[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6891-6936]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

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

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

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Lo and behold, I believe we are actually ready to go to an 
education bill after talking about it for months and working actively 
on it for days. We are ready to proceed. I am pleased with that. I 
commend all those Members involved in trying to make it work.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the reporting of the 
substitute amendment, the time between now until 12 noon be equally 
divided for debate between the chairman and the ranking member.
  I also ask consent that prior to 12 noon and with the consent of both 
managers, Senator Collins may be recognized to offer an amendment 
regarding reading, and following that debate, the amendment be laid 
aside with a vote to occur at 4 p.m. today.
  I further ask consent that Senator Kennedy or his designee--and I 
understand that may be Senator Harkin--be recognized immediately 
following the reporting of the Collins amendment to offer a first-
degree amendment; further, that the votes on or in relation to the 
amendments occur in a stacked sequence at 4 p.m. Also, I ask that no 
amendments referenced in this agreement be subject to second-degree 
amendments, and, further, all debate time prior to the 4 o'clock vote 
be equally divided in the usual form.
  I further ask consent that at 12 noon, notwithstanding receipt of the 
conference report, the Senate begin debate on the conference report 
accompanying H. Con. Res. 83, and the time under the provisions of the 
Budget Act begin accordingly. Finally, I ask consent if time remains 
under the Budget Act following the 4 p.m. vote, the Senate resume 
consideration of the conference report to accompany the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask that the distinguished 
majority leader delete the last paragraph. We understand the intent of 
the leader. We are in agreement with the intent of the leader. We 
simply don't have the report yet. A couple members want to look at it. 
There will be no problem in doing that at a subsequent time.
  I also say to the leader, in consultation with Senator Kennedy, we 
would like also at an appropriate time to lock in the next two 
amendments so we can move this legislation. We are very anxious to move 
forward with this legislation. We would ask that we, in fact, do that, 
lock in the amendment that will be offered by the distinguished manager 
of the bill, the Senator from Vermont, and that on our side, the next 
amendment will be that offered by Senator Dodd and Senator Collins.
  Mr. LOTT. Are you asking that we make that change at this point?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, several suggestions were made. I will 
respond and accept most of the suggestions.
  First of all, I had hoped to go ahead and get started on the budget 
conference report. It is very important, very urgent. We need to get 
that completed. I understand Senators need to actually see the report. 
It should be available within the hour. We are trying to get that to 
you, as we speak. I hope we can come back then and get an

[[Page 6892]]

agreement later to go ahead and go to the conference report. However, 
following your suggestion, I modify my unanimous consent to delete the 
last paragraph.
  Now, I do think it is also important to note that this agreement does 
not lock in a vote on the Jeffords substitute. We have it. Senators 
will have the next couple of hours to go through it. I hope we can 
enter an agreement in a reasonable period of time so we have the vote 
on the Jeffords-Kennedy substitute at 4 p.m., also. We are not 
including that in the request.
  In view of that, I don't think we should go ahead and lock in the 
next two amendments at this time. Let's go ahead and get started on the 
agreement we have, get the debate on the Collins amendment and the 
Kennedy amendment, or his designee, and then in the next sequence we 
can get an agreement on the budget conference report, the vote on the 
substitute, and line up the next two amendments. I need to check with 
some of our people to make sure these are the next two amendments we 
want to consider. This is a step forward to get the process started.
  I renew my unanimous consent request to include the first three 
paragraphs as read and delete the last one.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--as 
far as our side goes, we know it will be the Dodd amendment. Could we 
leave the discretion to your side as to what amendment you offer, but 
could we at least have it in the consent agreement that the next 
amendment from our side would be the Dodd amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is up to that side as to what would be 
the next amendment. I don't want to lock it in at this point because we 
need to lock in both amendments. I think we are getting started here, 
everybody is trying to be cooperative, but we need to get the vote on 
the substitute, then lock in the next two amendments and get an 
agreement on the conference report. I would rather not lock them in.
  As far as that goes, if they are prepared, the next amendment would 
be the Dodd amendment. We don't dictate that at all.
  Mr. REID. We would accept that. If I could ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts to yield, that would be fine with us. We do want the Dodd 
amendment to be our next amendment, in keeping with the agreement 
earlier in the day. It would be our second amendment. Whatever you want 
could be your second amendment.
  Mr. DODD. The Dodd-Collins.
  Mr. LOTT. We will check on that, and hopefully well before noon we 
can go ahead and lock in this next series of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 358

