have liked to have seen, 
it does make major improvements in freeing State and local education 
agencies from burdensome Federal regulations.
  Currently, Federal rules mandate that funds only be used for a 
designated purpose. Under this legislation, all 50 States will be 
permitted to make significant spending decisions of up to 50 percent of 
their non-title I funds by being allowed to move those funds from 
account to account without Federal approval.
  This means that States and local communities can spend these funds 
where they feel they will get the most benefit for the dollars.
  Seven States will also be permitted to consolidate 100 percent of 
their State activity, administrative funds, and innovative block grant 
funds and use them for any activity authorized under H.R. 1. This frees 
up hundreds of millions of dollars for these States to use at their 
discretion. This will dramatically expand a State's flexibility of they 
decided to participate in the program.
  Up to 150 school districts--at least three per State--could also 
apply to participate in even broader flexibility. They will be able to 
apply for waivers from virtually all Federal education rules and 
requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs in exchange for 
agreeing to further improve academic achievement for their low-income 
students.
  The concept is simple, the Federal Government will give them even 
greater flexibility in exchange for significant results.
  The State of Alabama has instituted a major reading initiative that 
has begun to make a difference in the lives of students in our state. 
In fact, the Alabama Reading Initiative is becoming a model for reading 
programs in other States.
  Massachusetts has appropriated $10 million to begin a program based 
on Alabama's efforts and Florida is beginning a pilot program in 12 
school districts patterned after the Alabama Initiative.
  President Bush also recognizes the importance of reading, he has 
described reading as ``the new civil right.'' Early on, he stated his 
goal that every child should be able to read by the third grade. One of 
the cornerstones of President Bush's education plan was his Reading 
First and Early Reading First initiatives.
  These initiatives are meant to encourage States and local schools to 
implement scientifically based reading programs and to augment programs

[[Page S13396]]

such as the Alabama Reading Initiative.
  The Reading First Initiative would help to establish reading programs 
for children in kindergarten through grade 3. Under this legislation, 
Federal funding for reading programs will be tripled from $300 million 
in 2001 to $900 million for 2002. President Bush has demonstrated his 
commitment to this program by budgeting $5 billion over 5 years for the 
effort.
  The companion program, Early Reading First, is intended to enhance 
reading readiness for children in high poverty areas and where there 
are high numbers of students who are not reading at the appropriate 
level. The $75 million initiative is designed to provide the critical 
early identification and early reading interventions necessary to 
prevent reading failure among our children.
  This legislation also takes important steps to improve teacher 
quality in our schools. In order to provide increased flexibility, the 
agreement eliminates the class-size reduction program and now gives 
school districts the option to choose whether they want to use federal 
teacher dollars to recruit or retain teachers, reduce class-size or to 
provide additional training to teachers already in the classroom.
  States would also be able to spend Federal teacher dollars on merit 
pay, tenure reform, teacher testing and alternative certification.
  The point is to allow flexibility for school districts to address the 
needs most important to the local community, instead of simply 
dictating what should be done from Washington.
  The legislation also includes the teacher liability language that 
passed the Senate.
  These provisions help to ensure that teachers, principals, and other 
school professionals can undertake reasonable actions to maintain order 
and discipline in the classroom, without the fear of being dragged into 
court or subject to frivolous lawsuits simply for doing their jobs.
  One issue that I am disappointed that we did not address in this 
legislation are the problems with the discipline provisions in 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
  While both the House and the Senate passed provisions to address this 
problem, unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the conference 
committee opposed both versions and neither was included in the final 
conference report.
  Having traveled all over Alabama and visiting a number of schools 
over the past few years, I am firmly convinced that the Federal IDEA 
discipline regulations cause more distress for dedicated teachers than 
any other single Federal rule or mandate.
  Some of my colleagues on the conference committee feel very strongly 
about this issue and strongly opposed my amendment. But I want to make 
my proposal clear.
  My amendment was carefully tailored to allow schools to discipline 
IDEA students in the same manner as non-IDEA students, when the 
behavior that led to the disciplinary action is not related to the 
child's disability. No child could be denied educational services for 
behavior that is related to their disability.
  My amendment also retains many of the procedural safeguards in 
current law to ensure that IDEA children are treated fairly, but it 
allows state and local educators more flexibility in their discipline 
policies.
  My amendment also would provide a better option for parents of 
children with disabilities to move their child to a better educational 
environment. While this option is available under current law, my 
language would streamline this process. The parents of the child and 
the school would still have to agree on this decision.
  I believe this is a reasonable proposal that would allow more 
students with disabilities, with the agreement of the school, to seek 
special education programs that better meet their needs.
  During my meetings at schools, I encouraged teachers to write to me 
to share their experiences with IDEA. I received a large stack of mail.
  The frustration and compassion in the letters is powerful. Real 
stories from educators and students are the best evidence of the need 
for change.
  Two things are clear to me. First, current Federal IDEA discipline 
rules cause disruption in the classroom and even threaten the safety of 
students and teachers.
  Second, the Federal Government needs to increase IDEA funding and 
meet its commitment to providing 40 percent of the national average per 
pupil expenditure.
  President Bush's budget included a $1 billion increase for IDEA for 
next year, the largest increase ever proposed by a President in his 
budget. He is committed to increasing this funding in future years.
  This new funding will be an important step in assisting schools to 
meet the goals established under IDEA.
  The IDEA law is filled with complex issues and problems besides 
discipline. One area that Secretary Paige seeks to address is the 
possible over-identification and disproportionate placement of minority 
students in special education.
  Secretary Paige has spoken to me about this problem and I stand ready 
to work with him to address it. For example, we need to look at how to 
distribute Federal special education funds without creating 
inappropriate incentives regarding referral, placement or services to 
children.
  We shouldn't be creating an incentive for schools to place children 
in special education programs that can be helped under our existing 
system.
  The IDEA law provides many wonderful and special benefits for 
children with disabilities, but we can make it better. It is important 
that we return common sense and compassion to this problem.
  I am committed to working to improve the law when it comes up for 
reauthorization next year. If we work together by providing more money 
for IDEA and give more authority to our local school officials, we can 
take a big step toward improving learning.
  While I continue to believe that education is and must remain the 
primary function of State and local government, I believe this 
legislation will help to improve our public education system.
  This legislation is far from perfect and I am sure we will have to 
make adjustments in future years.
  But I believe that with President Bush's leadership this legislation 
presents the best opportunity in 35 years to return power and dollars 
to the state and local school districts and to make academic 
achievement a priority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas. First, I remind the Senate that during the debate on this 
issue her amendment to increase the funding for bilingual education 
passed 62 to 34, and we kept her first year mark in this bill. That 
will mean that 400,000 more limited-English-speaking children will be 
able to learn. It is a major achievement and accomplishment. She has 
educated the Senate about the change in demographics and what is 
happening in her part of the world. We welcome the opportunity to yield 
her 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my 
support for the education reform package that is now before the Senate. 
After debating this issue for almost 3 years, I am pleased we have 
reached a bi-partisan agreement on a package that puts our children's 
future ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and 
attention for too long. This proposal before the Senate represents an 
important step in the right direction by recognizing the right of every 
child to receive a high quality education.
  I know many of my colleagues played a critical role in fashioning 
this very important legislation. I especially want to express my 
appreciation to Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for their tireless 
efforts on behalf of our nation's school children. As someone who has 
followed the progress of this bill very closely, I think each Member of 
this body owes the managers of this bill a debt of gratitude for 
bringing Senators with very different points of view together to find 
common ground on this critical issue. I applaud their leadership and I 
congratulate your success.
  I also want to say a special word of thanks to Senators Lieberman and 
Bayh who demonstrated real leadership by talking about many of the 
reforms we are about to ratify before those ideas were very popular. 
They deserve

[[Page S13397]]

a lot of credit for the final agreement they helped draft and I was 
honored to join them in crafting the original Three R's proposals that 
is clearly reflected in the bill before us.
  As I noted previously, I support this bipartisan compromise because 
it contains many of the elements that I think are essential to foster 
academic success. It provides school districts with the resources they 
need to meet higher standards. It expands access in Arkansas to funding 
for teacher quality, English language instruction, and after-school 
programs by distributing resources through a reliable formula based on 
need, not on the ability of school districts to fill out a federal 
grant application. And finally, and most importantly, in exchange for 
more flexibility and resources, it holds States and school districts 
accountable for the academic performance of all children.
  I do want to highlight one component of this legislation that I had a 
direct role in shaping. During consideration of the Senate reform bill 
in May, I successfully offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy and 
others calling on Congress to substantially increase funding to enable 
language minority students to master English and achieve high levels of 
learning in all subjects. More importantly for my State of Arkansas, 
under the approach I promoted, funding will now be distributed to 
States and local districts through a reliable formula based on the 
number of students who need help with their English proficiency.
  Currently, even though Arkansas has experienced a dramatic increase 
in the number of limited English proficient (LEP) students during the 
last decade, my state does very poorly in accessing federal funding to 
meet the needs of these students because the bulk of the funding is 
distributed through a maze of competitive grants.
  I am pleased the conferees accepted the funding level and the reforms 
I advocated. This new approach represents a dramatic improvement over 
the current system and will greatly benefit schools and students in my 
State.
  Ultimately, I believe all of the reforms that are contained in this 
bill will make an important difference in the future of our children 
and our nation. So I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
urge the adoption of this truly landmark legislation.
  Unfortunately, I feel compelled to mention one aspect of this 
legislation that dampens my excitement for its passage. Even though I 
believe the bill on balance represents a major improvement over the 
current federal framework, I am very disappointed that we are once 
again denying the promise we made to our constituents in 1975 to pay 40 
percent of the costs of serving students under IDEA.
  In my opinion, our failure to live up to this promise undermines to 
some extent the very reforms we seek to advance. I will continue to 
work in the Senate to reverse this record of inaction which is 
profoundly unfair to school districts, teachers, and the students they 
serve.
  I want to close, by thanking all of my colleagues who spent many 
weeks and months negotiating this agreement. Even though progress has 
been slow at times, the way Democrats and Republicans have worked 
together on this bill is a model I hope we can repeat often in the 
future.
  Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
leadership and assistance to me in being able to achieve something on 
behalf of the people of Arkansas. Once again, I express my support for 
the education reform package now before the Senate. We have debated 
this issue for almost 3 years, and we are so pleased we have reached a 
bipartisan agreement on the package that puts our children's future 
ahead of the partisan bickering that has diverted our energy and 
attention for way too long.
  The proposal before the Senate represents an important step in the 
right direction by recognizing the right of every child in this great 
Nation to receive a high-quality education.
  I know many of my colleagues played a critical role in fashioning 
this very important legislation, but there are two individuals who have 
been absolutely incredible in this debate and in this negotiation. I 
especially express my appreciation to Senator Kennedy and to Senator 
Gregg for their tireless efforts on behalf of our Nation's 
schoolchildren.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee who has played a very considerable role in this legislation, 
especially in the flexibility accounts, but he had input throughout the 
legislation and has done an exceptional job in making this a better 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Gregg and 
Senator Kennedy for their leadership in pulling together a complex 
bill. This bill accomplishes the goals that many of us have been 
talking about over the last 2 years, the total length of time we have 
been working on this bill. Those goals included striving for more 
flexibility, accountability, and local control.
  The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically changed our nation. As 
a result, the President is focused on combating forces unlike any other 
we have faced in our history. Nonetheless, the President has remained 
steadfastly committed to education reform and thanks to his efforts, 
today we send to him a bill that will transform the Federal 
Government's role in education.
  Since 1965, Federal aid has been provided to school districts for the 
education of disadvantaged children through title I. Despite spending 
$125 billion on Title I over the past 25 years, the most recent results 
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, tests for 
fourth-grade reading confirm that our current education system has not 
closed this achievement gap.
  The NAEP results revealed that 37 percent of the nation's fourth 
graders scored below basic. That means 37 percent of our fourth graders 
cannot read.
  I was disturbed to read in our Nashville newspaper, the Tennessean, 
last week that only 45.5 percent of third-graders in Nashville are 
reading at the national average, down almost three percentage points 
from 1998. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that the Nashville metro 
area failed to reduce the performance gap between poor students and 
their better-off peers: it was reduced only .2 percent in the 
elementary and middle-school grades, and it increased by 1 percent for 
high-school students.
  As President Bush has said, too many children in America are 
segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a 
constantly changing world that is demanding increasingly complex skills 
from its workforce, children are literally being left behind.
  The following programs and reforms contained in the ``No Child Left 
Behind Act'' will help our schools better prepare our children for the 
future:
  For reading first, $975 million in funds will be authorized for 
States to establish a comprehensive reading program anchored in 
scientific research. States will have the option to receive Early 
Reading First funds to implement research based pre-reading methods in 
pre-school. Tennessee's recently awarded $27 million grant will 
continue, and Tennessee will no longer have to apply for such funding. 
Funding to the State will be guaranteed through this new formula grant 
program.
  On rural education, $300 million in authorized funding will be 
available to some of Tennessee's rural school districts to help them 
deal with the unique problems that confront them.
  On unprecedented flexibility, all states and local school districts 
will be able to shift Federal dollars earmarked for one specific 
purpose to other uses that more effectively address their needs and 
priorities. And 150 school districts choosing to participate would 
receive a virtual waiver from Federal education requirements in 
exchange for agreeing to improve student achievement. I am particularly 
pleased that this latter initiative, known as Straight A's, was 
included in the final form of the bill.
  On empowering parents, parents will be enabled to make informed 
choices about schools for their children by being given access to 
school-by-school report cards on student achievement for all groups of 
students. Students in persistently low-performing schools will be 
provided the option of attending alternative public schooling or 
receiving Federal funds for tutorial services.

[[Page S13398]]

 That means that starting in September, students in more than 6,700 
failing schools will have the authority to transfer to better public 
schools. Students in nearly 3,000 of those schools also would be 
eligible for extra academic help, such as tutoring and summer classes 
paid with Federal tax money. In Tennessee alone, 303 schools will be 
provided these services.
  As to accountability for student performance, parents will know how 
well their child is learning, and schools will be held accountable for 
their effectiveness with annual state reading and math assessments in 
grades 3-8. States will be provided $490 million in funding for the 
assessments. Tennessee will receive approximately $53 million of these 
funds over the next 5 years.
  With regard to improvements to the Technology and Bilingual Education 
programs, the Technology and Bilingual Education programs have been 
streamlined and made more flexible. Parents must be notified that their 
child is in need of English language instruction and about how such 
instruction will help their child. The bill also focuses on ensuring 
that schools use technology to improve student academic achievement by 
targeting resources to those schools that are in the greatest need of 
assistance.
  On better targeting, Senator Landrieu offered an amendment to S. 1 
earlier this year that required better targeting of funds to our 
poorest schools. I supported that effort and am proud to say that this 
bill targets funds better than ever before. Through consolidation of 
programs and improved targeting of resources, we enable schools to do 
so much more with the 7 percent of funds they receive from the Federal 
Government.

  As to resources for teachers, over $3 billion will be authorized for 
teachers to be used for professional development, salary increases, 
class size reduction and other teacher initiatives. Additionally, 
teachers acting in their official capacity will be shielded from 
Federal liability arising out of their efforts to maintain discipline 
in the classroom, so long as they do not engage in reckless or criminal 
misconduct. And another $450 million will be authorized for Math and 
Science training for teachers, an initiative that is particularly 
important to me.
  I want to take a few minutes to discuss the Math and Science 
Partnership program, because I am particularly concerned about the 
state of Science education in our country. The most recent NAEP science 
section results showed that the performance of fourth- and eighth-grade 
students remained about the same since 1996, but scores for high school 
seniors changed significantly: up six points for private school 
students and down four for public school students, for a net national 
decline of three points. A whopping 82 percent of twelfth-grade 
students are not proficient in Science and the achievement gaps among 
eighth-graders are appalling: Only 41 percent of white, 7 percent of 
African-American and 12 percent of Hispanic students are proficient.
  The disappointing overall results for seniors on the science section 
of the NAEP prompted Education Secretary Rod Paige to call the decline 
``morally significant.'' He warned, ``If our graduates know less about 
science than their predecessors four years ago, then our hopes for a 
strong 21st century workforce are dimming just when we need them 
most.'' I couldn't agree with the Secretary more.
  I urge the appropriators to take note of these statistics and fund 
the Math and Science Program at the level it needs to make a 
difference.
  In this brief statement, I can only begin to list the number of 
reforms within this bill. The bill:
  enhances accountability and demands results;
  it has unprecedented state and local flexibility;
  it streamlines bureaucracy and reduces red tape;
  it expands choices for parents;
  it contains the President's Reading First initiative;
  it promotes teacher quality and smaller classrooms;
  it strives toward making schools safer;
  it promotes English fluency;
  And that is just a brief summary.
  I want to again congratulate our President, who provided great 
leadership by making education reform his top domestic priority. The 
result is that our elementary and secondary schools will be 
strengthened and local teachers, administrators and parents will be 
better able to make sure that no child is left behind.
  For the first time, Federal dollars will be linked to specific 
performance goals to ensure improved results. That means schools will 
be held accountable. And, by measuring student performance with annual 
academic assessments, teachers and parents will have the ability to 
monitor each student's progress.
  I want to thank Senators Gregg and Kennedy for all they have done on 
this bill. Senator Gregg was forced into a new leadership role when he 
suddenly became Ranking Member of the HELP Committee in the middle of 
the 6 week debate of S. 1. Suddenly, he was charged with managing a 
1,200 page education bill, which was the top domestic priority of the 
President. I know he and his staff, particularly Denzel McGuire, have 
dedicated innumerable hours to this piece of legislation and I commend 
them for their efforts.
  I congratulate, on my staff, Andrea Becker, whose diligence, 
dedication, and hard work are reflected in this legislation. Senator 
Gregg and Senator Kennedy were able to bridge some strong policy 
differences throughout and work together to make sure politics did not 
prevent passage of this landmark legislation. I thank them for their 
leadership and congratulate them on passage of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his kind comments, 
and especially for his assistance in making this bill a reality.
  Could the Chair advise us as to the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 6 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Massachusetts has 23\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining for the Senator from Minnesota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes for the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GREGG. I reserve our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut. The Senator from Connecticut has been a strong advocate in 
terms of accountability in schools and also investing in those 
children. So I welcome his comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts, who has played a pivotal role in bringing us to this 
extraordinary moment of accomplishment. I rise today to join my 
colleagues in voicing my enthusiastic support for this conference 
report to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and 
help reinvigorate America's public education system.
  This democracy of ours is a magnificent process, beautiful in its 
freedom, although often untidy and cumbersome in its execution. We come 
to one of those wonderful moments when it has worked to provide a 
revolutionary change in the Federal Government's relationship to public 
education in our country. This agreement marks a truly unique coming 
together of parties, ideologies and people behind legislation that will 
help us deliver a high-quality public education to the children of this 
Nation and, in doing so, help us deliver on the promise of equal 
opportunity for every American.
  With this bill, we are fundamentally changing the educational 
equation in our country. We are saying public education is no longer a 
local responsibility, but it is now truly a national priority. We are 
saying we are no longer going to tolerate failure for our children and 
from the adults who are supposed to be educating them. We are saying we 
believe, as a matter of faith, that every child in this country can 
learn at a high level. And we are doing what has been long overdue--
refocusing our Federal policies and redoubling our national efforts to 
help realize those expectations of excellence and raise academic 
achievement for all of our children. refocusing our Federal policies 
and redoubling our national efforts to help realize those expectations 
of excellence and raise academic achievement for all of our children.
  This new educational equation could be summed up in six words: Invest 
in reform; insist on results.

[[Page S13399]]

  We are proposing to substantially increase Federal funding to better 
target those dollars to the community and students with the greatest 
needs, to give States and schools far more freedom in choosing how to 
spend those dollars and then, in exchange, to demand more 
accountability for producing results. No longer are we in Washington 
going to ask: How much are we spending and where is it going? Now we 
will ask: How much are our children learning and where are they going?
  This new approach, and the reforms we have developed to implement it, 
reflect the best thinking of both parties in both branches of our 
Government and the hard work of a lot of Members, including 
particularly Senators Kennedy and Gregg in this Chamber, and 
Representatives Boehner and Miller from the House. I want to express my 
appreciation to them for their leadership, their vision, and their 
commitment to rethinking the way we aid and support public education 
and reengineering our partnership with the States and local districts.
  I am very proud to have had the opportunity to participate in this 
enormously constructive process as one of the negotiators of the Senate 
version of the bill and as a member of the conference committee. For 
that, I am grateful to Majority Leader Daschle and to Chairman Kennedy, 
who solicited ideas and input from Senator Bayh and me and other New 
Democrats, even though we were not members of the HELP Committee, and 
broke with tradition to appoint us to the conference committee.
  I am particularly proud of the role we New Democrats played in 
shaping the framework and ideas behind this reform plan, which 
incorporates many of the principles and programs of the comprehensive 
Three R's plan that Senator Bayh and I, and several of our colleagues 
in this Chamber sponsored last year. When we started out three years 
ago along this road, our goal was to bring some fresh thinking to 
Federal education policy and to help break the partisan impasse on this 
critical matter, to offer a proposal that could bridge the gaps between 
left and right and forge a new consensus for real school reform for 
America's children, and to truly reinvent the Federal role in 
education. With this bill, I think all of us, new and old Democrats--I 
take the liberty to say new and old Republicans--can fairly say 
``mission accomplished.''
  We pushed not only for more funding, but to target more of those 
resources to the poorest districts and to restore the traditional 
Federal focus on disadvantaged children. This bill does just that. We 
pushed to streamline the Federal education bureaucracy, reduce the 
strings attached to funding, empower local educators and encourage 
innovation. This bill does just that.
  We pushed to create strong standards of accountability, to impose 
real consequences for chronic failure, and to demand measurable 
progress in closing the achievement gap between the haves and have-
nots. Again, this bill does just that. Last but not least, we pushed to 
inject market forces deeper into our public school system, to promote 
greater choice and better information for parents, and to harness the 
positive pressure of competition to drive real change. This bill does 
just that.
  However, our work is not done. This new vision will take time and 
money to succeed, and we must be vigilant in following through on the 
implementation of this legislation. Simply put, these reforms will not 
work if they are not matched with resources. The significant funding 
levels provided in the Senate and House appropriations bills of about 
$22 billion, an increase of over $4 billion, provide a substantial down 
payment in realizing the necessary investment. But we must do more. We 
cannot close the achievement gap on the cheap. We must make increased 
investment a priority for the life of this bill, not just this year. I 
think the critical factor is for all of us to continue to work together 
in a bipartisan way to make sure we adequately and aggressively fund 
the reforms that are part of this proposal.
  In the meantime, I want to applaud President Bush for working with us 
in a cooperative, constructive manner to transform a promising 
blueprint for reform into what will soon be a landmark law. This was a 
model of bipartisanship and a reminder of what we can accomplish when 
we leave our partisan agendas at the door. I hope we will soon 
duplicate it.
  Mr. President, I wish to expand on my earlier comments to provide 
more historical background on the development of this conference report 
and explain its legislative intent.
  I am extremely pleased that the bill embodies many of the legislative 
intentions and key concepts that a number of my fellow New Democrats, 
particularly Senator Evan Bayh, and I, proposed when we first 
introduced the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and 
Responsibility Act--otherwise known as the ``Three R's'' bill--in March 
2000. I believe that we have achieved the same core goals in this 
conference report. The following analysis outlines the long, complex 
and ultimately fruitful evolution of the bill, and the concepts and 
themes underpinning its key provisions.
  The need for improving the federal role in K-12 public is well 
established. Too many of our schools have for years been failing to 
give low-income and minority students the education and skills they 
need to thrive in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. In 
addition, our nation faces a large achievement gap between higher- and 
lower-income students, and between white students and most minority 
students.
  Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 2000 
makes this clear. According to the report, 60 percent of the nation's 
fourth graders in poverty were reading below the basic proficiency 
level, compared to 26 percent of more affluent fourth graders. And the 
gap between children of different races and ethnicities is just as 
significant as the income gap; 63 percent of African-American fourth 
grade children and 58 percent of Latino children were reading below the 
basic proficiency level, compared with 27 percent of white children.
  The same problems persist at the top of the educational ladder. On 
average, of every 100 white kindergarten students, 93 will finish high 
school and 29 will earn at least a bachelor's degree. However, of every 
100 African-American kindergarten students, only 86 will finish high 
school and only 15 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. And of 
every 100 Latino kindergartners, just 61 will graduate from high school 
and 10 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. The result is that 
almost half of all college graduates by age 24 come from higher income 
families and only 7 percent from low-income families.
  These achievement gaps are unacceptable and unnecessary. Every day, 
more and more schools offering low-income students high standards and 
real support demonstrate that an underprivileged background does not 
consign a child to academic failure. In fact, students from low-income 
families can achieve at similar or higher levels than their more 
affluent peers. We were convinced that with the right approach, the 
federal government could help school districts and states spread these 
successes across the nation.
  Any reform of the federal role in education must start with the 
understanding that Washington is most helpful when it empowers states 
and localities to do their job more effectively, not when it micro-
manages the running of schools and districts. Though Congress helped 
fuel state and local improvements through its last reauthorization of 
ESEA in 1994 and through its support of charter schools and public 
school choice, those proved ultimately insufficient to the size of the 
challenge before the country. To support states and localities as they 
worked hard to adopt better standards, improve the quality of their 
teachers, and increase choice and competition in public education, the 
federal role had to change more profoundly.

  It was this desire to spur a more accountable, competitive and 
innovative public education system, and ultimately raise academic 
achievement among children of all incomes and backgrounds, that led my 
colleagues and me to propose the Three R's bill.
  In the winter of 1998, I began early discussions on the issue with my 
former colleague, Republican Senator Slade Gorton, sharing the belief 
that a broad, bipartisan education reform agenda could and should be 
developed. We convened a series of meetings with

[[Page S13400]]

key think tanks and policymakers--including the Progressive Policy 
Institute, the Education Trust, the Heritage Foundation, the Fordham 
Foundation and Empower America--and it soon became clear that we shared 
goals and approaches to reform that could serve as the basis for a 
legislative blueprint.
  Many of the concepts discussed in these meetings were distilled in a 
white paper in April 1999 on performance-based funding prepared by 
Andrew Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute in 1999, Toward 
Performance-Based Federal Education Funding: Reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Based on this framework, my 
staff and that of Senator Bayh began working regularly with like-minded 
moderate Democrats to draft a legislative proposal. Soon thereafter, 
the moderate Democrats formed the Senate New Democrat Coalition, with 
Senator Bob Graham as the leader, and selected education reform as the 
coalition's first legislative priority, with Senator Bayh and myself 
spearheading the effort.
  On March 21, 2000, I joined Senator Bayh and other Senate New 
Democrats, including Senators Mary Landrieu, Bob Graham, John Breaux, 
Blanche Lincoln, Herb Kohl, Richard Bryan, and Charles Robb, to 
introduce the Three R's Act, S. 2254, a sweeping piece of legislation 
designed to fundamentally reform federal education policy to a 
performance-based system focused on providing states and local school 
districts with greater resources and flexibility in return for greater 
accountability for increased student academic achievement. In May of 
2000, Representative Cal Dooley, a leader of the New Democrats in the 
House of Representatives, introduced the Three R's companion bill, H.R. 
4518, which was cosponsored by Representative Adam Smith.
  To correct a system that had grown too rigid, bureaucratic, and 
unresponsive to the needs of parents, the Three R's Act called for 
providing states and localities with more federal funding and greater 
flexibility regarding how to spend those dollars. In return, educators 
would be held more accountable for academic results. We argued that as 
a nation, we should ultimately base success on students' real 
educational outcomes--including test results and other measures--rather 
than on the number of programs or the size of the federal allocation.
  The Three R's Act called for streamlining the number of federal 
education programs and focusing federal dollars and attention on a few 
critical educational priorities, including serving disadvantaged 
students, raising teacher quality, increasing English proficiency, 
expanding public school choice, and stimulating innovation. Overall, it 
would have increased federal investment in public education by $35 
billion over the next five years, targeting most of those new dollars 
to the poorest school districts in the nation.
  In April 2000, in conjunction with the introduction of our Three R's 
bill, the New Democrats held a forum on Capitol Hill to foster dialogue 
on the need for education reform. Participants included Bob Schwartz of 
ACHIEVE, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, Amy Wilkins 
of The Education Trust, University of Maryland Professor Dr. Bill 
Galston, and Joseph Olshefske, Superintendent of Seattle Public 
Schools. Although some participants offered constructive criticism on 
certain provisions in the Three R's bill, they largely cited the bill 
as the building block for a broad and bipartisan consensus.
  In the Spring of 2000, Republican Senators Gorton and Gregg 
approached Senator Bayh and myself to discuss the possibility of 
producing just such a reform package, and together we reached agreement 
on a number of provisions later to appear in the Conference Report 
before us today, such as the concept known as ``supplemental 
services.'' Despite our inability to reach a final compromise at that 
stage, these negotiations significantly furthered the framework for a 
comprehensive bipartisan bill.
  During the May 2000 debate over S. 2, the Health, Education, Labor 
and Pensions Committee's Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization bill, my fellow Senate New Democrats and I successfully 
pushed for the inclusion of provisions enhancing accountability for 
educational performance in the Democratic Caucus' alternative 
amendment, Amdt. 3111, to S. 2. In addition, our coalition successfully 
pushed for a separate debate on our Three R's proposal, which we 
offered as a substitute amendment, Amdt. 3127 to S. 2. That amendment 
was one of the few to be considered on the Senate floor before the ESEA 
bill was withdrawn. Though our amendment only garnered 13 votes, all 
Democratic, its defeat could not obscure the fact that the basis for 
bipartisan agreement was building.
  Also in June of that year, I joined with Senator Landrieu in 
cosponsoring her amendment, S. 3645, to the Labor-HHS-Education FY 2001 
Appropriations Bill, H.R. 4577, which proposed focusing $750 million in 
federal funds on serving the poorest school districts. Unfortunately, 
that amendment was tabled, and thus defeated, despite bipartisan 
support for improving the distribution of federal funds to better serve 
all students. However, on behalf of the New Democrats, I successfully 
garnered inclusion of language requesting a GAO study of the formulas 
used to distribute federal education funds under Title I of the ESEA, 
including an assessment of their effectiveness in meeting the needs of 
the highest poverty districts. The GAO full report is expected in 
January 2002.
  As 2000 advanced, progress on the Three R's reform model was slowed 
by special interests, partisan politics, and the Presidential campaign 
of which I was a part. Congress failed to reauthorize ESEA on time for 
the first time since its enactment in 1965. Nonetheless, New Democrats 
and members supporting reform on the Republican side managed to take 
significant steps in the 106th Congress toward furthering the framework 
for the bipartisan compromise reached in the 107th Congress. Key among 
our victories were building on the consensus for greater accountability 
for academic results and agreeing to examine better targeting of 
federal resources on our nation's most disadvantaged communities.
  In August 2000, the Presidential elections went into full swing, 
taking up much of my time. It was encouraging for me to see both 
Presidential candidates adopting into their campaign platforms many of 
the concepts in the Three R's bill. Sandy Kress, current education 
advisor to President Bush and then advisor to Governor Bush, was widely 
reported to be a key architect of his education blueprint. I was not 
surprised to later learn that as a member of the Democratic Leadership 
Council in Texas, Sandy was intrigued by many of the concepts contained 
in the Progressive Policy Institute's education reform plan and our 
Three R's legislation in the Senate. I am pleased that President Bush 
embraced so many of these reforms in his blueprint for education 
reform.
  After the election, President-elect Bush invited several key 
education reformers, including Senator Bayh and Representative Tim 
Roemer, to Austin to discuss the reauthorization of ESEA. By including 
key New Democrats at this meeting, the President-elect sent a clear 
signal that to his administration, a bipartisan bill centered around a 
moderate message of reform would be a top priority.
  That message proved valuable in guiding us toward a compromise this 
year. On February 13, 2001, early in the 107th Congress, I joined other 
New Democrat cosponsors in reintroducing the Three R's bill as S. 303. 
The same day, the White House released a white paper outlining the 
Administration's education plan, ``No Child Left Behind,'' which shared 
significant common ground with the Three R's Act. Also that winter, 
Representative Tim Roemer reintroduced the Three R's companion bill, 
H.R. 345, in the House of Representatives, together with 18 other New 
Democrat cosponsors including Cal Dooley and Adam Smith, who had 
introduced the first House bill.
  Over the same period, Senate New Democrats were approached by Senator 
Gregg with the backing of the White House about the introduction of a 
bipartisan bill using the Three R's as a base. In late February and 
March 2001, Senators Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and myself began 
bipartisan negotiations with Sandy Kress of the White House and 
Republican Senators Gregg, Hutchinson, Collins, and Frist.
  The Senate Education Committee was simultaneously beginning work on

[[Page S13401]]

ESEA legislation, and on March 28, 2001, Senator Jeffords, Chairman of 
the HELP Committee, reported out of committee an education bill, S. 1, 
entitled ``Better Education for Students and Teachers Act,'' or 
``BEST.''

  Understanding that lasting reform requires broad bipartisan support, 
Senator Bayh and I encouraged the White House and our Republican 
colleagues to bring all interested parties--many of whom had the same 
reform goals--together. I am appreciative of the leadership shown by 
Senators Lott and Daschle in uniting these efforts and to have been 
included in those negotiations.
  However, the bill that emerged from the Senate was not as strong on 
accountability as the Three R's Act. I was disappointed, for example, 
that concerns raised by some members of Congress and many outside 
groups prompted the White House and others to abandon strong 
accountability tools to measure the performance of all students of all 
racial groups. Nonetheless, I believe that the language ultimately 
reached, while not as strong as I would have preferred, marked a 
dramatic step forward in holding schools, districts and states 
accountable for making annual progress in student academic achievement.
  In the first week of May 2001, this bipartisan substitute bill, S. 1, 
was brought to the floor. The Senate had a very lively debate on the 
bill for several weeks, with hundreds of amendments introduced and 
passed. The debate was interrupted periodically for other debates, most 
notably the consideration of the final conference report on the budget 
and tax relief bill, which itself included several education 
amendments. Several New Democrats, myself included, were concerned that 
insufficient funds were being provided for investments in important 
priorities such as education. An amendment to support full funding of 
IDEA was introduced and passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. 
Immediately thereafter, Senator Jeffords changed his membership in the 
Republican Party to independent status and the Senate was reorganized. 
Senator Kennedy became Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and 
Senator Gregg became the Ranking Member of the Committee. Fortunately, 
the bipartisan working spirit was not harmed by this change, and work 
on the education bill continued.
  During the debate on S. 1, I cosponsored with Senator Landrieu an 
amendment to restore the original purpose of Title I funding by 
prohibiting the allocation of Title I funds to school districts unless 
new funds were appropriated to the Targeted Grant formula, focusing 
these funds on the communities and schools with the greatest need. The 
amendment, S. Amdt. 475, passed by a vote of 57 to 36. We were able to 
secure $1 billion in funding for these targeted grants in a subsequent 
amendment, S. Admt. 2058, to the Senate Labor-HHS-Education 
Appropriations bill, S. 1536, for fiscal year 2002 which passed the 
Senate on November 6, 2001. The amendment, cosponsored by Senator 
Landrieu, Senator Cochran, and myself, passed the Senate by a vote of 
81 to 19.
  I also cosponsored, with Senators Tom Carper and Gregg, an amendment 
to S. 1, S. Amdt. 518, to make public school choice a reality for 
children trapped in failing schools by encouraging states and local 
districts with low-performing schools to implement programs of 
universal public school choice and eliminating many of the existing 
barriers to charter school start-up and facility costs. Parental choice 
is a crucial element of accountability, and both provisions promise to 
give more and more parents a real stake in their children's education. 
I am proud that both concepts are incorporated in the legislation that 
we are considering today.

  After several weeks of debate, the Senate passed S. l, ``BEST'' in 
June 2001. Since the House of Representatives had introduced H.R. 1, 
entitled ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,'' in March, a conference 
was necessary to resolve the still significant differences between the 
bills. In July 2001, I was very gratified to be appointed a conferee to 
the conference committee of the House and the Senate, with my Three R's 
cosponsor Senator Bayh. Since Senator Bayh and I are not members of the 
HELP Committee, our inclusion was unprecedented; and I thank Senator 
Kennedy for his keen understanding of the contribution that the New 
Democrats made to this process of forging a bipartisan compromise.
  We have been negotiating and working diligently on the conference 
report since July, and although this Conference process was long and 
difficult, I believe the hard work has been worthwhile, as we have 
produced a landmark bill with the potential to vastly improve our 
nation's public schools. Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Representative 
Boehner, and Representative Miller all deserve praise for creatively 
resolving differences between the bills.
  Previously, accountability for federal education dollars had been 
focused on how a state, school district, or school spent funds rather 
than the results that those funds produced. The Three R's bill, and now 
the new conference report bill, shifts the focus from inputs to 
outcomes. This conference report embodies the performance-based 
accountability model put forth in the Three R's bill for holding 
states, school districts, and schools accountable for increases in 
student achievement based on state assessments and state standards.
  Of course, we have not solved all of the problems that confront 
education in the United States, in particular, I would like to take a 
moment to commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on the issue of 
educating students with disabilities under the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and his dedication to ensuring that 
Congress lives up to its commitment made in 1975 to provide 40 percent 
of the costs associated with educating these students. His courage to 
take such a strong stand on this important priority is admirable. I am 
hopeful that Congress can address this issue when it takes up the 
reauthorization of IDEA in 2002.
  Nevertheless, this conference report represents a major step forward 
in improving and reforming our education policies and programs. The 
following highlights provide an overview of concepts and policy themes 
that were proposed in the New Democrats' Three R's bill and had an 
impact on the new legislation.
  On accountability, the heart of the Three R's plan called on each 
state to adopt performance standards in all federal programs, most 
importantly requiring states to ensure that all students, including 
those in Title I schools, would reach proficiency in math and reading 
within 10 years. It required states, districts and schools to 
disaggregate test results to better focus attention and resources on 
the lowest performing subgroups in order to close the achievement gap 
that exists in our nation between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged 
students, and minority and non-minority students. It further required 
states to develop annual measurable performance goals for teacher 
quality and English proficiency, and held states and districts 
accountable for meeting those goals. The final agreement adopts much of 
this accountability structure--creating a more performance-based 
approach to public education.

  As to flexibility, the Three R's plan called for consolidating dozens 
of federal education programs into a limited number of funding streams 
that would greatly expand the ability of states and districts to 
allocate federal aid to meet their specific needs. Although the final 
agreement does not contain the level of consolidation envisioned in the 
Three R's bill, it does significantly increase the flexibility of 
states and local districts to transfer funding from many other 
programs; it also creates new ``State Flex'' and ``Local Flex'' 
experiments to provide even more freedom to consolidate funding.
  Concerning disadvantaged students, the Three R's plan would have 
reformed the Title I program to hold states and districts accountable 
for closing the achievement gap; strengthened the definition of what 
constitutes adequate yearly progress; and required districts to first 
intervene and turn around chronically failing schools, and ultimately 
restructure them, convert them to charter schools, or close them down. 
The final agreement builds on these reforms and adds to them, sharply 
redefining adequate yearly progress so that all students must be 
academically proficient within 12 years, offering students in failing 
schools the right

[[Page S13402]]

to transfer to higher-performing public schools, and giving families 
with children in poorly performing schools the right to use federal 
funds for outside tutoring assistance.
  Related to targeting, the Three R's plan not only called for 
increasing federal funding for Title I and other major programs, but 
for targeting those resources to the districts with the highest 
concentrations of poverty. The final agreement includes a New Democrat 
amendment sponsored by Senators Landrieu and myself that channels most 
of the new Title I dollars to the poorest districts through a more 
targeted formula. It also changes other program formulas to better 
target teacher quality, English proficiency, reading, technology and 
after school funding to the districts and schools with the greatest 
need.
  On teacher quality, the Three R's plan called for consolidating 
several teacher quality grant programs into a single formula stream, 
better targeting those dollars to the districts with the most teachers 
teaching out of their area of specialty, and holding states and 
districts accountable for ensuring that all teachers are deemed highly 
qualified by a specified deadline. The final agreement meets all three 
goals, requiring all teachers in a state to be qualified--not only 
meeting state certification requirements but also meeting rigorous 
content standards--by 2006.
  As to bilingual reform, the Three R's plan called for a total 
overhaul of federal bilingual education programs that would streamline 
the bureaucracy, increase federal investment to meet growing 
enrollment, and refocus the program's mission on helping non-native 
speaking students achieve proficiency in English and other academic 
subjects. The final agreement adopts almost all of these reforms, 
including a requirement to annually assess students' language 
proficiency and hold districts accountable for improving English 
proficiency for the first time.