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] offers an amendment 
     numbered 358.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate begins in 
earnest the consideration of S. 1, the Better Education for Students 
and Teachers Act.
  I think it is fair to say that this is the most dramatic reform of 
Federal elementary and secondary education law since the enactment of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965.
  The only reason we are on the threshold of such change is that a 
remarkable consensus has developed over the past few years with regard 
to Federal education policy. Senators from both parties and across the 
entire spectrum of political views have come to the realization that if 
we want to achieve real progress in our schools, we have to measure the 
progress.
  This is easier said than done, of course. Schools are not producing 
uniform widgets, but educating children. Children come into the public 
education system with very different backgrounds and experiences. This 
results in students performing at different achievement levels. 
However, as the leading States have found, after a lot of time and hard 
work, you can assess students and use the results to constantly improve 
the education that you provide them.
  At the same time, if we are going to place high demands on our 
schools and teachers and students, we must give them the tools they 
need to do the best job possible. That means extra help for schools 
that are struggling, high quality professional development for 
teachers, and choices for students in schools that persistently fail.
  In early March, the HELP Committee reported the BEST Act by a 
unanimous 20-0 vote. The bill before us reflects the work of every 
member of the committee. Each one has contributed in significant ways 
to improving this bill and education in our country.
  Since the bill emerged from the committee, we and our staffs have 
been meeting with Senators on and off the committee to reach agreements 
on further improvement to the legislation.
  The substitute I am offering this morning reflects the results of our 
discussions over the past few weeks, incorporating the suggestions of a 
dozen Senators and contributions by the White House throughout the 
process.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, let me touch on a few of the 
changes we are making in the substitute:
  The first is accountability. At the heart of accountability is 
adequate yearly progress. Adequate yearly progress ensures that all 
students of each subgroup will make adequate yearly progress towards 
proficiency in reading and math over the next 10 years. The other key 
component of accountability, is providing mechanisms for schools to 
improve. S. 1, as amended, lays out a series of increasingly strong 
corrective actions that impact schools, local educational agencies and 
States that fail to meet the goals for adequate yearly progress.
  I look forward to the debate and I especially look forward to passing 
a bill that will enable every child in this nation to have a first rate 
education.
  Let me go to some other aspects of it.
  The next one is supplemental services, a term you will hear over and 
over again. This is a new option for parents of children in 
persistently failing schools. Supplemental services are educational 
services offered by public or private organizations outside the regular 
school day that are directed at providing such children with the 
knowledge and skills they need to meet the State standards.
  Another term you will hear is Straight A's. Up to 7 States and 25 
local educational agencies will be allowed to enter into performance 
agreements with the Secretary of Education that will trade increased 
flexibility for strong accountability.
  Regarding bilingual education, the amendment before us establishes a 
trigger for converting the Bilingual Education Act from a set of 
federally run programs into a single, State grant program focused on 
helping all limited English proficient students attain fluency in 
English and master the academic content.
  For testing, S. 1, as amended, authorizes $400 million a year over 
the life of the bill to pay for the cost of developing and implementing 
the new assessments required by the bill.
  I look forward to this debate and passing a bill that will give every 
child a first-rate education.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 6893]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that we can finally 
turn to our work on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, and during the course of the morning will begin debating 
two very important amendments. The first concerns the reading 
provisions of this legislation, which I think are such a commendable 
part of our whole effort, and the second, on which Senator Harkin and 
Senator Hagel have worked very closely to craft, regarding the 
challenges for our special needs children and local communities. The 
Harkin-Hagel amendment aims to strengthen the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act, particularly in providing additional relief in 
funding. In many respects the reading and IDEA amendments address a 
common concern, since many children with special needs are also 
eligible for the reading programs and title I assistance.
  Now I will take just a few moments just to review some of the 
provisions that I think should give heart to many parents when this 
legislation is actually implemented, and that is the supplementary 
services under title I, which increase the help available to children 
in troubled schools.
  Students in schools that have failed for at least 3 consecutive years 
will have the opportunity to receive the supplementary tutoring 
services during non-school hours. Students in failing schools get extra 
academic help after school while schools implement new reforms during 
the day.
  Under the supplementary service provisions, parents of children in 
persistently failing schools--those in corrective action or 
reconstitution--will have the option to enroll their children in 
before-school, after-school, weekend, or summer tutoring programs.
  The compromise extends learning time for students most in need of 
additional help. And the students in failing schools participate in a 
revamped, full regular school program during the day and receive 
additional help outside the school day.
  The public funds remain in the control of the public schools. The 
supplementary services provision does not provide vouchers for private 
school tuition.
  In contracting services, the school district pays State-approved 
providers for tutoring services. So any of the agencies that are going 
to be permitted to provide those services are effectively going to have 
to have a certification in terms of their educational competence. That 
is enormously important and basic.
  Parents then choose a provider for their children from a State-
approved list of providers. The parents then will be able to make the 
judgment about which provider they want to choose in order to get the 
supplementary services for their children. And with the information 
that is available--with report cards and other information--it is the 
hope and the expectation that the parents will be able to choose 
wisely. It will give them an additional kind of involvement in their 
children's educational development. It is a small part of this 
legislation, but as we have been talking about parental involvement in 
these general discussions, this is the kind of effort that we were 
talking about.
  There is a cap on Federal funds available for supplemental services. 
Districts can use no more than 15 percent of the title I funds, and are 
not required to spend more than an equal amount to 15 percent of their 
title I allocation.
  In addition, in order to provide tutoring services, the district 
cannot reduce the amount a failing school receives under title I by 
more than 15 percent. They can draw down so they can use their own 
money, or they can use the supplementary services money that is 
available at the State, or they can use funds under the Title V(4) 
program for which they will be eligible. That is our clear intention, 
that those funds will be available. We will make that clear as we move 
through the debate as well as in the legislative history.
  Currently, many title I school districts contract with outside 
tutoring providers. The supplementary service provision differs from 
current law in that it requires failing schools to make after-school 
tutoring programs available. That is a requirement, not an option. It 
is a requirement. I think that gives additional kinds of protections to 
the parents.
  The tutoring programs must be research-based and of demonstrated 
effectiveness. Only tutoring providers who are pre-screened for quality 
by States are eligible to receive the Federal funds.
  Providers that fail to maintain a high quality of services and meet 
their annual performance goals will be removed from the State list of 
eligible supplemental tutoring providers. And tutoring services must be 
focused on academics and tied to the State standards and assessments.
  The tutoring program ensures strong parental involvement. The parents 
and districts jointly develop specific performance goals for 
participating children and come to agreement on how individual student 
progress will be measured. So parents and districts jointly determine 
how parents will be informed of their child's progress. There will be 
information given to the parents and the schools so that they can 
monitor where these children have additional needs.
  Providers must give the parents the comparative information about the 
quality of the tutoring programs available.
  I want to give just a brief summation on what we call the Straight 
A's compromise.
  The performance agreements pilot provides seven States and 25 
districts additional flexibility in how communities use funds to 
implement public school reform. Funds can only be used for activities 
authorized under the programs that are eligible to be consolidated. 
Funds must be focused on public school reform. No funds may be used to 
support private school vouchers. States and districts are required to 
ensure the equitable participation of low-income students in private 
schools according to the requirements of the underlying bill. The 
performance agreements pilot continues the national focus on students 
with special needs. Migrant, homeless, immigrant, Indian education, and 
neglected or delinquent programs addressing students with special needs 
cannot be consolidated under the Performance Agreements Pilot Program.
  In addition, the new Reading First Program cannot be consolidated.
  The performance agreements pilot maintains targeting of Federal funds 
to the neediest students.
  I hope our Members will pay attention to this. The title I funds 
continue to be targeted by poverty to the school level, maintaining the 
allocation formula in the underlying law. If a State wants to use an 
alternative formula, the formula must result in a greater percentage of 
the funds going to districts with the highest concentration of low-
income children than under the current title I formula. It is a strong 
commitment that the funds go to the neediest children.
  Other nontitle I funds allocated under the performance agreements 
pilot might be targeted to the district based on the same proportion of 
poverty as the underlying law requires. If the State uses an 
alternative formula, districts with the highest concentrations of low-
income children must receive more funds than they would have received 
without consolidation.
  So our pilot program assures that the funds, rather than being 
scattered across a particular State or a jurisdiction, will effectively 
be focused on the children with the greatest needs. That is not all.
  The States and districts must comply with the title I provisions that 
require the development and implementation of standards and 
assessments: accountability for failing schools, disaggregation of 
assessment data, parent involvement, and the release of report cards at 
the State, local, and school level. So what we are giving is the 
assurance that there will be very strong and important accountability 
for these programs as well which effectively had not been in existence 
in the past. I think that is an improvement.
  States may not consolidate title I funds set aside for failing 
schools.