  Regarding public school choice, the Three R's plan called for 
increasing educational options for parents within the public school 
framework, strengthening funding for charter schools and creating a new 
initiative to promote intra- and inter-district choice programs at the 
local level. The final agreement includes a New Democrat amendment 
sponsored by Senator Carper that is based largely on these provisions, 
as well as Three R's-related measures requiring states and districts to 
expand the use of report cards to inform parents about school 
performance.
  I would like to turn now to a detailed discussion of some of the 
major titles and parts of the conference report which have been 
influenced by the provisions and intent of the Three R's bill. The 
heart of the Three R's plan, especially for Part A of Title I, was a 
comprehensive accountability system for closing the academic 
achievement gap that held each, district, and school responsible for 
improving academic performance. It called for a major investment of 
federal resources under Title I and better targeting of those funds to 
the highest poverty communities. Under that restructured system, states 
would be required to define adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for 
student academic achievement so that all students would be proficient 
in reading and math within 10 years and each district and school would 
be required to show measurable progress each year--not just on average, 
but specifically for minority and disadvantaged subgroups. If schools 
failed to meet these standards, districts would be required to 
intervene and make improvements. If schools continually failed, 
districts would eventually be required to take dramatic steps to 
overhaul them or close them down, while providing students in those 
schools with the right to transfer to another higher performing public 
school.
  Title I, Part A of the conference report incorporates much of the 
ideas and architecture of this system as envisioned under the Three R's 
bill and substantially builds on them. It authorizes $13.5 billion in 
funding for fiscal year 2002 while significantly reforming the funding 
formulas under Title I, Part A, subpart 2. It demands that states 
develop new annual assessments in grades 3-8 to better monitor student 
learning, and sharply redefines the definition of adequate yearly 
progress to ensure that schools and districts are making demonstrable 
gains in closing the achievement gap, and that all students are 
academically proficient within 12 years. And, it demands annual 
accountability for that progress by intervening in failing schools and 
districts to turn them around, and imposes tough actions on those that 
fail to improve over time.
  Regarding standards and assessments, the Three R's bill maintained 
the requirements for state content and student performance standards 
and annual assessments that existed under current law, as directed 
under the enactment of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Under section 1111(b)(4) of Title I, it 
required that states have in place their annual assessments in English 
language arts and mathematics by the 2002-2003 school year. It further 
recognized the growing importance of a high quality science education 
for all students, so that our nation may continue to compete in a 
global and increasingly high-tech, high-skilled economy. As a result, 
it expanded current law by requiring states to develop and implement 
science standards and assessments by the 2006-2007 school year. States 
that failed to have their 1994 required assessments, and the new 
science assessments, in place by the required deadlines would not 
receive any new administrative funds and would lose 20 percent of their 
administrative funds in subsequent years if the failure continued. 
States would be required to administer assessments annual to at least 
one grade in each the elementary, middle and high school levels.

  It further required in section 1111(b)(4) that states assess limited 
English proficient--LEP--students in the student's native language if 
such language would be more likely to yield accurate and reliable 
information on what that student knows and is able to do. However, it 
demanded that states require assessments in English for English 
language arts for LEP students. School districts could delay this 
requirement for one additional year on a case-by-case basis.
  As with the Three R's, the conference report upholds the requirements 
that exist under current law, as enacted under the 1994 reauthorization 
of the ESEA, for standards and assessments and penalizes states that 
fail to meet the requirement to have standards and assessments in place 
by the 2001-2002 school year. Under the requirement, the Secretary 
shall withhold 25 percent of a non-compliant State's administrative 
funds. It further expands on the testing requirements called for under 
current law and under the Three R's plan. It requires, in section 
1111(b)(3), that States develop and implement new annual assessments 
for all grades, between and including, third-eighth for mathematics, 
and reading or language arts. Such assessments must be administered 
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year. The Secretary may withhold 
administrative funds if states fail to meet deadline for the new annual 
assessments.
  In addition the Act upholds the importance of a science education, as 
highlighted under the Three R's bill, by requiring states under Title I 
Part A section 1111(b)(1)) to establish science standards and for those 
standards to be in place by the 2006-2007 school year, and as required 
under section 1111(b)(3) for states to develop and begin implementation 
of science assessments in at least one grade in each elementary, middle 
and high school level by the 2007-2008 school year.
  Title I, Part A of the Act, section 1111(3), also requires the 
assessment of limited English proficient students in English in reading 
or language arts in English if such student have been in the United 
States for three years, but allows districts to seek a waiver from this 
requirement for up to two additional years, on a case-by-case basis. 
The intent of the new legislation is that these waivers be used only in 
very limited circumstances, and by no means broadly applied, to protect 
the integrity of the new program.
  In order to assist states with the costs associated with the 
development of assessments and standards, Title VI of the Three R's 
bill allowed states to use funds set aside under that title for the 
continue improvement and development of standards and assessments. This 
new Act too will ensure that

[[Page S13403]]

states have substantial resources to use for the development and 
administration of new annual assessments. Under section 1111(b)(3), the 
Act authorizes $370 million in funding for fiscal year 2002 and raises 
that level by an additional $10 million in subsequent fiscal years, up 
to $400 million for each fiscal year 2005-2007. If appropriated federal 
funds fall below the specified amount in any fiscal year, states are 
allowed to cease the administration, but not the development, of new 
annual assessments.

  To prevent gaming of test results, section 1111(b)(2) of the Three 
R's stated that in order for a school to be found meeting adequate 
yearly progress, it must meet its annual measurable objectives set for 
each subgroup and it must annually assess at least 90 percent of the 
students in each subgroup. The conference report improves this goal by 
requiring schools to assess 95 percent of the students in each 
subgroup. This provision will help protect against any abuses by 
schools or districts in excluding certain students from annual 
assessments.
  I believe that it is the intention of the language in section 1111(3) 
regarding new annual assessments in mathematics and reading or language 
arts, and science, that such assessments shall be interpreted by the 
U.S. Department of Education to mean state developed tests that produce 
valid and reliable data on student achievement that is comparable from 
school to school and district to district. This conference report's 
expanded and improved focus in section 1111(3) of Title I on high-
quality annual assessments will help ensure that schools and parents 
have a better understanding of students' levels of knowledge and the 
subject areas requiring improvement. Such regular monitoring of 
achievement also will help schools and district better achieve 
continuous academic progress.
  Regarding English proficiency assessments, Title III of the Three R's 
required states to develop annual assessments to measure English 
proficiency gains. This new Act recognizes the importance of measuring 
English proficiency attainment by limited English proficient students. 
Under section 1111, it requires that states hold districts accountable 
for annually assessing English proficiency (including in the four 
recognized domains of reading, writing, speaking and listening). States 
must demonstrate that, beginning no later than the 2002-2003 school 
year, school districts will annual assess English proficiency of all 
students with limited English proficiency. In addition, it is the 
intention of the Conference that the Secretary provide assistance, if 
requested, to states and districts for the development of assessments 
for English language proficiency as described under section 1111(3) so 
that those assessments may be of high quality and appropriately 
designed to measure language proficiency, including oral, writing, 
reading and comprehension proficiency. Regular and high quality 
comprehensive assessment of English language proficiency will help 
create a stronger mechanism for measuring proficiency gains and 
ensuring progress.
  In calling for reformed accountability systems in states, Section 
1111(b)(2) of the Three R's required states to end the practice of 
having dual accountability systems for Title I and non-Title I schools, 
requiring states to establish a single, rigorous accountability plan 
for all public schools. It allowed states to determine what constitutes 
adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for all schools, local educational 
agencies, and the state in enabling all children in schools to meet the 
state's challenging student performance standards.

  It also established some basic parameters on AYP, requiring it to be 
defined so as to compare separately the progress of students by 
subgroup--ethnicity/race, gender, limited English proficiency, and 
disadvantage/non-disadvantaged; compare the proportions of students at 
each standard level as compared to students in the same grade in the 
previous school year; be based primarily on student assessment data but 
may include other academic measures such as promotion, drop-out rates, 
and completion of college preparatory courses, except that the 
inclusion of such shall not reduce the number of schools or districts 
that would otherwise be identified for improvement; include annual 
numerical objectives for improving the performance of all groups of 
students; and include a timeline for ensuring that each group of 
students meets or exceeds the state's proficient level of performance 
within 10 years.
  Section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report defines AYP in a manner 
that is consistent with the goals of the Three's. It defines AYP as a 
uniform state bar or measure of progress for all students, set 
separately for mathematics and reading or language arts, and is based 
primarily on assessment data. The amount of progress must be sufficient 
to ensure that 100 percent of all students reach the state's standard 
of academic proficiency within 12 years. States are required to set a 
minimum bar, or measure, based on either the level of proficiency of 
the lowest performing subgroup in the state or the lowest quintile 
performing schools, whichever is higher, plus some growth. States may 
keep the bar at the same level for up to three years before raising it 
to the next level. However, the first incremental increase shall be two 
years after the starting point, and the bar shall be raised in equal 
increments. Each of the four disaggregated
subgroups--disadvantage/non-disadvantaged, limited English proficient, 
disabled, and race/ethnicity--must meet the state uniform bar, or 
measure of progress, for both mathematics and reading or language arts 
in order for a school or district to be determined meeting AYP.
  However, the Conferees understand that some subgroups may make 
extraordinary gains but still fall below a state's uniform bar for 
progress. Therefore, section 1111(b)(2) of this conference report 
contains a ``safe harbor'' provision for such cases. Schools with 
subgroups that do not meet AYP, but whose subgroups make at least 10 
percent of their distance to 100 percent proficiency (or reduce by 10 
percent the number of students in the relevant subgroup that are not 
yet proficient), and make progress on one other academic indicator, 
will not be identified under section 1116 as in need of improvement.
  The Conferees intend that this system of setting progress bar and 
raising it in equal increments over a 12-year period will allow states 
the flexibility of focusing on their lowest performing subgroups and 
schools, while gradually raising academic achievement in a meaningful 
manner. It will further ensure that state plans outline realistic 
timelines for getting all students to proficiency, and prohibits states 
from ``backloading'' their expected proficiency gains in the out years. 
I believe that the Secretary in approving state plans shall give close 
scrutiny to the timelines established by states so that they may be 
meaningful and meet the requirements of this language--to have 100 
percent of student in all subgroups reach the state's proficient 
standard level within 12 years.

  In order to address concerns raised over the volatility of test 
scores, section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report allows states to 
establish a uniform procedure for averaging of assessment data. Under 
this system, states may average data from the school year for which the 
determination is made under section 1116 regarding the attainment of 
AYP with data from one or two school years immediately preceding that 
school year. In addition, States may average data across grades in a 
school, but not across subjects.
  As did Three R's, the new Act recognizes that in order to maintain 
high quality pubic education alternatives, charter schools must be held 
accountable for meeting the accountability requirements under Title I 
for academic achievement, assessments, AYP, and reporting of academic 
achievement data. However, the legislation also understands the unique 
relationships established under individual state charter school laws. 
As a result, this conference report clarifies that charters schools are 
subject to the same accountability requirements that apply to other 
public schools, including sections 1111 and 1116, as established by 
each state, but that the accountability provisions shall be overseen in 
accordance with state charter school law. It further expresses that 
authorized chartering agencies should be held accountable for carrying 
out their oversight responsibilities as determined by each state 
through its charter school law and other applicable state laws.

[[Page S13404]]

  To aid low-performing schools so that they may make the necessary 
improvements to turn themselves around, such as providing more 
professional development for teachers, designing a new curriculum and 
hiring more highly qualified teachers, the section 1003 of the Three 
R's bill required states to set aside 2.5 percent of their Title I, 
Part A funds in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 3.5 percent of funds 
for fiscal years 2003-2005. States would be required to send 80 percent 
of these funds directly to school districts for the purpose of turning 
around failing schools and districts.
  This conference report contains similar requirements, demanding that 
states set aside two percent of their Title I funds received under 
subpart 2 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and four percent of their 
funds in fiscal years 2004-2007 to assist schools and districts 
identified for improvement and corrective action under section 1116, 
and to provide technical assistance under section 1117. States shall 
send 95 percent of the funds reserved in each fiscal year directly to 
local school districts. It further authorizes $500 million for grants 
to local school districts to provide supplemental efforts by districts 
to address schools identified under section 1116. I believe it is the 
intention of these provisions that funds be directed first, at schools 
and districts in corrective action, and second, to schools and 
districts identified for improvement.
  Under the Three R's, section 1116, school districts shall identify as 
being in need of improvement any school that for two consecutive years 
failed to make adequate yearly progress, or was in, or eligible for, 
school improvement before enactment of the legislation. 
Schools identified would have the opportunity to review the school 
data, and if the principal believed that identification was made in 
error, the identification could be contested. In addition, districts 
would be required to notify parents of the school's identification and 
what it means, what the school is doing to address the problems, and 
how parents can become more involved in improvement efforts.

  Parents of students in schools identified prior to the enactment of 
the proposed legislation would be given the choice to transfer their 
child to a higher performing public schools that was not identified 
under section 1116. For parents of students in schools identified after 
enactment, the districts would be required to provide the parents with 
the option to transfer their child to a higher performing school within 
12 months after the date of identification.
  Schools identified for school improvement under section 1116 of the 
Three R's would be required to develop and implement school improvement 
plans to address the school's failure, and to devote 10 percent of 
Title I, Part A funds for high quality professional development for 
teachers. Although districts would be allowed to take action earlier, 
the bill required districts to identify for corrective action, any 
school that, after two years of being identified for school 
improvement, failed to make AYP. As under improvement, schools would 
have the opportunity to contest the identification for corrective 
action. Districts would be required to impose corrective actions that 
included implementing new curricula, reconstituting school personnel, 
or making alternative governance arrangements for the school, such as 
shutting it down and reopening it as a charter school. In addition, 
parents with students in such schools would continue to receive the 
right to transfer to another school and have transportation costs or 
services provided by the district. The bill capped the amount of Title 
I funds that could be spent by a district in meeting this requirement 
at 10 percent.
  The bill also required states to identify local educational agencies 
that had failed to make AYP under a similar timeframe, requiring them 
to develop and implement improvement plans, giving parents the right to 
transfer their student to another school, and imposing corrective 
actions for repeated failure.
  The conference report embodies much of the concepts proposed in the 
Three R's bill for turning around low performing schools and imposing 
corrective actions on those who continually fail. It expands the 
options available to parents of students in schools identified for 
improvement or corrective action. And, it ensures that schools that 
continually fail will face tough consequences.
  Under section 1116 of Title I of the conference report, schools and 
districts that have been identified for improvement or corrective 
action prior to enactment would start in the same category after 
enactment. It is the intention of these provisions that schools that 
have been failing for years do not get to restart their clocks, and 
that actions be taken immediately to address the failure in those 
schools and districts.
  To address concerns raised that one year's worth of data is not 
enough to judge success or failure, the Act requires that schools must 
fail to make AYP for two consecutive years before being identified for 
improvement under section 1116. Schools identified shall develop and 
implement improvement plans and receive additional technical and 
financial assistance to make improvement, and must devote 10 percent of 
their Title I funds to professional development activities for teachers 
and principals. Parents of children in these schools will be given the 
option to transfer their child to a higher performing public school 
with transportation costs or services provided. The Act clarifies that, 
although districts are required to provide transportation, they may 
only use up to 15 percent of their Title I funds to pay for such costs 
or services. The option to transfer shall only be consistent with state 
law--local law or policy shall not apply--and schools receiving 
transferring students must treat them in the same manner as any other 
student enrolling in the school. It is the intent of these provisions 
that capacity constraints not be a barrier to public school choice and 
that choice be meaningful by ensuring that transportation costs or 
services will be provided.
  Schools that fail for three consecutive years to meet AYP shall 
continue the improvement plan and other requirements from the previous 
year, and shall give parents the option of receiving, and selecting, 
outside tutoring assistance for their child from a state-approved list 
of providers. Such providers may include private organizations, non-
profit organizations, and community-based organizations. School 
districts shall only be required to reserve 20 percent of their Title I 
funds under Part A, and spend up to 5 percent of their Title I funds on 
providing parents with the option to transfer to another school and 5 
percent to provide supplemental services, with the remaining 10 percent 
of funds split between the two requirements as determined by the 
district. District shall not be required to spend more than the 
reserved maximum of 15 percent on providing supplemental services and 
shall select students by lottery if not all eligible students may be 
served.
  It is the intention of these provisions that student in failing 
schools have meaningful options to choose from while enabling districts 
to devote the bulk of their Title I resources on making improvements in 
the underlying school.
  Just as the Three R's demanded that tough actions be taken with 
schools that fail to improve, the conference report requires that 
schools that fail to meet AYP for four years undergo at least one 
corrective action. Such actions include instituting a new curriculum, 
replacing the principal and some relevant staff, or reopening the 
school as a charter school. Schools that fail for five consecutive 
years shall continue the action from the previous year and must begin 
planning for restructure. These measures are intended to ensure that 
districts take actions that will result in a substantive and positive 
change in the school, and that directly address the factors that led to 
failure.
  This conference report embodies the intent of the Three R's and 
conferees that schools that continually fail to improve must, at some 
point, face dramatic consequences. Section 1116 requires that Schools 
that fail to meet AYP for six consecutive years shall be 
completely restructured, including instituting a new governance 
structure, such as a charter school or private management organization, 
and replace all relevant staff. These steps shall, in effect, result in 
the creation of an entirely new school.

  I believe that the timelines established under this conference report 
are

[[Page S13405]]

rigorous but fair and will allow for true identification of low 
performing schools so that they may get the assistance and time they 
need to turn around performance, but ensure that they face 
comprehensive and tough penalties if they fail to make improvement.
  Clarifying that identification should be based on two years worth of 
data, the Act requires that schools must make AYP for two consecutive 
years in order to be removed from improvement status, corrective 
action, or restructure under section 1116. Districts may delay 
corrective action or restructure for one year for a school that makes 
AYP for one year. It is the intention of this provision that schools 
that may be on the right track to better performance should not be 
forced to curtail current improvement actions in order to implement a 
new one. Rather, such schools should be expected to continue current 
improvement activities and monitored for progress for one additional 
year. If schools fail to make a second year of AYP, then they would be 
forced to undergo corrective action, or restructure.
  As under the Three R's, the conference report requires states to 
establish a similar process for identifying and taking corrective 
action on school districts that fail to meet AYP, and for providing 
parents in failing districts with the option to transfer to a higher 
performing school or receive supplemental services from a tutoring 
provider. Just as districts shall be required to enforce improvement, 
corrective action and restructure requirements, it is my belief that 
this conference reports intends for states to aggressively monitor 
district performance and follow the requirements established under 
section 1116 regarding district improvement and corrective action. I 
further believe that the Secretary shall consider non-compliant any 
state that fails to take action on districts identified under section 
1116, or fails to take actions on schools identified under section of 
1116--in cases where districts within the state fail to uphold these 
requirements.
  Regarding teacher quality, the Three R's Title II required states to 
have all teachers fully qualified by 2005, meaning that they must be 
state certified and have demonstrated competency in the subject area in 
which they are teaching by passing a rigorous content knowledge test, 
or by having a bachelor's degree, or equivalent number of hours in a 
subject area. The provisions were intended to ensure that all students, 
particularly those in high poverty schools, were taught by educators 
with expertise in their subject area. It sought to address the inequity 
that exists in our public education system where disadvantaged students 
are more often taught by a teacher that is out of field than their more 
advantaged peers. It also defined, in section 1119 of Title I, 
professional development, so that teachers and principals would receive 
high quality professional development that provides educators and 
school leaders with the knowledge and skills to enable students to meet 
state academic performance standards; is of on-going duration; is 
scientifically research based; and, in the case of teachers, is focused 
on core content knowledge in the subject area taught.
  To place greater emphasis on the crucial need for highly trained 
teachers in our nation's poorest schools and recognizing that a 
significant portion of Title I funds are used to hire teachers, the 
Three R's required states under Title I section 1119, as well as under 
Title II to ensure that all teachers meet the requirement to be fully 
qualified by the end of 2005; to annually increase the percentage of 
core classes taught by fully qualified teachers; and to annually 
increase the percentage of teachers and principals receiving high 
quality professional development.
  Section 1119 of the Three R's also established requirements for 
paraprofessionals to ensure that such individuals would be 
appropriately equipped to assist teachers in the classroom and assist 
in tutoring students. Paraprofessionals that provided only translation 
services for non-native speaking students and families, or parent 
involvement activities, would be exempted from the new requirements. 
The bill also placed restrictions on the types of duties that 
paraprofessional may provide in schools. The intent of these provisions 
was to reduce the reliance in schools on paraprofessionals in providing 
core academic instruction to students, and place a priority on ensuring 
that students be taught by a highly trained teacher.
  This conference report embodies much of the Three R's goals and 
provisions on teacher quality, professional development and 
paraprofessional quality. Section 1119 of the report requires states to 
ensue that all teachers hired under Title I will be highly qualified by 
the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Highly qualified is defined as 
being state certified and, in the case of a newly hired teacher, having 
demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or 
having a bachelor's degree in the subject area taught. And, in the case 
of an existing teacher, highly qualified teachers shall have 
demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or 
meeting a high, objective and uniform standard of evaluation developed 
by the state.
  I believe it is the intention of this language to ensure that content 
knowledge assessments or state standards of evaluations as described in 
section 1119 will provide for a rigorous, uniform, objective system 
that is grade appropriate and subject appropriate, and that will 
produce objective, coherent information of a teacher's knowledge of the 
subject taught. Such a system is not intended to stigmatize teachers 
but to ensure that all teachers have the crucial knowledge necessary to 
ensure that students may meet the state's challenging academic 
achievement standards in all core subjects.
  In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be 
given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure 
that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under 
Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, and under section 1119 of 
this conference report, states would be required establish annual 
measurable objectives for districts and schools to annually increase 
the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional 
development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting those 
objectives. It also is why both pieces of legislation require under 
Part A of Title I that districts spend five percent of their Title I 
funds received under subpart 2 on professional development activities, 
and require under section 1116 that schools identified devote 10 
percent of their Title I funds to professional development activities 
as defined under section 1119.

  On report cards, The Three R's, in Title IV, section 4401, required 
states, districts and schools to annually publish and widely 
disseminate to parents and communities report cards on school level 
performance. It required that report cards be in a manner and format 
that is understandable and concise. State report cards would be 
required to include information on each district and school within the 
state receiving Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds, including 
information disaggregated by subgroup regarding: student performance on 
annual assessments in each subject area; a comparison of students at 
the three state standard levels of basic, proficient and advanced in 
each subject area; three-year trend data; student retention rates; the 
number of students completing advanced placement courses; four-year 
graduation rates; the qualifications of teaches in the aggregate, 
including the percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or 
provisional credentials, the percentage of classes not taught by a 
fully qualified teacher, and the percentage of teachers who are fully 
qualified; and information about the qualifications of 
paraprofessionals.
  District level report cards would be required to report on the same 
type of information as well as information on the number and percentage 
of schools identified for improvement, and information on how students 
in schools in the district perform on assessments as compared to 
students in the state as a whole. School level report cards would be 
required to include similar information as that required under the 
state and district report cards as well as information on whether the 
school has been identified under section 1116. Parents would also have 
the right to know, upon request to the school district, information 
regarding the professional qualifications of their student's classroom, 
and information on the level of performance of the individual student.

[[Page S13406]]

  Section 1111 of Title I of the conference report contains a similar 
structure for report cards and essentially the same required 
information. States would be required to annually report to the public 
on student performance information in the aggregate for each of the 
four subgroups, in addition to migrant students and gender, including: 
student performance on state assessments; a comparison of students 
performing at each of the states standard levels of basic, proficient 
and advanced; graduation rates; the number and names of schools 
identified under section 1116; the qualification of teachers; and the 
percentages of students not tested.
  Districts would be required to provide similar information in their 
report cards, in addition to information on the numbers and percentages 
of schools identified for school improvement under section 1116, and 
how long the schools have been identified. In the case of school level 
information, districts shall also include whether the individual school 
has been identified for improvement.
  Expanding on the intent behind the Three R's to make the public, 
including parents, schools, and communities more aware of how our 
nation's schools are performing, the conference report further requires 
that states submit annual reports to the Secretary with information, 
including the disaggregated assessment results by subgroup; the numbers 
and names of each school identified for improvement under section 1116 
and the reasons for the identification as well as the measures taken to 
address the achievement problems; the number of students and schools 
that participated in the public school choice and supplemental service 
programs and activities in section 1116; and information on the quality 
of teachers and the percentages of classes not taught by a highly 
qualified teacher. The Secretary, in turn, shall transmit a report to 
Congress with data from these state reports.

  This conference report carries out the intent of the Three R's to 
provide the public, particularly parents, with a greater awareness of 
state, districts and school performance on raising academic 
achievement; the academic achievement levels of all students 
disaggregated by subgroup; and the qualifications of our nation's 
educators. Such information expands public understanding of the 
academic achievement gap that exists between minorities and non-
minorities, and between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged students so 
that the federal government, states, districts, and schools may better 
target attention and resources in order to close those gaps.
  As to targeting funds, the Three R's plan made a commitment not only 
to boost the Federal investment in public education, but to improve the 
targeting of those resources to the schools with the greatest needs. It 
found in Title I, section 1001, that:

       The Federal Government must better target Federal resources 
     on those children who are most at risk for falling behind 
     academically. Funds made available under this title [Title I, 
     Part A] have been targeted on high-poverty areas, but not to 
     the degree the funds should be targeted on those areas, as 
     demonstrated by the following: (A) although 95 percent of 
     schools with poverty levels of 75 percent to 100 percent 
     receive title I funds, 20 percent of schools with poverty 
     levels of 50 to 74 percent do not receive any title I funds; 
     [and] (B) only 64 percent of schools with poverty levels of 
     35 percent to 49 percent receive title I funds. Title I 
     funding should be significantly increased and more 
     effectively targeted to ensure that all economically 
     disadvantaged students have an opportunity to excel 
     academically.

  The Three R's plan upheld the commitment made in the 1994 law that 
all new funds under Title I, Part A would be distributed to states and 
districts under the Targeted Grant formula described in section 1125. 
This commitment was further codified this past June when the Senate 
passed an amendment, S. Amdt. 475, to S. 1, the Senate ESEA 
reauthorization bill, that would prohibit the Secretary from making 
awards under Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 unless the goals of the 
Targeted Grant formula were met.
  This campaign to better target federal funds met with much political 
resistance. But the Conference Committee decided to make this goal a 
priority, and as a result, the conference report upholds and in some 
cases goes beyond the call for targeting in the Three R's plan. In 
particular, it includes the amendment sponsored by myself and Senator 
Mary Landrieu regarding the Targeted Grant.
  The conference report maintains current law formulas under subpart 2 
for Basic, Concentration and the Targeted Grant formula, but applies a 
hold harmless rate of 85-95 percent of the previous fiscal year 
allocation to each district for each of these three formulas. However, 
it also ensures that localities that fail to meet the minimum threshold 
for the Concentration grant for four years shall no longer be eligible 
for funds under this formula.
  Crucial to the priority of targeting our federal funds, are the 
provisions made under section 1125 to Targeted Grant and the Education 
Finance Incentive Grant. In particular, the language prohibits the 
allocation of funds under Part A, unless all new funds are distributed 
through the Targeted Grant formula. It is the intent of this provision 
to address the history of Federal appropriations, which have failed to 
provide funding to the Targeted Grant, by requiring appropriators to 
uphold the commitment that has existed in authorized law since 1994 to 
better target Federal resources to our nation's highest poverty 
districts via the Targeted Grant formula.
  In addition, these provisions significantly modify the Education 
Finance Incentive Grant Program. This program has never been funded and 
previously would have been the least targeted formula for Title I, Part 
A funds. The conference report changes the formula so that funding to 
states would be based on the total number of poor children within the 
State multiplied by the per pupil expenditure, the state's effort 
factor, and the state's equity factor. Most significantly, within state 
allocations would be highly targeted to the highest poverty districts 
within each state. Allocations to districts would be based on the 
Targeted Grant formula, with greater weighting given to higher poverty 
areas depending on the state's equity factor.
  I believe that these changes clarify the intent that new Title I 
funds should be distributed through the Targeted Grant formula while 
ensuring that Education Incentive Grant is modified to better target 
resources to high poverty states and districts. These provisions will 
make for some of the most important reforms in this conference report, 
and will help ensure that Federal resources are targeted to our 
districts and schools with the greatest need, rather than diluted 
across districts with relatively low levels of poverty.
  Regarding Title I, Part B--Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants, 
I believe that reading is an essential building block to learning. 
Title I, Part A, sections 1111 and 1116 of the New Democrats Three R's 
bill put special emphasis on ensuring that all children reach the state 
proficiency level in reading and mathematics within 10 years, and held 
states and school districts receiving federal funds accountable for 
ensuring that their students achieve at the proficient level in both 
core subjects. It further called for a significant increase in funding 
for Title I and under subpart 2, called for greater targeting of those 
resources on our highest poverty communities so that they have the 
funds necessary to ensure all students achieve higher levels of 
learning in core subjects, such as reading.
  The Three R's bill throughout its entirety, but especially in Titles 
I, called for targeting of resources to the poorest students and 
schools. With the same policy goal, the conference report in Title I, 
Part B, also targets resources to the poorest students. It does so by 
sending ``Reading First'' awards, authorized at $900 million level in 
FY02 in subpart 1 to states under a poverty-based formula that requires 
states to give priority in awarding competitive grants within the state 
to high poverty areas; and requires school districts to target funds to 
schools with high percentages of students from families below the 
poverty level, or that have a high percentage of children in grades K-3 
reading below grade level and that are identified for school 
improvement under Sec. 1116. Additionally, subpart 2 of Part B of 
conference report provides a new competitive grant initiative 
authorized at $75 million in FY02 called ``Early Reading First'' which 
funds early reading intervention targeted at children in high-poverty 
areas and

[[Page S13407]]

where there are high numbers of students who are not reading at grade 
level.

  The intention of the Reading First programs is to place a high 
federal priority on reading so that students may better succeed 
academically in other subjects as well. These programs seek to provide 
students with the basic skills to reach proficiency in reading or 
language arts in their grade level, and to better train teachers to 
teach children to read. They provide the fundamental building blocks to 
help ensure that states, districts and schools reach their academic 
achievement goals set forth in this Title.
  Teacher quality is also essential to student success, which is why 
our Three R's legislation dramatically increased the national 
investment in teacher professional development in its Title II, Part A, 
to help ensure that all teachers are competent in their subject area, 
and provided them with more opportunities for high quality professional 
development. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title II, Part B of the 
conference report follows this lead and calls for preparing teachers, 
including special education teachers, through professional development 
and other support, so the teachers can identify specific reading 
barriers facing their students and so the teachers have the tools to 
effectively help their students learn to read. It is the intent of the 
legislation to ensure that teachers are highly qualified and trained in 
the latest research and techniques to help all children learn to read 
and that the Department provides technical assistance and disseminates 
best practices and the latest research on reading.
  Because it is important to better understand each child's level of 
understanding and learning as he or she enters schools and to identify 
children at risk for reading difficulties, Title I, Part A, of the 
Three R's bill required states to assist and encourage districts to 
conduct first grade literacy diagnostics and assessments that are both 
developmentally appropriate and aligned with state content and student 
performance standards and to provide districts with technical 
assistance. With this same goal, the conference report in Title I, Part 
B calls for states to assist school districts in selecting and 
developing rigorous diagnostic reading and screening, diagnostic and 
classroom-based instructional reading assessments. The intent of the 
legislation is to ensure that every child receives a rigorous diagnosis 
and assessment of their reading capabilities and that schools and 
teachers are helped to administer and use these assessments so that 
they can better determine each student's level of reading and design 
strategies to ensure that child will read at grade level.
  Throughout its entirety, the Three R's bill emphasized greater 
accountability for results. This conference report encompasses this 
results-based approach. Additionally, Title IV, Part D, of the Three 
R's bill called for much more public reporting of progress so that 
parents can make more informed decisions regarding their child's 
education. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1, 
of this new bill requires states receiving grants to provide the 
Secretary with an annual report including information on the progress 
the state, and school districts, are making in reducing the number of 
students served under this subpart in the first and second grades who 
are reading below grade level, as demonstrated by such information as 
teacher reports and school evaluations of mastery of the essential 
components of reading instruction. The report shall also include 
evidence that they have significantly increased the number of students 
reading at grade level or above, significantly increased the 
percentages of students in ethnic, racial, and low-income populations 
who are reading at grade level or above, and successfully implemented 
the ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 of the 
conference report. It is the intent of this legislation that the 
Secretary hold accountable states, school districts, and schools for 
making progress in increasing the numbers of students--in all major 
economic racial and ethnic groups--who are reading at or above grade 
level by calling upon the Secretary to review the data contained in 
these reports to make a determination on continued funding for states. 
I would encourage the Department, in its review, to rigorously enforce 
the intended accountability for lack of performance by taking stringent 
actions to ensure that recipients of federal funds demonstrate results 
in reading gains for all students.
  In regards to Title II--Preparing, Training and Recruiting High 
Quality Teachers and Principals, the conference report will make 
revolutionary changes in federal programs aimed at raising the quality 
of our nation's teachers and principals. Many of these reforms were 
promoted in the Three R's legislation introduced in the 106th and 107th 
Congresses. Most significantly, this conference report builds on the 
structural reform advocated by the New Democrats in Title II of the 
Three R's bill to streamline several programs into one formula program 
to states and localities to better focus Federal attention on the 
critical aspects of teacher and principal quality to ensure that all 
students, especially those most disadvantaged, are taught by a highly 
qualified teacher. It also further enhances the call for better 
targeting of our federal resources on the highest poverty states and 
school districts.
  Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill emphasized the importance of 
every child being taught by a highly qualified teacher because research 
consistently shows that teacher quality is a key component of student 
achievement. It transformed the current Eisenhower Professional 
Development Programs into one performance-based program that in return 
for greater investments, held states and districts accountable for 
having all teachers ``fully qualified'' within four years and for 
providing teachers and principals with high quality professional 
development. The Three R's required states to set annual measurable 
objectives so that all teachers would be ``fully-qualified'' by the 
school year 2005-2006, with ``fully-qualified'' defined for secondary 
as being state certified, having a bachelor's degree in the area that 
they teach, and passing rigorous, state-developed content tests. Title 
VII of the Three R's bill further required states to meet the annual 
measurable performance objectives established in each title and imposed 
fiscal consequences if they did not meet their goals.

  Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund 
of the new bill has accountability measures similar to that of the 
Three R's bill in Titles II and VII and stipulates that all teachers 
must be ``highly-qualified'' by the school year 2005-2006. It further 
requires states to set annual measurable objectives to meet that goal 
and to ensure that teachers and principals get high quality 
professional development. States must hold districts accountable for 
meeting these annual objectives; districts that fail to make progress 
toward meeting the objectives for two consecutive years must develop an 
improvement plan that will enable the agency to meet such measurable 
objectives. States must provide technical assistance to such districts 
and schools within the districts. If a district fails to make progress 
toward meeting the objectives for three consecutive years, the district 
shall enter into an agreement with the state on the use of the 
district's funds. Under this agreement, the state shall institute 
professional development strategies and activities that the district 
must use to meet the measurable objectives and prohibit the district 
from using Title I funds received to fund paraprofessionals hired after 
the date of enactment, except that the district may use Title I funds 
if the district can demonstrate a significant increase in student 
enrollment, or an increased need for translators or assistance with 
parent involvement activities. During this stage of professional 
development strategies and activities by the state, the state shall 
provide funding to schools affected to enable teachers within such 
schools to select high-quality professional development activities.
  It is the intent of this legislation that states rigorously enforce 
these accountability measures in regards to districts that fail to meet 
the goals established by the state. I would encourage that the 
Secretary consider as non-compliant any state that fails to take action 
on districts failing these goals, and urge the Secretary to take action 
to ensure that such states uphold the requirements of this language to 
hold districts accountable.

[[Page S13408]]

  The conference report establishes a different definition of what 
constitutes a ``highly-qualified'' teacher, found in Title I, Sec. 
1119, than was proposed in the Three R's definition of ``fully 
qualified'' teacher, found in Title II, Part A. However this definition 
still retains a strong and reasonable focus on ensuring all teachers 
meet a high state standard of demonstrated content knowledge. 
Specifically, the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' defines ``highly-
qualified'' teachers as teachers that are state certified and:
  1. In the case of a newly hired elementary school teacher, has a 
bachelor's degree and has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous state 
test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, 
mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum.
  2. In the case of a newly-hired secondary school teacher, has a 
bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high level of competency in each 
subject area taught by passing a rigorous state academic subject area 
test, or completion, in the subject area(s) taught, of an academic 
major, graduate degree, or equivalent course work for an undergraduate 
major, or advanced certification.
  3. In the case of a veteran elementary or secondary school teacher, 
holds a bachelor's degree and has passed a rigorous state test, or 
demonstrates competency based on a high, objective and uniform standard 
of evaluation developed by the state.
  As stated earlier, I believe it is the intention of this language to 
ensure that content knowledge assessments or state standards of 
evaluations as described in section 1119 will provide for a rigorous, 
uniform, objective system that is grade appropriate and subject 
appropriate, and that will produce objective, coherent information of a 
teacher's knowledge of the subject taught. Such a system is not 
intended to stigmatize teachers but to ensure that all teachers have 
the crucial knowledge necessary to ensure that students may meet the 
state's challenging academic achievement standards in all core 
subjects.
  In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be 
given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure 
that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under 
Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, section 1119 of this 
conference report, and this title, states would be required to 
establish annual measurable objectives for districts and schools to 
annually increase the percentage of teachers receiving high quality 
professional development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting 
those objectives. It also is Three R's and this legislation required 
districts to spend a portion of their Title I funds on professional 
development, and required under section 1116 that schools identified 
devote 10 percent of their Title I funds to professional development 
activities as defined under section 1119. In addition, I am pleased 
that this title authorizes over $3 billion for the purpose of ensuring 
that all students be taught by a highly-qualified teacher by providing 
a major investment of federal resources to help states and districts 
with the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers.
  Following the intent of the Three R's bill, to target federal 
education funding to meet the needs of the poorest children, schools, 
and school districts, and to provide assistance to maintain and upgrade 
skills of teachers, the conference report distributes funding to states 
through a formula based 65 percent on poverty and 35 percent on student 
population, and to school districts through a formula based 80 percent 
on poverty and 20 percent on student population. This targeting formula 
is the same as that proposed in S. AMDT 474 by Senator Landrieu and 
adopted this summer into S.1, the Senate education bill. The conference 
report further requires local school districts to provide assurances 
that they will target funds to schools that have the lowest percentage 
of highly qualified teachers, have the largest class sizes, or are 
identified for school improvement under Title I.
  Research shows that poor and minority children are more likely to be 
taught by a teacher who is teaching out of field--without a major or 
minor in the field they are teaching. Obviously, this is a disadvantage 
to students as well as teachers. The emphasis on targeting under the 
Three R's and expanded upon in this bill, will significantly help our 
nation's poorest districts, who often face the greatest obstacles to 
recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers.
  As called for in Title II of the Three R's bill, Title II, Part A of 
the conference report also consolidates teacher quality and 
professional development programs into one program for the purposes of 
assisting state and local educational agencies with their efforts to 
increase student academic achievement through such strategies as 
improving teacher and principal quality, providing high quality 
professional development for teachers and principals, and recruiting 
and retaining highly qualified teachers and high quality principals. 
Similar to Title II of the Three R's bill, the conference report 
requires districts to provide high quality professional development for 
teachers, principals and administrators so that they are better 
prepared to raise students' academic achievement and meet state 
performance standards.
  Title II, Part A, subpart 3 of the conference report also encourages 
innovative training and mentioning partnerships between local school 
districts and universities, non-profit groups, and corporations and 
business organizations, by requiring states to reserve 2.5 percent of 
the funds they receive under this subpart for competitive grants to 
local partnerships involving higher education institutions and school 
districts to provide high quality professional development activities 
for teachers and principals and high quality leadership programs for 
principals. This mirrors the educator partnerships suggested in Title 
II, Part A of the Three R's bill. The intent of such partnerships is to 
provide a better linkage between institutions that prepare teachers and 
the need for high-quality and on-going professional development to 
teachers and principals in order to reach the goal of having fully 
qualified teachers in all classrooms and all core subjects.
  As did Title II in the Three R's bill, the conference report gives 
states and school districts significant flexibility in how they can use 
federal education funds to meet the goal of having all teachers highly 
qualified within four years. Such flexibility allows states to reform 
teacher/principal certification; develop alternative routes to 
certification for mid-career professionals; provide support to new 
teachers and principals (such as mentioning); provide professional 
development; promote reciprocity of teacher and principal certification 
and licensing between states; encourage and support training for 
teachers to integrate technology into curricula; develop merit-based 
performance systems; and develop differential and bonus pay for 
teachers in high-need academic subjects and teachers in high-poverty 
schools/districts. This flexibility also extends to the local level, 
and helps realize the goal proposed in the Three R's bill to provide 
states and local with maximum flexibility to address the problem of 
recruiting and retaining highly-qualified teachers and meeting the goal 
of ensuring all children are taught by a qualified teacher.
  Title II Part B--Mathematics and Science Partnerships responds to the 
recognition of a national deficit in the number of teachers with 
demonstrated content knowledge in math and science. The Three R's bill 
sought to address this problem by requiring states to set aside 10 
percent of the funds they received under Title II, Part A to establish 
partnership grants--between states, institutions of higher education, 
local educational agencies, and schools--that supported professional 
development activities for mathematics and science teachers in order to 
ensure that such teachers have the subject matter knowledge to 
effectively teach mathematics and science. Following this same intent, 
Title II Part B of the conference report provides for a 
separate Mathematics and Science Partnerships program to states for the 
creation of partnerships focused on improving the academic achievement 
of students in math and science by: improving math and science teacher 
training at institutions of higher education; providing sustained 
professional development for math and science teachers; increasing the 
subject matter knowledge of mathematics and

[[Page S13409]]

science teachers by bringing them together with scientists, 
mathematicians and engineers; encouraging institutions of higher 
education to share equipment and laboratories with local schools; and 
developing more rigorous math and science curricula, and training 
teachers in the effective integration of technology into the curricula.

  Matching the focus on accountability for results in the Three R's 
bill, Part B of Title II of the new bill emphasizes accountability and 
calls for recipients to develop measurable objectives, and to report to 
the Secretary on the progress of meeting the objectives of increasing 
the number of math and science teachers receiving professional 
development; on improved student academic achievement based on state 
math and science assessments or the International Math and Science 
Studies; and on other measures such as student participation in 
advanced courses. The new bill calls on the Secretary to consult and 
coordinate with the Director of the National Science Foundation with 
respect to these programs.
  The intent of this Part of the conference report is to improve the 
pre-service training, recruitment, and retention of mathematics and 
science teachers and to encourage partnerships with institutes of 
higher education, scientists and engineers who are employed in other 
sectors to ensure that teachers receive high quality professional 
development in science and mathematics and with the goal to improve 
academic achievement by all students in these important subjects. It 
also creates a stronger focus on core subject knowledge by teachers in 
mathematics and science where the problems of out-of-field teaching are 
greatest.
  In relation to Title II, part D--Enhancing Education Through 
Technology, the Three R's bill recognized that it is necessary but not 
sufficient to increase schools' access to computer hardware; to be an 
effective educational tool, technology must be integrated into the core 
curricula and teachers must have adequate training on how to do so. The 
Three R's bill--Title VI, section 6006, New Economy Technology 
Schools--provided funding for states and school districts for high-
quality professional development for teachers in the use of technology 
and its integration with state content and student performance 
standards; effective educational technology infrastructure; training in 
the use of equipment for teachers, school library and media personnel 
and administrators; and technology-enhanced curricula and instructional 
materials that are aligned with state content and student performance 
standards. It also required states and districts to provide high-
quality training to teachers, school library and media personnel and 
administrators in the use of technology and its integration with state 
content and student academic standards. These core principles were 
adopted in Title II part D of the conference report, which consolidated 
several technology programs into a state-based technology grant program 
entitled ``Enhancing Education Through Technology.''
  The purposes of part D of Title II of the new law are to provide 
assistance to states and localities for the implementation and support 
of a comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in 
elementary and secondary schools to improve student academic 
achievement; to encourage private-public partnerships to increase 
access to technology; to assist states and localities in the 
acquisition, maintenance and improvement of technology infrastructure 
to increase access for all students, especially disadvantaged students; 
to support initiatives to integrate technology into curriculum aligned 
with state student academic standards; to provide professional 
development of teachers, principals and administrators in teaching and 
learning via electronic means; to support electronic networks and 
distance learning; to use technology to promote parent and family 
involvement, and most importantly to support rigorous evaluation of 
programs and their impact on academic performance. These points are 
comparable to Title VI Sections 6001 and 6006 of the Three R's bill.
  The primary goal of the conference report's Title II, part D, as 
stated in its purpose section, is to improve student academic 
achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary 
schools, to ensure that every child is technologically literate by the 
time they finish the eighth grade regardless of their background and to 
encourage the effective integration of technology and teacher training 
and curriculum. The conference report requires states to develop state 
technology plans which must include an outline of the long-term 
strategies for improving student academic achievement and local 
applications for grants must include a description of how they will use 
Federal funds to improve academic achievement aligned to challenging 
state academic standards. These parallel the goals under the Three R's 
Title VI which emphasized that technology should be an integrated means 
to higher achievement, not an end unto itself. It is our intent that 
achieving this emphasis remains a key goal for state technology plans, 
and that states rigorously review local applications and performance in 
making any future awards.
  The Findings Policy and Purpose section of Title VI of the Three R's 
bill, section 6001, found that technology can produce far greater 
opportunities to enable all students to meet high learning standards, 
promote efficiency and effectiveness in education, and help to 
immediately and dramatically reform our nation's educational system. It 
also found that because most federal and state educational technology 
programs have focused on acquiring educational technology hardware, 
rather than emphasizing the utilization of the technologies in the 
classroom and the training and infrastructure required to support the 
technologies, the full potential of educational technology has rarely 
been realized. It also noted that the effective use of technology in 
education has been inhibited by the inability of many State educational 
agencies and local educational agencies to invest in and support needed 
technologies, and to obtain sufficient resources to seek expert 
technical assistance in developing high-quality professional 
development activities for teachers and keeping pace with rapid 
technological advances. Three R's also emphasized that to remain 
competitive in the global economy, our nation needs a workforce that is 
comfortable with technology and able to integrate rapid technological 
changes into production processes. These purposes remain fully 
applicable to the implementation and goals of the new Act.
  The emphasis in the new law on using technology to improve student 
academic achievement in core subjects is directly related to the goals 
of the Three R's bill which called for improved academic achievement 
for all children. Title II part D of the conference report is closely 
aligned with Title VI--High Performance and Quality Education 
Initiatives of the Three R's bill. The intent of this legislation is to 
make sure that technology programs are not just providing access to 
hardware, but are effectively integrating technology into activities 
that are part of the core curricula and to assist students in improving 
academic achievement aligned with state content and performance 
standards and this intent is carried over into the new law. The 
Department in overseeing these provisions should be expected to place 
strong emphasis in ensuring that these goals are achieved.
  The Three R's emphasized targeting of resources to the poorest 
children and schools. This goal was expanded upon in the new law's 
Title II, Part D, as funds are allocated to the states based 100 
percent on what the state received under Title I, Part A. Additionally, 
of the total state funds distributed to locals, 50 percent shall be 
distributed through a state formula based on Title I, Part A, and the 
remaining 50 percent shall be distributed via competitive grants. 
Additionally, competitive grants shall give priory to high need areas. 
The intent is that states shall determine which school districts, 
because of their size, receive an insufficient amount of formula funds, 
to implement efficient and effective activities, and provide them with 
supplemental competitive grants.
  Title II, part D of the new law requires states to submit 
applications for technology funds and that such applications shall 
include long-range strategic technology plans. The intent of this is to 
ensure that states design long-term strategies for improving student 
academic achievement, including

[[Page S13410]]

technology literacy, that incorporate the effective integration of 
technology in the classroom, curricula, and professional training of 
teachers. Such plans shall also contain a description of: the state 
goals for using advanced technology to improve student achievement 
aligned to challenging state academic standards; the steps they will 
take to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need school 
districts have increased access to technology; the process and 
accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the integration of technology; how incentives will be 
provided to teachers who are technologically literate to encourage such 
teachers to remain in rural and urban areas; and how public and private 
entities would participate in the implementation and support of the 
plan. We intend that in administering this effort, that the Department 
of Education require that states effectively integrate technology in 
their classrooms and curricula, and provide adequate professional 
development for their teachers, with the goal of improving student 
academic achievement in core subjects.
  The specific intent in the new Title II, part D is that each local 
application for technology grants shall include a description of: how 
the school district will use federal funds to improve the academic 
achievement, including technology literacy, of all students and to 
improve the capacity of all teachers to provide instruction through the 
use of technology; what steps they will take to ensure that all 
students and teachers in high-need School districts have increased 
access to technology; how they will promote teaching strategies and 
curriculum which effectively integrate technology into instruction 
leading to improvements in student academic achievement as measured by 
challenging state standards; how it will provide ongoing professional 
development for teachers principals administrators and school library 
personnel to further the effective use of technology in classrooms and 
library media centers; and the accountability measures and how they 
will evaluate the extent to which the technology has been integrated 
into the curriculum, increasing the ability of teachers to teach and 
increasing the academic achievement of students. All of these elements 
are consistent with the Three R's goals that technology shall not be 
introduced for technology's sake, but deeply integrated into the 
curricula and teaching strategies to foster an enhanced learning 
environment. We intend that the Department of Education shall 
aggressively enforce the requirements that states ensure that school 
districts have a comprehensive technology plan in place; that the use 
of technology in the classroom foster a learning environment which will 
improve academic achievement in the core subjects, and not only 
increase access to technology hardware.

  The Three R's emphasis on improving accountability by setting 
measurable annual goals and standards for student achievement, and 
evaluating and measuring progress achieved can be seen in the new Title 
II part D's requirements for state and local applications. These 
require states to develop: state goals for using advanced technology to 
improve student achievement aligned to challenging state academic 
standards; steps to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need 
school districts have increased access to technology; and 
accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the integration of technology. We intend that, just as 
in other areas of this Act, the Secretary of Education provide 
oversight and assist states in the development of rigorous and 
measurable goals and standards regarding the use of technology to raise 
student academic achievement, and to develop evaluations of the impact 
of technology on student academic achievement.
  Additionally, one of the allowable uses under state activities in the 
new Title II, Part D is the development of enhanced performance 
measurement systems to determine the effectiveness of education 
technology programs funded under this subpart, especially their impact 
on increasing the ability of teachers to teach and enable students to 
meet state academic content standards. We intend that states and school 
districts develop measurable annual goals and standards to integrate 
and use advanced technology to improve student achievement, and expect 
that this option be exercised wherever possible by applicants and 
strongly encouraged by the Department of Education.
  Title II, Part D--Enhancing Education Through Technology requires 
that state plans and local applications allocate 25 percent of the 
funds to be reserved for high quality professional training for 
teachers, principals, librarians and administrators to assist them in 
integrating the technology and core curriculum. This mirrors the intent 
of the Three R's Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Quality and 
Professional Development, which calls for teachers to receive high 
quality professional development and to be trained in the areas that 
they teach, and specifically the Three R's Title VI, section 6006 which 
calls for high quality professional development for teachers in the use 
of technology and its integration with student performance standards.

  Regarding Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and 
Recruiting Fund, the Three R's proposal called for a radical 
restructuring of Federal programs serving limited English proficient, 
or LEP, students. This restructuring streamlined the existing 
competitive Bilingual Education Act programs and significantly 
increased and concentrated federal investment for LEP students into one 
formula program for districts while, in return, demanding results from 
states, school districts and schools for annual gains in English 
proficiency and academic achievement among non-native speaking 
children. Title III of this new Act embodies much of the restructuring 
and policy goals proposed in the Three R's, and creates a new, major 
federal initiative aimed at ensuring LEP and immigrant children have 
the English language skills and academic knowledge to successfully 
participate in American society. This conference report will, for the 
first time, hold recipients of federal funds accountable for annually 
increasing the percentage of LEP children achieving English proficiency 
as well as high levels of learning in all core subjects, and nearly 
doubles the amount of federal funding provided to states and localities 
for the education of LEP and immigrant students.
  The Three R's bill, in Title III, section 3001, recognized that 
educating limited English proficient students is an urgent and 
increasing need for many local educational agencies. It found that over 
the past two decades, the number of LEP children in schools in the 
United States has doubled to more than 3,000,000, and will continue to 
increase. One of the key goals of the Three R's bill in Title III, 
section 3003, was to ensure that students with limited English 
proficiency learn English and achieve high levels of learning on core 
academic subjects, including reading and math. Title III of this 
conference report also has the goal of assisting all LEP students to 
attain English proficiency, so that those students can meet the same 
challenging state content standards and challenging state student 
performance standards as all students are expected to meet.
  Title III, section 3001, of the Three R's noted that each year 
640,000 limited English proficient students are not served by any sort 
of program targeted to their unique needs. The title increased the 
amount of Federal assistance to school districts serving such students 
and streamlined the existing competitive Bilingual Education Act 
programs into a single performance-based formula grant for state and 
local educational agencies to help LEP students become proficient in 
English. Title III of this new Act also consolidates the Bilingual 
Education Act, as well as the Emergency Immigrant Education Program, 
and authorizes $750 million for one formula program to states and 
school districts once federal appropriations levels reach $650 million. 
The intention behind this language to recognize that a substantial 
level of federal resources are essential in order to provide funding to 
districts that is meaningful. It further ensures that resources are not 
diluted.
  The Three R's focused resources to those most in need and allocated 
funds to states based on the number of LEP students, and required 
states to send 95 percent of the funds received to school districts so 
that they may better assist such students. Similarly, the conference 
report provides funding in Title

[[Page S13411]]

III (Part A, subpart 1) to states via a formula based 80 percent on the 
number of LEP children in the state and 20 percent on the number of 
immigrant children. Additionally the conference report calls for 95 
percent of the funds to be used for grants to eligible entities at the 
local level. Districts shall receive funds based on their number of LEP 
students. However, to ensure that funds are not diluted, the Act 
requires that states shall not make an award to districts if the amount 
of grant would be less than $10,000.

  Under the Three R's Title III, section 3109, states were required to 
establish standards and annual measurable benchmarks for English 
language development that are aligned with state content and student 
academic achievement standards; develop high quality annual assessments 
to measure English language proficiency, including proficiency in the 
four recognized domains: speaking, reading, writing and comprehension; 
develop annual performance objectives based on the English language 
development standards set to increase the English proficiency of LEP 
students; describe how the state will hold districts or schools 
accountable for meeting English proficiency performance objectives, and 
for meeting adequate yearly progress with respect to LEP students as 
required in Title I, section 1111; describe how districts will be given 
the flexibility to teach English in the scientifically research based 
manner that each district determines to be the most effective; and 
describe how the state will provide assistance to districts and 
schools. Section 3108 further required states to certify that all 
teachers in any language instruction program for LEP student were 
fluent in English to help ensure that students in language instruction 
programs are taught by the most qualified educators.
  We intend that these requirements will ensure that states emphasize 
language proficiency that ensures a comprehensive understanding of the 
English language so that students have the oral, writing, listening and 
comprehension skills necessary to successfully achieve high-levels of 
learning in our schools and later in the American workforce.
  In turn, under sections 3106 and 3107, school districts were required 
to describe how they would use funds to meet the annual English 
proficiency performance objectives and how the district would hold 
schools accountable for meeting the performance objectives. Under Title 
VII, section 7101, states that failed to meet their performance 
objectives after three consecutive years would have 50 percent of their 
state administrative funding withheld. And, states that failed to meet 
such performance objectives after four consecutive years would have 30 
percent of their Title VI programmatic funds withheld.
  Title III, section 3105 of the Three R's further required the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to provide assistance to 
states and districts in the development of English language standards 
and English language proficiency assessments. The intent is that the 
Department provide support to ensure high quality plans, performance 
objectives, and English language assessments.
  The conference report, contains nearly the same accountability 
provisions and requirements. Title III, section 3113, requires states 
to establish standards and objectives for raising the level of English 
proficiency that are derived from the four recognized domains of 
speaking, listening, reading and writing, and that are aligned with 
achievement of the challenging state academic content and student 
academic achievement standards in section 1111; to hold districts 
accountable for annually assessing English proficiency as required 
under Title I, section 1111; and hold districts accountable for meeting 
annual measurable objectives, in section 3122, for annual increases in 
the percentage of LEP students attaining proficiency in English, and 
for making adequate yearly progress as required under Title I, section 
1111 while they are learning English.

  Section 3122(b) requires states to identify school districts that 
have failed to meet their annual measurable objectives for two 
consecutive years and ensure that such districts develop an improvement 
plan to ensure that the district shall meet the objectives and 
addresses the factors that prevented the district from achieving such 
objectives. For districts that fail to meet the annual objectives for 
four years, states shall ensure that districts modify their language 
instruction program; determine whether to terminate program funds to 
the district; and replace educational personnel relevant to the 
district's failure to make progress on the annual measurable 
objectives.
  States shall be held accountable for meeting the annual performance 
objective for Title III under Title VI, section 6161 of this Act. The 
Secretary is required to, starting two years after implementation, 
annually review whether states have met annual measurable objectives 
established under Title III. If states have failed to meet such 
objectives for two years, the Secretary may provide technical 
assistance to states that is rigorous and provides constructive 
feedback to each failing state. In addition, the Secretary shall submit 
an annual report to the Congress listing the states that have failed to 
meet the objectives under Title III.
  Title III of the Three R's bill gave districts the flexibility to 
determine what method of instruction to implement. This conference 
report also gives districts the flexibility to design English language 
instruction programs that best meet the needs of their limited English 
proficient students. It further, as did the Three R's bill, eliminates 
the requirement that 75 percent of funding be used to support programs 
using a child's native language for instruction to give districts the 
flexibility they need to meet new proficiency goals.
  One of the fundamental goals of the Three R's bill was to provide 
better information to parents about quality and progress of their 
child's education. Title III (section 3110) of the Three R's bill 
required parental notification of each student's level of English 
proficiency, how it was assessed, the status of the student's academic 
achievement, and the programs that are available to meet the student's 
educational needs. Title III further required that states give parents 
the option to remove their student from any language instruction 
program. States were required to provide parents with timely 
information, in manner and form understandable to the parents, about 
programs under Title III and notice of opportunities to participate in 
regular meetings regarding programs developed.
  Similarly, the conference report, under Title I (section 1112), 
requires districts to provide parents notification of their child's 
placement in a language instruction program, and give parents the right 
to choose among various programs if more than one type is offered, and 
have the right to immediately remove their child from a language 
instruction program. The Title further allows districts to develop 
parent and community outreach initiatives and training so that parents 
may be more active in their child's education. As with the Three R's 
bill, the intent of the provision is to provide the maximum information 
about performance and programs to parents, and the Department must take 
steps to ensure this.
  Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools of the Conference Report 
was influenced by concepts in the Three R's bill. The Three R's bill 
sought to more directly focus resources and activities on the 
improvement of academic achievement. This conference report progresses 
that goal in the Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, 
stressing activities that will foster a learning environment that 
supports academic achievement. The conference report requires states to 
describe how they will fulfill this goal in their comprehensive plan 
and their application to the Secretary. Local applications must also 
assure that the activities will foster a safe and drug free learning 
environment that supports academic achievement. Additionally, following 
another major intent of the Three R's bill (in both Titles VI and VII), 
increased accountability and evaluation is called for in Title IV Part 
A in the conference report. The activities shall be based on an 
assessment of objective data and assessment of need. Established 
performance measures will be used and the programs will be periodically 
evaluated to assess their progress based on the attainment of these 
performance measures. National

[[Page S13412]]

reports are required every two years by the Secretary and reports by 
states and school districts are required on an annual basis. The Three 
R's bill in Title II, Part A and Title VI, Sec. 6006, highlighted 
increased professional training for teachers, principals, and other 
staff related to academic content as well as dealing with disruptive 
students and those exhibiting distress. Similarly, the conference 
report contains greater awareness and support for training activities.
  On academic achievement, the purposes of Title IV Part A--Safe and 
Drug Free Schools in the conference report are to support programs 
that: prevent violence in and around schools; prevent the illegal use 
of alcohol, tobacco and drugs; involve parents and communities; and 
that are coordinated with related federal, state, school and community 
efforts and resources. Under the conference report, a school district 
can use funds to develop, implement and evaluate comprehensive programs 
and activities which are coordinated with other school and community-
based services and programs that foster a safe and drug-free learning 
environment that supports academic achievement. The overall goal of the 
programs in the conference report's Title IV Part A is to foster a safe 
and drug-free learning environment which supports academic achievement. 
This embodies similar principles in the Three R's bill in Title VI, 
sections 6001 and 6006 and the general intent of the Three R's bill in 
focusing all activities on the improvement of academic achievement for 
all children.
  Related to accountability and evaluations, Title VI of the Three R's 
bill emphasizes that programs should be evaluated to determine if they 
are effective in achieving the goals of improving safe learning 
environments. The conference report allows up to $2 million for the 
Secretary to conduct a national impact evaluation for the ``Safe and 
Drug Free'' programs under Title V Part A. National reports are 
required every two years by the Secretary and state and school district 
reports are required on an annual basis. The conference report also 
requires states to implement a Uniform Management Information and 
Reporting System that would include information and statistics on 
truancy rates; the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence 
and drug related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsion in 
elementary and secondary schools in states; the types of curricula, 
programs and services provided, the incidence and prevalence, age of 
onset, perception of health risk and perception of social disapproval 
of drug use and violence by youth in schools and communities. Title V 
part A of the conference report also requires that state and school 
district applications must contain a needs assessment for drug and 
violence prevention programs which is based on objective data and the 
results of on-going state and local evaluation activities. They shall 
also provide a statement of the performance measures for drug and 
violence prevention programs that will be used in evaluations. Under 
the conference report, programs in this Title will be periodically 
evaluated to assess their progress based on performance measures. The 
results shall be used to refine, improve and strengthen the program and 
to refine the performance measures. Such evaluations shall be made 
available to the public on request. These provisions follow the intent 
of the Three R's bill to increase accountability and evaluation in all 
major activities with the understanding that education reforms cannot 
be achieved without continual, thorough evaluations of their 
effectiveness and making such evaluations available to parents and the 
public. The Department shall act to ensure that quality evaluations are 
implemented.

  The Principles of Effectiveness Activities part of the new act 
requires that activities shall be based upon an assessment of objective 
data regarding the incidence of violence and illegal drug use in the 
elementary and secondary schools, and communities to be served, 
including an objective analysis of the current conditions and 
consequences regarding violence and illegal drug use, delinquency and 
serious discipline problems. In addition, activities shall be based on 
established performance measures aimed at ensuring that the elementary 
and secondary schools and communities to be served by the program have 
a drug-free, safe and orderly learning environment; be based upon 
scientifically based research that provides evidence that the program 
to be used will reduce violence and illegal drug use; be based on an 
analysis of data reasonably available at the time of the prevalence of 
risk factors and include meaningful and ongoing consultation with 
parents. It is our intent that the Department act to ensure a high 
quality assessment effort fully consistent with the requirements.
  Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill consolidated 
a number of national competitive grant programs--such as in Title VI--
into state and school district formula programs to drive more resources 
to school districts and to concentrate resources in the poorest areas. 
The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program in Title V Part A of the 
conference report, utilizes a formula that is nearly the same as that 
established under the Three R's bill, with positive improvements. Title 
V, Part A distributes funds to states through a formula that is based 
50 percent on school age population and 50 percent on Title I 
Concentration Grants, which requires districts to have at least a 15 
percent poverty level, or 6,500 low income students. Eighty percent of 
the funds received by the state shall be distributed to school 
districts via a formula distribution that is the same as that contained 
in the Three R's bill, with 60 percent based on poverty in Title I, 
Part A, subpart 2, and 40 percent on school enrollment.

  The Act further allows states to reserve, not more than 20 percent of 
the total amount received for competitive grants to school districts 
and community-based organizations, and other entities for activities 
that complement and support district safety activities. Such activities 
shall especially provide assistance to areas that serve large numbers 
of low-income children, or rural communities. This provision further 
targets funds to areas of need and the Department is expected to adopt 
guidelines for the flexible program effort that assure quality and 
creativity.
  On professional training, Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill also 
called for increased professional training for teachers, principals and 
other personnel, with the goal of providing them with more expertise to 
create safer environments and to deal with disruptive students, as well 
as obtain greater ability to help students reach academic achievement 
goals. Specifically, Title VI, section 6006 of the Three R's allowed 
localities to use funds to provide professional development programs 
that provide instruction on how best to discipline children in the 
classroom, how to teach character education; and provide training for 
teachers, principals, mental health professionals, and guidance 
counselors in order to better assist and identify students exhibiting 
distress, such as exhibiting distress through substance abuse, 
disruptive behavior, and suicidal behavior. With the similar goal of 
having trained personnel work with children, Title VI, Part A of the 
conference report allows for drug and violence prevention professional 
development and community training. It further, under National Programs 
under Title V Part A, provides for the development and demonstration of 
innovative strategies for the training of school personnel, parents and 
members of the community for drug and violence prevention activities.
  Title IV, Part B--21st Century Community Learning Centers of the 
conference report contains a similar focus to that of the Three R's 
bill. A major intent of the Three R's bill was to ensure that all ESEA 
programs, more directly focus on the academic performance of students 
and that accountability for these programs be strongly linked to 
increased performance toward that goal. Specifically, Title VI Sec. 
6006. of the Three R's bill required localities to spend 25 percent of 
the funds they received, under a new major federal program that was 
focused on spurring academic achievement through innovation, on 
providing high quality, academically-focused after school opportunities 
to students.
  This conference report furthers that principle by making improved 
academic achievement a primary element of the modified 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers program. Title

[[Page S13413]]

IV, Part B also enhances the aim of greater accountability as set forth 
in the Three R's--Title VI Sec. 6005 and Title VII, Part A. The 
legislation provides significantly increased funding for entities 
providing students with opportunities for continued academic enrichment 
before and after school, and during the summer. Such opportunities are 
intended to help students, particularly students who attend low-
performing schools, meet state student performance standards in core 
academic subjects. And, building on the focus of the Three R's bill to 
demand greater results in return for greater investment, the conference 
report calls for the 21st Century activities to be evaluated and 
monitored for their effectiveness, and requires states to consider 
those results and apply a series of fiscal sanctions if performance 
does not meet performance goals. Additionally, the Act carries forth 
the intent of the Three R's bill to target the funds to those most in 
need. Title IV, Part B of the conference report distributes funds to 
the states based on their share of Title I, Part A and requires states 
to give priority for competitive grants to recipients serving low-
income communities and schools.

  The purpose of 21st Century programs in Title IV, Part B of the 
conference report is to provide opportunities to communities to 
establish or expand activities before and after school that: provide 
academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help 
students, particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to 
meet state and local student performance standards in core academic 
subjects; offer students a wide array of additional services and 
activities such as art, music, and recreation, technology education, 
character education, and counseling programs that reinforce and 
complement the regular academic program; offer families of students 
opportunities for literacy and related educational development. These 
programs should be designed and approved consistent with the intent of 
the Three R's bill in Title VI Section 6006 that provided funds to 
School districts and schools for innovative programs and activities 
that transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities'' for students 
by creating a challenging learning environment and facilitating 
academic enrichment through innovative academic programs or provide for 
extra learning time opportunities for students. The intent of the Three 
R's bill to focus before and after school programs on learning 
opportunities, especially for those most in need, is mirrored in the 
intent and purpose of the conference report's 21st Century program.
  Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill, in several 
titles including Title I, had the intent of targeting the education 
funds to the poorest communities and schools who are most in need. 
Following this direction, 21st Century funds under the conference 
report in Title IV Part B are allocated to the states based 100 percent 
on Title I, part A subpart 2, thereby targeting these funds on a 
poverty basis. Additionally, the conference report in Title IV Part B 
requires states to focus competitively awarded grants on applicants 
that seek to serve students who primarily attend schools eligible for 
schoolwide programs in Title I, those schools with at least 40 percent 
low income students, and other schools with a high percentage of low 
income students;
  Regarding accountability and evaluation, the Three R's bill in Title 
VI Section 6007 and 6008 called for evaluating the impact of 21st 
Century Opportunity programs on academic achievement. Title IV Part B 
of the conference report follows this intent, by requiring states to 
conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of their 21st Century 
program and activities and requires that state applications describe 
how the state will evaluate the effectiveness of their 21st Century 
programs and activities.
  Title V, Part B of the conference report contains major influences 
from the Three R's bill. A primary policy goal of the Three R's bill 
was to provide additional innovation and effective voluntary public 
school choice options for children and parents with the belief that 
market forces and choice integrated into the public framework will 
result in a stronger system for students with greater incentives for 
schools to raise academic performance. Title V, Part B of the 
conference report follows this same intent and develops many of the 
same programs.
  Building directly on many of the proposals contained in the Three R's 
bill, the conference report would strengthen the Federal commitment to 
expanding the range of educational options available to all students 
within the public school framework. Although the conference report 
makes only minor changes to the current charter schools start up 
program, designated as subpart 1, does contain a new initiative to help 
charter schools deal with the cost of operations and facility 
financing, section 5205(b), as well as a new initiative to encourage 
broader choice programs at the local level, subpart 3. These provisions 
are based on language from the Three R's bill--Title IV, Part C--as 
well as an amendment--S. AMDT. 518--to the Senate bill, S.1, which 
Senators Carper, Gregg and I cosponsored that would encourage and 
expand intra-district wide or inter-district wide public school choice 
programs as well as help to provide additional options for financing 
charter schools. In addition, the conference report includes a program 
that has been funded under appropriations, but never authorized that 
provides critical funding for charter school construction under subpart 
2.
  Titles I and VI of the Three R's bill called for increased funding to 
help finance charter schools, provide them with technical assistance, 
evaluate the programs, and disseminate information on innovative 
approaches, all with the purpose of helping expand the educational 
choices available in the public system to parents and students. I have 
been a long time advocate for charter schools and was the chief 
Democratic sponsor of the Public School Redefinition Act of 1991, S. 
1606, and in 1993, S. 429, which provided states with funding to 
establish charter school.
  I am pleased that this conference report will continue this strong 
federal support for the expansion of the charter school movement, while 
ensuring that those schools meet the same high accountability standards 
expected of all schools under Title I, Part A. It was the intent of 
conferees that charter schools shall meet the accountability 
requirements in this Act, including those provisions in section 1111 
and 1116, but that the mechanism for holding them accountable should be 
consistent with state law. In most cases, this means that the 
recognized chartering authority would be responsible for holding 
charter schools accountable. It is my belief that chartering 
authorities that fail to carry out their responsibilities in holding 
charter schools accountable should themselves be held accountable based 
on State law.
  The conference report also ensures that charter schools receive their 
full allotment of Title I funds by stipulating that a local educational 
agency, in passing through subgrant awards to charter schools, may not 
deduct funds for administrative fees unless the applicant enters 
voluntarily into a mutually agreed upon arrangement for administrative 
services with the relevant school district. I advocated for this 
agreement in conference because of the importance of giving charter 
schools fuller decision-making authority over the funds to which they 
are entitled.

  In addition, the conference report will help further the range of 
public education options available by creating a new ``Voluntary Public 
School Choice'' demonstration program under Title IV, Part B, subpart 
3. This program authorizes the Secretary to award grants on a 
competitive basis for the development of universal public school choice 
programs. The program evolved out of the Three R's bill and an 
amendment sponsored by Senator Carper to S. 1. It is the intent of this 
program that the Secretary give priority to applicant providing the 
widest choice and that have the potential of allowing students from 
low-performing schools to attend high performing schools. I believe 
that demonstrations that provide inter-district, or state wide choice 
should be of highest priority. In addition, I am pleased that the 
program calls for an evaluation of the success of these demonstrations 
in promoting educational equity and excellence, and the effect of the 
programs on academic achievement of students

[[Page S13414]]

participating and on the overall quality of participating schools and 
districts.
  I believe that the language under section 1116 of Title I, granting 
parents the option to transfer their student out of a school identified 
for improvement or corrective action to a higher performing public 
school, will be meaningless unless the federal government actively 
supports and encourages programs such as the Charter School Programs 
and the Voluntary Public School Choice programs under Title V to expand 
the creation of new alternative public education opportunities.
  That is why I also am pleased that the agreement contains the Per 
Pupil Facility Financing and Credit Enhancement Initiatives, which will 
help charter schools facing financial burdens due to their lack of 
bonding or tax raising capabilities. As a result of their inability to 
raise resources, charter schools must spend more of their resources on 
operating costs, and fewer dollars on educational needs, such as hiring 
qualified teachers. To ensure that charter schools better spend their 
own resources on academic activities, and to address the special 
financial problems faced by charters, Title V, Part B, section 5205(b) 
directs the Secretary to make competitive awards to states as seed 
money for the development of innovative programs providing annual 
financing to charters schools on a per pupil basis for operating 
expenses, facility acquisition, leasing payments, and renovation. The 
language authorizes $300 million for Part B, but designates $200 
million for subpart 1, Charter School Programs, other than 5205(b), and 
the next $100 million in funding for the purpose of meeting the Per 
Pupil Facility Financing provisions in section 5205(b). Once funding 
levels for Part B, subpart 1 reaches $300 million, any new funding 
above that level will be equally split between 5205(b) and subpart 1, 
the charter start up program.
  To provide clearer understanding of this funding arrangement, I 
proposed, along with Senator Gregg, the following report language:

       Charter schools are public schools, yet lack the bonding 
     and taxing authority traditionally available to school 
     districts to finance their facilities. As a result, charter 
     schools are forced to use operating revenues that are 
     intended to be spent in the classroom to pay rent or to 
     make debt payments for facilities. States have the primary 
     obligation to address this inequity. But, to stimulate 
     state incentives, this conference report authorizes a 
     limited-term federal role in encouraging states to 
     establish or expand per pupil facilities aid programs.
       Conferees support significant funding increases for the 
     charter school program in order to free up resources, as 
     quickly as possible, for the per-pupil financing program, a 
     program that assists charter school in meeting their 
     operating needs, so that charter school resources may be 
     better spent on academic activities.

  Title V, Part B, Subpart 2 of this conference report includes 
language from an amendment, S. Amdt. 518, to the Senate bill, S. 1, 
which Senators Carper, Gregg, and I cosponsored to provide funding for 
a competitive program awarded by the Secretary to entities that develop 
innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist charter schools 
with the costs of acquiring, constructing and renovating facilities. 
This language was included in the Appropriations agreement for FY 01, 
but was never authorized under the ESEA. The program is authorized at 
$150 million, and will provide critical funding for charter schools for 
renovations and repairs of facilities.
  It is my belief that these provisions, combined with the strong 
public reporting requirements under section 1111 of Title I, will 
ensure that parents have tools and the options available to make real 
educational choices.
  Title VI.--Flexibility and Accountability of the conference report 
contained a number of similar concepts as the Three R's bill. The Three 
R's plan established a clear accountability contract for Federal 
assistance: the federal government would provide far more resources and 
more flexibility than ever before to states and localities, and in 
exchange, states would be held accountable for measurable results. The 
bill significantly streamlined a wide range of Federal programs into a 
limited number of priority areas, especially under Titles II, III and 
VI, reduced the strings attached to those funds, and gave states and 
local districts broad latitude to focus those funds on their most 
pressing needs.
  The conference report embraces the goal of greater flexibility and 
puts it into practice, so that local educators can best utilize federal 
resources to meet their specific challenges and do what is necessary to 
improve academic achievement. The conference report is not as 
streamlined as the Three R's plan. But it does consolidate a number of 
large and small programs, especially under Titles II and III, and 
provides States and local districts with additional flexibility to 
transfer funds from different accounts to target local priorities. It 
also creates two pilot programs to give States and local districts 
broad discretion to merge and consolidate federal funding.
  Regarding Three R's consolidation and transferability, Title VI--High 
Performance and Quality Education Initiatives of the Three R's 
consolidated several Federal programs (21st Century Community Learning 
Centers, Technology programs, Innovative Programs block grant, and the 
Safe and Drug Free Schools program) into one formula program to States 
and local districts for the purpose of: (1) providing supplementary 
assistance for ``School Improvement'' to schools and districts that 
have been, or are at risk of being, identified as being in need of 
improvement under section 1116 of Title I; (2) providing assistance to 
local districts and schools for innovative programs and activities that 
transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities for students'' by 
creating challenging learning environments and providing extra learning 
time; (3) providing assistance to districts, schools and communities to 
strengthen existing activities or develop and implement new programs 
that create ``Safe Learning Environments''; and (4) creating ``New 
Economy Technology Schools'' by providing assistance for high quality 
professional development, educational technology infrastructure, 
technology training for teachers, and technology-enhanced curricula and 
instructional materials aligned with State content and student 
performance standards. Districts were required to spend 30, 25, 15 and 
30 percent of funds, respectively, on the four areas.

  Section 6005 required districts to ensure that programs and 
activities conducted were aligned with State content and student 
performance standards under section 1111; to establish annual 
measurable performance goals and objectives for each program; and to 
establish measures to assess progress by schools in meeting established 
objectives as well as holding schools accountable for meeting the 
objectives. Districts were required to annually publish and widely 
disseminate to the public a report describing the use of funds in the 
four purpose areas; the outcomes of local programs as well as an 
assessment of their effectiveness; the districts progress toward 
attaining its goals and objectives; and the extent to which such 
funding uses increased student achievement.
  Based on the premise that districts that are achieving academic goals 
should have greater flexibility in deciding how to spend Federal 
resources, the Three R's allowed districts that were meeting adequate 
yearly progress--AYP--established by the State under section 1111, to 
transfer up to 30 percent of their program funds among the four purpose 
categories. Districts that were exceeding AYP would be allowed to 
transfer up to 50 percent of their funds across the four purpose 
categories.
  If districts, however, failed to make AYP for two consecutive years, 
they would only be allowed to transfer 25 percent of program funds from 
three categories, and only into the School Improvement category. In 
addition, the State would have the authority to direct how remaining 
Title VI funds would be spent in the district. Districts that were 
under corrective action (as described in section 1116 of Title I) would 
lose all decision-making capacity over the use of Title VI funds and 
States would determine how funds would be spent. The bill called for a 
similar accountability structure between local districts and schools.
  Regarding the conference report transferability and flexibility, 
although the conference report does not call for the same level of 
streamlining as called for under the Three R's, the Act does provide 
States and districts with flexibility similar to that established under 
the Three R's. Title VI,

[[Page S13415]]

Section 6123, allows States to transfer up to 50 percent of their State 
administrative and activity funds among the following Federal programs: 
Part A of Title II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II--
Technology, Part A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, Part B of 
Title IV--21st Century Community Learning Centers and Part A of Title 
V--Innovative Programs, Block Grants.

  In addition, just as the Three R's linked the degree of flexibility 
allowed to the attainment of adequate yearly progress under section 
1111 of Title I, school districts that are making AYP may transfer up 
to 50 percent of the following Federal program funds: Part A of Title 
II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II--Technology, Part 
A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Part A of Title V--
Innovative Programs, Block Grants. School districts that have been 
identified under section 1116 as being in need of improvement may only 
transfer 30 percent of the program funds, but shall only transfer funds 
into their set aside under section 1003 for turning around low-
performing schools and into section 1116 activities. States and 
districts may transfer funds into Title I, but no funds may be 
transferred out of Title I. School districts in corrective action may 
not transfer any funds.
  In addition, the conference report creates two pilot programs for 
states and districts to further expand opportunities for greater 
flexibility. Subpart 3 of Title VI gives the Secretary authority to 
award ``State Flexibility Demonstrations'' to up to seven states, and 
allows them to consolidate their state activity and administration 
funds under the following Federal programs: Part A of Title II, Part D 
of Title II, Part A of Title IV, Part A of Title V, and section 1004 of 
Title I. To be eligible, states must also have four to 10 local 
districts within the state that agree to participate and that will also 
consolidate similar funds and align them to the State Flexibility 
Demonstration. At least half of these local districts must be high 
poverty. Selected states would receive maximum flexibility in spending 
consolidated funds on any educational purpose authorized under the Act. 
States that failed to make AYP for two years would have their 
demonstration terminated.
  States participating a demonstration must still meet all the 
accountability requirements from any of the programs from which funds 
are consolidated, including meeting the requirement in section 1119 in 
Title I and Title II that all teachers be highly qualified by the end 
of the 2005-2006 school year. The Act creates a similar demonstration 
program for localities. 150 districts (70 of which much come from the 
seven State Flexibility Demonstration States) may apply for a local 
flexibility demonstration from the Secretary; however, there shall only 
be three districts participating in any State (except for the State 
Flexibility Demonstration States). These local districts would be 
allowed to consolidate funds from Part A of Title II, Part D of Title 
II, Part A of Title IV, and Part A of Title V. Participating districts 
would be given maximum flexibility over the use of funds for any 
educational purpose under this Act. School districts that failed to 
make AYP for two years would have their demonstration terminated.
  Regarding state accountability, in return for substantial federal 
investment and flexibility over the use of funds, the Three R's 
demanded that States be held accountable for greater academic 
achievement for all students. Title VII of the bill required that 
States that failed to make adequate yearly progress under section 1111, 
or its established annual measurable performance objectives under 
titles II and III be sanctioned. Specifically, it required that, in the 
case of a state that failed to meet such goals for three years, the 
Secretary withhold 50 percent of that state's administrative funds from 
the relevant title. In the case of a state that failed to meet such 
goals for four years, the Secretary was required to withhold 30 percent 
of the state's funds under Title VI.

  Three R's was based on the premise that states, in addition to school 
districts and schools, should be held accountable for the attainment 
AYP, and other state-wide goals and objectives established in Titles II 
and III. It recognized that in the history of the ESEA, no Secretary 
has imposed fiscal sanctions on States for failure, and so required 
that the Federal government impose tough sanctions on states that 
repeatedly fail to meet their own goals.
  This Act does not contain the same degree of state-level 
accountability as envisioned under the Three R's bill, but does call 
for meaningful initial steps to hold States accountable for progress, 
and lays a solid foundation for stronger measures in the future. 
Specifically, under section 6161 of Title VI, it requires the Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Education to, starting two years after 
implementation, annually review whether states have met their adequate 
yearly progress--AYP--established under section 1111 and the annual 
measurable objectives established under Title III. The Secretary must 
provide technical assistance to states that fail to meet AYP for two 
years, and may provide technical assistance to states, where any 
district receiving funds under Title III fails to meet the annual 
objectives established in such title. In addition, technical assistance 
must be valid, reliable, rigorous, and provide constructive feedback to 
each failing state. In order to ensure full public knowledge of a 
state's failure to meet its goals, the Secretary shall submit an annual 
report to the Congress containing a list of states that have failed to 
meet AYP; the teacher quality reporting requirements under section 
1119; and a list of states that have failed to meet the annual English 
proficiency and academic achievement objectives for limited English 
proficient students under Title III.
  In order to clarify the intent behind this language, Conferees agreed 
to conference report language that makes it clear that Congress expects 
states identified by the Secretary to develop and implement improvement 
strategies that address the factors that led to failure and that will 
ensure the state meets AYP under Title I and its English proficiency 
objectives under Title III. I believe that this process will enable the 
Secretary to better follow the progress of states and take steps to 
help ensure that State meet their own established goals.
  In addition, the conference report states:

       Conferees stress that a fundamental purpose of Title I as 
     established under this Act is to hold States, local 
     educational agencies, and schools accountable for improving 
     the academic achievement of all students, and for identifying 
     and turning around low-performing schools. As a result, 
     Conferees expect States to meet their definition of adequate 
     yearly progress to the same degree as local school districts 
     and schools. The Conferees further urge Congress and the 
     Secretary to thoroughly examine the data collected from the 
     State assessment systems and factor such information into 
     future discussions on accountability measures for States, 
     which should include consideration of the use of fiscal 
     sanctions to hold those States that continually fail to 
     meet their definition of adequate yearly progress and fail 
     to improve the academic achievement of all students 
     accountable.

  Although I believe that more improvements could be made to better 
hold State accountable for academic progress, I do believe that the 
conference report contains strong requirements under sections 1111 and 
1116 of Title I, Part A of Title II, and subpart 2 of Part A of Title 
III, to hold districts and schools accountable for meeting the goals of 
this Act. Such provisions take a new approach to accountability by 
requiring districts and/or schools to meet annual goals, make 
improvements after initial failure, and eventually imposing tough 
penalties on those that continually fail to improve.
  Furthermore, the reporting requirements for state and district report 
cards in section 1111, and annual reports by States to the Secretary, 
in section 1111, annual reports by the Secretary to Congress, in 
section 1111 and section 6161, and the information provided under the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress as outlined in section 
6302, will provide an uncomparable wealth of information on academic 
achievement for parents, communities and the public. This unprecedented 
stream of annual information, combined with the substantial increase in 
public school choice provided to parents in Title I, section 1116, and 
Title V--Part B, under the Charter Schools Programs and the Voluntary 
Public School Choice Programs, will provide an infusion of the market 
forces of transparency, accessibility,

[[Page S13416]]

and competition into our nation's public school system. This dynamic 
will create for some of the greatest accountability that can exist--
accountability by parents.
  Regarding the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the 
conference report builds on the basic concept in the Three R's bill to 
provide parents and communities with greater awareness of the 
performance of schools as compared to other schools in a local school 
district, and as compared to other schools in the State. This 
conference report expands that aim by requiring in section 6302 of Part 
C of Title VI that States participate biennially in the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress--NAEP--of fourth and eighth grade 
reading and mathematics. States shall not be penalized based on their 
performance on the NAEP, but it is the intent that public knowledge of 
state performance will help drive states to develop more rigorous 
content and student academic achievement standards and assessments.
  Mr. President, I want to end by briefly thanking my fellow Conference 
members and their staff for their hard work on this historic conference 
report, particularly Elizabeth Fay with Senator Bayh, Danica Petroshius 
with Senator Kennedy, Denzel McGuire with Senator Gregg, Sally Lovejoy 
with Representative Boehner, Charles Barone with Representative Miller, 
as well as all the Conference Committee staff. And, I would like to 
give a special thanks to Sandy Kress of the White House for all of his 
efforts in this process, and to Will Marshall and Andy Rotherham of the 
Progressive Policy Institute as well as Amy Wilkins of the Education 
Trust for their policy expertise. Finally, I want to thank my own staff 
for their hard work, particularly Michele Stockwell, Dan Gerstein, and 
Jennifer Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Iowa, the champion 
for the disabled, the leader in our full funding for IDEA. He has also 
been a leader in terms of school construction. On so many of these 
issues, we have profited from his intervention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my chairman for his kind words and 
I thank him for his leadership. There is no doubt we need to make 
education the top priority in this Nation. No one in the entire 
country, let alone this Congress, has made this more of a top priority 
over all of the years we have been working on this issue than the 
chairman of our committee, Senator Kennedy. I commend him and I commend 
Senator Gregg for their leadership and for working to bring this bill 
to fruition.
  There is a lot in this bill. We know kids are behind in science. We 
know it has been level in the fourth and eighth grades, but we know by 
the time they get to the twelfth grade they fall way behind. There is 
no doubt in my mind we need to make schools accountable and we need to 
make teachers and principals accountable. In order to do that we have 
to have the resources for it, and that is why I commend my friend, the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, who has fought so hard and so 
eloquently to keep pointing out time and time again we cannot demand 
accountability unless we include resources. I am hopeful, having passed 
this bill, that the Bush administration will follow through with 
support for the appropriations process.
  I happen to chair the appropriations subcommittee that funds 
education. Now that we have the bill and we have the authorization, the 
next step is to get the appropriations.
  I await the Bush budget next year. I want to see the budget President 
Bush is going to send down and I want to see if he is going to put the 
money behind the rhetoric and leave no child behind. That is really 
going to be the true test next year, the budget the President sends 
down.
  Lastly, I want to thank all of the Senators who have worked so hard 
to try to get full funding for special education, to get it on the 
mandatory side, to get it off the plate where we are pitting kids with 
disabilities against other kids in our schools, to just get rid of that 
once and for all and make special education a mandatory funding item.
  We had that in our bill. It was supported in the Senate by both 
Republicans and Democrats, and in conference, I might add. It was only 
because of the intransigence of the administration, in holding the 
Republicans on the House side, that we did not get full funding and we 
did not get mandatory funding for special education. One of the biggest 
losses in this bill is that we did not get mandatory full funding for 
special education because now we are going to be right back in that 
same rut again, with kids with special needs in schools fighting with 
their parents saying why should they get all this money, what about our 
kids in schools? And you are going to have continued problems until we 
step to the plate and we provide that 40 percent of funding we promised 
26 years ago.
  Lastly, I thank the chairman and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg 
for including two provisions which I think are extremely important. One 
is the elementary and secondary school counseling program. I believe a 
lot of this violence is because kids are not getting good counseling. I 
thank them for keeping it in.
  The second is the effort and equity formula for title I. It is 
important that States put in more money and equalize their funding so 
our poor kids get the money they need in the schools.
  I thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for keeping those two 
provisions in the final bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to our friend from Michigan, Senator 
Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Gregg for their leadership and the tremendous amount of 
manhours to bring this legislation to this point. I thank all my 
colleagues deeply involved in this issue.
  It is said that knowledge is power. We know that our country's 
economic engine is fueled by a skilled workforce. It is critical we 
focus on education. I know the main goal of the compromise bill is to 
narrow, over a 12-year period, the educational achievement gap between 
the poor, disadvantaged students and their more affluent peers, and 
between minority and nonminority students. Wide achievement gaps 
between these groups have been tolerated for decades at great personal 
and social cost.
  We need to constantly repeat the fact that accountability is not just 
a test. It is parents, teachers, administrators, communities, and, yes, 
it is resources. I appreciate the fact there are additional resources 
designated in this bill.
  However, while I intend to support this legislation, I am deeply 
disturbed and disappointed that we are not taking the opportunity to 
finally fulfill a 25-year promise regarding special education in this 
country. Fully funding IDEA is something whose time is past due. While 
it is not in this legislation, I am very concerned that we continue the 
fight so next year IDEA is reauthorized and we finally get it done.
  As I talk to schools in Michigan, they tell me there would have been 
an additional $460 million available to children in Michigan this year 
if we had just kept our promise.
  Congratulations to all involved. We have more work to do and I look 
forward to working together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida who took a 
special interest in bringing greater targeting of funds to be used more 
effectively and also for further evaluation of the students to consider 
some of the challenges they are facing in their ability to learn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank Senator Kennedy for the leadership he has given 
over many years which has brought us to this point today.
  I am very supportive of this legislation and will vote for it with 
enthusiasm. I do point out there are some areas where I think further 
action will be required. As we began this debate, there was an 
assumption, maybe a tacit assumption, that there was a common set of 
reasons for school failures. That tacit assumption was reinforced by 
the suggestion that for every

[[Page S13417]]

school failure there would be a one-size-fits-all prescription. That 
was school vouchers. The Senate and the conferees have wisely not 
adopted this approach.
  However, there still remains the issue of an intelligent process to 
determine why schools fail. The reality is, anyone who has spent time 
in a variety of schools, as I know our Presiding Officer and I have had 
the opportunity to do, there are a variety of reasons why a school 
might be considered failing. Some of the reasons have to do with what 
is happening inside the school. Some of those reasons have to do with 
the neighborhood, the environment, the circumstances from which the 
students come and which adverse circumstances they bring to the 
schools.
  For instance, it might be that an absence of effective health care 
causes students to come to school with a limited ability to learn. It 
may be because of nutritional restrictions. It may be because there are 
not sufficient activities in the communities to support what is 
happening inside the school. This legislation recognizes that and 
provides for a diagnostic process in which, when a school is identified 
largely based on the testing process, there will be a determination 
made as to what the reasons were for that specific school failing to 
educate its students.
  This will put new responsibilities on a variety of institutions. It 
will put responsibilities on the community to provide resources through 
things such as public health services as well as nongovernmental 
agencies such as the United Way, YMCA, and the Boys and Girls Club, and 
on the Federal Government to bring to bear its agencies, particularly 
the Health and Human Services, to provide assistance in dealing with 
those out of the classroom reasons why schools are failing.
  Again, I commend the conferees for their good work. I point out that 
this is an important chapter, but we have more chapters yet to be 
written. They will require the cooperation of all groups I have 
referred to in order to see we comprehensively deal and provide the 
appropriate description to why that specific school is failing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. When I think of teacher recruitment, principal 
recruitment, rebuilding schools, or full funding, I think of the 
Senator from New York. I yield to the Senator from New York for 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank our chairman for his 
extraordinary work. I also appreciate the leadership of our ranking 
member and indeed the entire committee that has worked so hard for 
nearly a year and has finished the work in a conference that has 
resulted in a bill which will in many respects increase the 
opportunities that our students will have for achieving the kind of 
educational levels for which every child deserves to strive.
  We know this bill is far from perfect. However, we do know we have 
made a step forward. I appreciate greatly the targeting of title I 
funding, particularly for the highest need school districts in the 
State of New York. We will receive a 25-percent increase in title I 
funds and a 40-percent increase in teacher quality funds. For our 
neediest communities, that means a dramatic improvement in the 
resources available to focus their attention on those children for whom 
this bill is intended.
  I share the disappointment of many of my colleagues that we were not 
able to bring about the full funding of special education. That is the 
No. 1 issue in New York that I hear about, whether I am in an urban, 
rural, or suburban district. I pledge to work with my colleagues in a 
bipartisan manner and to work with the administration so that next year 
when we reauthorize IDEA, we also fully fund it and make good on a 
promise that we gave to the American people more than 25 years ago.
  I also appreciate the kind words of the chairman about teacher and 
principal recruitment, which was one of my highest priorities. If we do 
not attract and keep quality teachers in our classroom, everything that 
is in this bill will not amount to very much. We have to be sure we get 
the teachers and principals we need.
  I am glad we have taken this step forward. I hope my colleagues will 
continue to support education for every child.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Gregg, we will try to do this again.
  First of all, I thank my colleagues for their fine work. Second, it 
is a little frustrating for me. There are many provisions in this bill 
that I had a chance to work on and to write. I am proud of it. But I 
have to say to the Senator and especially my conservative friends that 
this is a stunning unfunded mandate. You are taking the essence of 
grassroots political culture and school districts and telling every 
school district and every school to test every child in grades 3, 4, 5, 
6, and 7--not just title I but every child in every school.

  I have heard discussions about national priorities. This bill now 
makes education a national priority. But the only thing we have done is 
have a Federal mandate that every child will be tested every year, but 
we don't have a Federal mandate that every child will have the same 
opportunity to do well in these tests. If they do not do well, they 
will need additional help.
  Colleagues, just because there is money for the administration of the 
tests doesn't mean this isn't one gigantic unfunded mandate.
  Look at this in the context of recession, hard times, and the 
cutbacks in State budgets and cutbacks in education. Look at this in 
the context of our now adding a whole new requirement and telling every 
district they have to test, having high stakes and holding the schools 
accountable.
  My colleague from New Hampshire said: Senator Wellstone, you are 
talking about the IDEA program, but that is not really ESEA, and that 
is separate from title I.
  That is not what I hear in Minnesota.
  I thank Senator Harkin for championing this cause. What I hear at the 
local level is if we had given Minnesota the $2 billion they would have 
gotten if we made it mandatory on a glidepath for full funding over the 
next 10 years, and $45 million this year, I was told we would put 50 
percent of it into children with special needs. But then we could have 
additional dollars for other programs. Right now, the Federal 
Government has not lived up to its promise. We are now taking our own 
money that we could be using for afterschool, for technology, for 
textbooks, for teacher recruitment, and we have to spend that money; 
whereas, we would have that additional money available if you would 
just provide the funding for IDEA. You can't separate funding for IDEA 
from any of the other educational programs.
  This is not just about the children who have a constitutional right 
to have the best education. That is Senator Harkin's, and it is his 
soul. He has made that happen.
  This is also about all the other children and support for educational 
programs at the local level. Title I money has gone up. But in the 
context of economic hard times and all the additional families and 
children who are becoming barely eligible, I will tell you something. I 
know that some Senators do not like to hear this. We are in profound 
disagreement on this.
  I think in our States we are going to hear from school board members 
and teachers, and we are going to hear from the educational community. 
They are going to say to us: What did you do to us? You gave us the 
tests, and then you gave us hardly anything that you said you would 
give us when it came to IDEA. You didn't provide the resources. You 
made this a giant unfunded mandate. You say you are going to hold our 
schools accountable, but by the same token, you haven't been 
accountable because you have not lived up to your promise.
  They are right. I think there is going to be a real negative reaction 
from a lot of States. In my State of Minnesota, we have hard economic 
times. We are cutting back on education. We are laying off teachers.

  I have two children who teach in our public schools. I have been to a 
school about every 2 weeks for the last 11 years. I believe I know this 
issue well. We are seeing all of these cutbacks. Minnesota is going to 
say: Why didn't you live up to your promise? You have given the tests 
and all this rhetoric about how it is a national priority, and I don't 
believe the Bush administration is going to make this a commitment next 
year. I do not know that you do.

[[Page S13418]]

  Frankly, they now have this education bill. This was our leverage, 
which was to say we can't realize this goal of leaving no child 
behind--not on a tin cup budget--not unless you make this commitment. 
And there will be no education reform bill because it can't be reformed 
unless we live up to our commitment of providing the resources. And we 
have not.
  I was in a school yesterday--the Phalen Lake School. I loved being 
there. It is on the east side of St. Paul. I don't think one of the 
students comes from a family with an income of over $15,000, or maybe 
$10,000 a year. It is just a rainbow of children with all kinds of 
culture and history. They are low-income children in the inner city.
  Do you know why I went. They raised money to help the children in 
Afghanistan. The President asked them to do so. They are all beautiful. 
I loved being there. But do you want to know something. I know what 
those children need because there are teachers who tell me what they 
need. They need the resources for more good teachers and to retain 
those teachers. They need to come to kindergarten ready to learn 
without being so far behind.
  Where is our commitment to affordable child care? We have $2 trillion 
in tax cuts, and $35 billion or $40 billion in the energy bill as tax 
cuts for producers. Where is the commitment to developmental child care 
from this Congress?
  I know what they need. They need more afterschool programs. They need 
a lot more title I money--not just 33 percent or 34 percent of these 
children but many more children, and more help for reading and smaller 
class size. They need all of that. We could have provided them a lot 
more, and we didn't.
  I will vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 48 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Kennedy and all the 
members of our staffs. I went over that in some length, and I 
specifically thanked our staff yesterday. I want to renew my thanks for 
their efforts. It has been extraordinary.
  I also thank other members of the committee who worked with me from 
both sides of the aisle, and also the White House for its assistance.
  I think it is important to note as we go into the final moments of 
this debate that we would not have gotten to this point unless we had 
the President, who understood how to lead on an issue of national 
importance.
  The fact is that President Bush understands almost in a visceral 
sense--it totally absorbs him and his wife--that children are being 
left behind because our educational system is not working, and that we 
need fundamental reform of that system in order to try to improve it.
  He came into office and was willing to lay out a very clear path for 
us as a Congress and as a Government to follow in trying to assist in 
the Federal role in elementary and secondary education. Because he was 
willing to lay out that path, we were able to pass a bill which takes 
major strides down the road to try to improve education in this 
country.
  We all understand this is neither the end nor the beginning of the 
issue. We all understand that the Federal role in education is the tail 
of the dog.
  We also understand, however, that the Federal role in education is 
not working, that we had 35 years of effort, that we had spent $130 
billion, and that we still have low-income children falling further and 
further behind and that something has to be done to try to address 
that. He has readjusted the whole approach. He has set up a program 
which is, No. 1, child-centered rather than bureaucracy-centered; that 
empowers parents and gives parents, especially of low-income children, 
an opportunity to do something when their children are locked into 
failing schools, gives them choices; gives the local communities much 
more flexibility over the dollars they are going to get from the 
Federal Government. But in exchange for that flexibility, we are going 
to expect academic achievement, and we are going to have accountability 
standards that show us whether or not the academic achievement is being 
obtained.
  In the end, what we are doing with this bill essentially is creating 
opportunities for local school districts, States, and especially 
parents to take advantage of using their Federal dollars in a more 
effective way to educate the low-income child, and hopefully have that 
child be competitive with his or her peers.
  In the end, we also understand that it will be the responsibility of 
the parents, of the schoolteacher, of the principal, and of the school 
system that is locally based to make the tough decisions and do the 
work that is necessary to produce the results and have the children 
compete.
  At least that is the Federal role. We are now setting up a framework 
which will greatly assist parents, schools, and teachers in 
accomplishing that goal of making the low-income child competitive in 
America so they can participate in the American dream.
  I especially want to thank the chairman of the committee for his 
efforts and for his courtesy during the markup of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 26 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself an additional 2 minutes of the leader's 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have had a very good discussion and 
debate today and yesterday. I expect we will have an overwhelming vote 
in support of the conference report by Senators from all different 
parts of the country who have varying views on educational issues. We 
recognize this is an important step forward.
  I want to acknowledge, as I have on other occasions, the strong 
leadership of President Bush. This was a unique undertaking on his 
part. I can remember, as I am sure the Senator from New Hampshire can, 
being in this Chamber 2\1/2\ years ago when we had 3 weeks of debate in 
the Chamber and were unable to come to any kind of common position. We 
were facing the fact that the program that reaches out to the neediest 
of children was effectively going to be awash at sea.
  That has changed. The President deserves great credit for that. 
Credit also goes to the able chairman of our conference, Congressman 
Boehner, our leader over in the House on education issues. There are 
many who contributed to this conference report, but George Miller 
brings a special commitment to education, as does my friend and 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg.
  The reason this issue is so important is that it affects every family 
in this country; it is one that goes back to the earliest times of our 
Nation. Our Founding Fathers understood the importance of educating the 
whole of the public. It isn't just an accident that the first public 
schools were developed in this country. It was a really fundamental 
commitment that all the children were going to be educated. Virtually 
all the constitutions of our States are committed to the States 
ensuring a quality education for all the children of this Nation. That 
has not always been the case.
  We have seen the great social movements that have taken place in this 
Nation. We understand the strong drive of parents for a quality 
education. It was at the heart of the women's movement. It was not only 
the right to vote, but the women's movement understood that young 
ladies, young girls ought to be able to receive a quality education. It 
took a long time, and now it would be unthinkable if we said we were 
going to educate everyone but women in our society.
  Then it became the principal civil rights issue in the 1950s. Long 
before Dr. King and others spoke about civil rights, the principal 
civil rights issue was, were minorities going to be able to gain an 
education by opening up the doors of education? It became the principal 
civil rights issue.
  We can understand why we have seen the progress we have made for the 
disabled in recent times. We have heard the statements by the Senator 
from Iowa, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from Vermont 
about trying to assure a quality education for those students, which 
really follows a national concern and commitment that has been part of 
our tradition. We have

[[Page S13419]]

not always reached that commitment. But I think, when history examines 
where we have been and where we are going, those who have followed this 
issue will believe this is a historic piece of legislation and one that 
deserves the support of all of the Members of this body.

  The legislation before us today is a blueprint for progress in all of 
the Nation's schools. It proclaims that every child matters--every 
child, in every school, in every community in this country. That is why 
this legislation is so important. School improvement and school reform 
are not optional; they are mandatory for us to achieve if we are going 
to meet our responsibilities to the next generation. When we fail our 
students, we fail our country. We cannot expect the next generation of 
Americans to carry the banner of progress and opportunity if they are 
not well prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.
  This is a defining issue about the future of our Nation and about the 
future of democracy, the future of liberty, and the future of the 
United States in leading the free world. No piece of legislation will 
have a greater impact or influence on that.
  In conclusion, what are we really trying to do? Now that we have put 
this issue into some kind of framework, we are assuring American 
families this is what this legislation is really all about: Greater 
opportunity for all of our students to achieve high standards. Extra 
help will be there for students in need. We are committed to high-
quality teachers. We are committed to extra help in mastering the 
basics. We are committed to reducing the dropout rate. We are committed 
to providing guidance counselors. We are committed to assist young 
children who need mental health counseling. We are committed as well to 
the advanced placement in foreign language, American history, civics, 
economics, the arts, physical education, and the gifted and talented, 
and character education.
  We have the pathways to American excellence. We are saying to 
families: If your child is doing well, with this legislation your child 
will do even better; if your child is failing in the public schools, 
with this legislation they will get the help they need.
  This is the challenge for the schools: Reform in our American 
schools, having high standards, high expectations. We are going to 
insist on teacher training and mentoring, high-quality teachers in 
every classroom, smaller class size, early reading support, violence 
and drug prevention programs, more classroom technology, afterschool 
opportunities, high-quality bilingual instruction, new books for school 
libraries, and greater parental involvement.
  This is the third and the important final dimension. This is the 
power we are going to be giving parents in States and local schools all 
across this country so that they will know what the achievement is for 
all the students, not only their own but the other children who are in 
the classes, including children with disabilities and those with 
limited English proficiency, and minority and poor children. They will 
be able to find out what their graduation rates are, what the quality 
is of the teachers in those classrooms in high-poverty and low-poverty 
schools, and the percentage of highly qualified teachers.
  This is our commitment. We are challenging the children in this 
Nation. We are challenging the schools in this Nation. And we are 
challenging the parents in this Nation. As has been pointed out in the 
course of the debate, finally, we are going to challenge ourselves. Are 
we in this Congress going to make this kind of an opportunity realized 
for all children in America, not just a third, but for all children to 
move along? That is a battle that is going to be fought on this Senate 
floor day in and day out over the years in the future. Are we going to 
expect that the States are going to meet their responsibilities in 
fulfilling this kind of a promise?
  Those are the kinds of challenges we welcome. But we are giving the 
assurance to the American families that help is on its way.
  This legislation deserves our support. I hope we will have an 
overwhelming vote on its adoption.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of this vote, the staff be entitled to be make technical 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, soon we will vote on passing H.R. 1--the 
Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act. As everyone 
knows, President Bush campaigned last year with a promise to do all 
that he could in the realm of education so that we as a nation would 
``Leave No Child Behind.''
  The Republican majorities in the Senate and the House responded to 
the President's focus on comprehensive education reform by putting it 
at the top of the agenda in both chambers. The first bills introduced 
in both the Senate and the House--S. 1 and H.R. 1--were both named the 
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act. It is the conference 
report to that legislation that we are about to vote on, pass, and send 
to the President for him to sign into law as he promised.
  President Bush recognizes that with almost 70 percent of our fourth 
graders who are unable to read at even a basic level, our children were 
and are at risk of being unable to compete in an increasingly complex 
job market. We all recognize that the ability to read the English 
language with fluency and comprehension is essential if individuals, 
old and young, are to reach their full potential in any field of 
endeavor. As the saying goes: Reading Is Fundamental. And again, as 
President Bush has said, none of our children should be left behind 
because they can't read.
  In reforming education, Republicans have always sought to maximize 
local control and flexibility over both education policy and federal 
funding while requiring schools to be accountable for the ultimate 
performance of their students. School accountability means schools must 
respect the rights of parents to know about their child's performance 
as well as the quality of a child's instructors and learning 
environment.
  That is why the most significant change under the new law is that 
parents are empowered with new options. For the first time, parents 
whose children are trapped in failing public schools will be able to 
demand that a local school district give them a portion of the money 
available for their child under the Title I Disadvantaged Children 
program--approximately $500 to $1,000--so the parents can use it to get 
their child outside private tutorial support. Such tutorial support can 
come from public institutions, private providers or faith-based 
educators. Groups such as the Sylvan Learning Center, Catholic schools, 
the Boys & Girls Club, and a variety of other agencies will be able to 
help these children come up to speed in the areas of math and English. 
This provision has the potential to fundamentally impact the way low-
income children are educated in America.
  Not only will parents have the right to demand money for tutorial 
assistance for their children, but whenever their children are trapped 
in failing public schools they will also be able to demand that their 
child be able to attend another public school which is not failing--and 
to have their child's transportation costs to the new school paid for 
by the local school district. This ensures parents are able to access 
better performing schools for their children.

  So, while the bill does not allow parents to access private schools 
as some have proposed, it does allow a parent to get their child out of 
a failing public school and move them to a public school where they can 
get adequate education. The effect of this strong public school choice 
provision will be to put pressure on those public schools within a 
major school system that are failing to improve or find itself without 
any students. But fundamentally, this provision gives parents a viable 
option for giving their child a chance to succeed not just in school, 
but in life.
  Groups of concerned parents and educators will also have enhanced 
rights under the BEST Act. The bill creates a major new expansion of 
self-governing Charter Schools. Charter Schools enable parents, 
educators, and interested community leaders to create schools

[[Page S13420]]

outside the normal bureaucratic structure of moribund educational 
establishments and much of the red tape contained in local, state, and 
federal regulations. This legislation will significantly expand the 
opportunity for parents, foundations, and other groups to create 
Charter Schools and help them succeed without interference from 
education bureaucrats and politicians who are hostile to Charter 
Schools.
  One of our primary goals in this bill as Republicans was to give 
states and local communities significantly more flexibility over the 
management of Federal dollars they receive, and to pared down the 
amount of red tape that comes with the Federal dollars. While not as 
strong as we would have liked, there are a series of initiatives in 
this bill that offer significant help in this regard.
  State and local governments, and local school districts, will be able 
to move up to 50 percent of their non-title I funds from one account to 
another without Federal approval. This means funding for teacher 
quality, technology innovation programs, safe and drug-free schools, 
and other programs would all be open to movement of Federal funds from 
account to account depending on where a State or local community, and 
not Washington, DC, feels that it can get the most benefit from the 
dollars.
  In addition, 150 school districts--at least three per State--would be 
able to apply for waivers from virtually all Federal education rules 
and requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, in 
exchange for agreeing to obtain higher than required levels of 
achievement for their low-income students. This provision gives local 
communities dramatic new flexibility in running their schools.
  Seven whole States, if they volunteer, may participate in a 
demonstration program which would allow Federal funds--other than title 
I funds--to be used by the State for any educational activity 
authorized by H.R. 1. Therefore, States would have greater control over 
such funds as the innovative block grant program, State administration 
component of title I, State administration/State activities components 
of title I, Part B and other Federal funds.
  Another significant accomplishment of this bill is the streamlining 
and consolidation of the number of Federal education programs, which 
often led to confusion and duplication of efforts. Under current law 
there are 55 Federal education programs for elementary and secondary 
schools. This bill makes a down payment on further consolidation by 
reducing the total number of programs to 45, despite creating several 
new programs in the bill. This consolidation, although not as dramatic 
as one would like, is a significant improvement.
  The bill also includes reforms to improve teacher quality and 
training. It includes the Teacher Empowerment Act which takes numerous 
existing professional development programs for Teachers and the current 
Class Size Program and merges them into one flexible program which 
allows local districts to use the funds as they see best for the 
purposes of hiring teachers, improving teacher professional 
development, or providing merit pay or other innovative ways to reward 
and retain high quality teachers.
  The bill continues the initiative in current law called the Troops to 
Teachers program that encourages retired members of the Armed Services 
to become teachers. The bill also directs that 95 percent of the 
Federal funds targeted for teacher quality go directly to local school 
districts. And while the bill provides funds to be used for the 
recruitment of hiring qualified teachers, it explicitly prohibits funds 
from being used to plan, develop, implement or administer any mandatory 
national teacher or professional test or certification. In other words, 
Federal funds cannot be used to create a national teacher certification 
system.
  Teachers are also given legal protection under the Teacher Liability 
Act contained within the bill which will shield teachers, principals 
and other school professionals from frivolous lawsuits. It is a major 
piece of lawsuit reform that will help ensure that teachers and other 
school professionals have the ability to maintain discipline, order, 
and a proper learning environment in the classroom without having to 
fear losing their home or their life savings.
  H.R. 1, the BEST Act, also reorganizes bilingual education 
initiatives so that the emphasis is now on teaching English rather than 
separating children who do not speak English and putting them into an 
atmosphere where they never actually learn English. It also gives the 
parents of bilingual children the right to demand information about the 
classes and instructional programs their children are placed in. Most 
importantly, they are given the right to object to their children's 
placement or classes to ensure that their children do not end up being 
locked in a limited-English situation. This is one of the bill's most 
significant achievements as it involves much needed reforms to a 
program critical to the success of students with limited English 
proficiency. It provides accountability to a program which has been 
misdirected for too long.
  The final major accomplishment of H.R. 1 is that it imposes stringent 
accountability standards on schools and their performance with the goal 
of assuring that low income students are learning at a level that is 
equal to their peers. In accomplishing this goal, the bill specifically 
prohibits federally sponsored national testing or Federal control over 
curriculum. It sets up a series of tests to ensure that any national 
test, such as NAEP, which is used for evaluation purposes is fair and 
objective, and does not test or evaluate a child's views, opinions, or 
beliefs.

  The bill also includes a trigger mechanism so that State based 
testing requirements are paid for by the Federal Government, not states 
or local school districts, thus avoiding an unfunded mandate.
  Finally, the bill contains several provisions which are important to 
ensure that Federal funds are used appropriately and objectively 
without bias. The bill denies Federal funds to any school district that 
prevents or otherwise denies participation in constitutionally-
protected voluntary school prayer. Funding is also denied any public 
school or educational agency that discriminates against or denies equal 
access to any group affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America. It 
requires that the Nation's Armed Forces recruiters have the same access 
to high school students as college recruiters and job recruiters have. 
Schools will also be required to transfer student disciplinary records 
from local school districts to a student's new private or public school 
so discipline and safety issues are fully appreciated and anticipated 
by administrators, teachers, parents, and, of course, new classmates at 
their new school.
  President Bush's agenda for education reform as embodied in this bill 
serves as a framework for common action, encouraging all of us, 
Democrat, Republican, and Independent, to work in concert to strengthen 
our elementary and secondary schools to, as the President says, ``build 
the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every 
part of America.''
  Madam President, I do want to say, since we are about to begin the 
vote, how much I appreciate the outstanding leadership and work that 
has been done by Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy. Without their 
indomitable spirit, it would not have happened. We are indebted to 
them.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it has been said that free schools 
preserve us as a free Nation. I believe that this education bill will 
strengthen our schools, and strengthen our Nation long into the future.
  Much has happened since we began work on this bill to update Federal 
elementary and secondary education programs.
  We were well on our way to reaching a bipartisan consensus on this 
bill last spring when control of this institution changed.
  That unprecedented shift could have thrown this effort into the limbo 
of partisan gridlock. But we continued to move forward and in June, we 
passed a strong, bipartisan bill.
  Then came the terrible events of September 11 and, a month after 
that, the anthrax attacks.
  Even as we focused on urgent national security concerns, from 
strengthening airline security to making sure our military has what it 
needs to dismantle the terrorists' networks, members of the education 
conference

[[Page S13421]]

committee continued to work together and iron out differences between 
the Senate and House versions of this bill.
  No one deserves more credit for getting this bill done this year than 
Ted Kennedy, a man who has spent the last 40 years of his life working 
to make sure that every child in America has the opportunity to go to a 
good public school.
  I want to commend Chairman Kennedy, and all the members of the 
conference committee who worked long and hard on this bill, and kept 
their eyes on the prize, even during the turmoil of the last three 
months.
  President Bush also deserves credit for helping to put education 
first, and convincing the doubters in his party that the Federal 
Government must be a partner in the effort to strengthen America's 
public schools for all children.
  The last time we authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, there were those in the President's party who advocated abolishing 
the Federal role in education. Instead, President Bush came to us with 
a serious proposal and a serious commitment to make progress for our 
children.
  He built his proposal around the principle that all children must be 
given the chance to succeed in school. He agreed that we must have high 
standards for success in every classroom in every school in every 
community.

  He recognized that reading is, indeed, the foundation of all 
learning. Without reading, the job manuals and newspapers stay closed, 
the Internet is a dark screen, the world of discovery is worlds away, 
and the promise of America is, simply a closed book.
  He said we have to measure results, so parents and communities can 
know what is working, and what isn't.
  We were pleased that the President was willing to support several 
measures Democrats have long advocated.
  This new law sets high standards for all teachers. It also provides 
communities with help, if they need it, to recruit, hire and train new 
teachers so that every classroom can be led by a qualified, effective 
teacher.
  Under this law, low-performing schools will get the help they need to 
turn around, and face consequences if they fail.
  Immigrant and bilingual children who need extra help to succeed in 
school and learn English will get that help.
  And communities that require help meeting the needs of their most 
disadvantaged students will get it.
  I am pleased that the conferees stripped provisions that many of us 
thought would ultimately be damaging to public schools. The bill does 
not allow limited Federal resources to be siphoned off to private 
schools through ill-advised voucher schemes. It also does not give 
States blank checks with no accountability, as had been proposed by 
supporters of the Straight As block grant program.
  I am disappointed, however, that this bill does not provide full 
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. 
Senator Jeffords is right: we made a commitment more than 25 years ago 
to provide 40 percent of the cost of this program; so far, we have 
failed in that commitment. We need to do better.
  Though we finish this bill today, the work of improving our 
children's schools does not end. This bill lays out a blueprint for 
reform. But we know that real reform cannot occur without real 
resources.
  Our schools face real challenges: the generation now passing through 
our schools has surpassed the Baby Boom in size, and school enrollments 
are expected to rise for the next decade; a large part of the teaching 
corps is getting ready to retire. Schools will have to hire more than 2 
million new teachers over the next decade; diversity in the classroom 
is increasing, bringing new languages, cultures, and challenges; 
technology is revolutionizing the workplace and our society as a whole. 
Schools must keep up with the pace of change, by helping students gain 
important skills in technology, and by taking advantage of 
technological capabilities to advance learning for all children.
  The first test of whether we are serious about meeting those 
challenges and keeping the commitments this bill makes will occur this 
week, when we take up the Labor-HHS appropriations bill.
  The details of that bill are still being finalized, but we expect it 
will provide communities with an additional $4 billion to meet their 
new responsibilities under these programs. We must make sure that money 
is there not only next year, but every year.
  This bill meets many of our greatest education challenges in word. I 
hope that this and future Congresses will ensure the resources are 
there to meet them in deed.
  That is the only way that we can strengthen our schools and move our 
Nation closer to becoming a land of opportunity for every child.
  It is with the understanding that we still have work ahead of us, I 
give this bill my strong support, and I urge my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, actually, I think I have said what I 
wanted to say. I feel as though I was speaking for a lot of people in 
Minnesota and around the country.
  My colleagues, I have figures I will leave everyone in terms of our 
national commitment.
  In 1979, close to 12 percent of the Federal budget was devoted to 
education. It is now down to 7 percent.
  If we just were where we were in 1979, 30 some years ago, we would be 
allocating an additional $21 billion to education today. I have heard 
colleagues say that this is all about equal opportunity for every 
child. There is nothing I believe in more. I know Senators can agree to 
disagree.
  If I had one vision, one hope, one dream that I cared more about for 
Minnesota and the country than any other, it would be that every child, 
starting with the littlest of the children, regardless of color of 
skin, urban/rural, income, gender, every child would have the same 
chance to reach her or his full potential. That is the goodness of our 
country.
  When I was in Phalen Lake school yesterday, that was the goodness of 
that school, those teachers and what they were trying to do under 
incredibly difficult circumstances. I wish I could believe that this 
bill lived up to that promise. When I look at the resources, it 
doesn't.
  Make no mistake about it, a test every year doesn't give our schools 
the resources to either recruit or to retain more teachers. A test 
every year does not lead to smaller class size. It doesn't lead to 
better lab facilities. It doesn't lead to more reading help for 
children who need the help. It doesn't lead to better technology. It 
doesn't lead to more books. It doesn't lead to making sure the children 
are prepared when they come to kindergarten. Many of them are so far 
behind. It doesn't mean we will have afterschool programs. It doesn't 
mean any of that.
  I am all for accountability. I am all for testing and accountability 
to see how the reform is doing. I am not for the argument that the 
actual testing represents the reform.
  We have done one piece, the accountability. We haven't given our 
children and our schools and our teachers the resources they need.
  One final time, I have shouted it from the mountaintop 1,000 times on 
the floor: Mr. President, you cannot realize the goal of leaving no 
child behind, the mission of the Children's Defense Fund, on a tin cup 
budget. That is what you have given us.
  I vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question is on 
agreeing to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1.
  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 Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:

[[Page S13422]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 371 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

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

                                NAYS--10

     Bennett
     Dayton
     Feingold
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Leahy
     Nelson (NE)
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Helms
     Murkowski
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to 
lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________