[[Page 6894]]

States must ensure that failing schools get the extra help they need to 
turn around by improving student achievement.
  States and districts must also meet all the accountability provisions 
relating to teacher quality and improving achievement for limited 
English proficiency in title II and title III of the underlying bill.
  States and districts must abide by title I provisions that require 
adequate yearly progress, school improvement, and corrective action. If 
achievement does not improve any performance agreement will be 
terminated. So there will be a termination of these agreements if we 
find out there are not positive results with very strong 
accountability. I think that is enormously reassuring.
  The States may only retain 1 percent of all consolidated funds for 
administration. They may retain up to 5 percent of title I funds and up 
to 10 percent of nontitle I funds for State activities. All other funds 
must flow directly to the local school districts.
  Applications by the States and districts are subject to peer review. 
The Secretary may only approve an application if it shows substantial 
promise for exceeding the State's AYP goals.
  So you are going to have a peer review of the State's applications 
and findings. It will not be just at the discretion of the Secretary. I 
think that is an enormous improvement.
  The proposal requires a study of the effectiveness of the agreements, 
how funds were used, and how funds were targeted under alternative 
formulas. We will gain a great deal of information.
  Mr. President, since the Senate is poised to begin debate on the 
budget in the very near future, I want to take just a few moments to 
discuss the funding that will be needed to make the policies in this 
bill realities for America's children.
  If you don't have a well-trained teacher in a classroom, whatever we 
do is compromised. Teachers need, and students deserve, the resources 
to teach. That is fundamental.
  Republicans announced yesterday that they reached a deal among 
themselves on the budget, and the result appears to leave education out 
in the cold. They know the Nation overwhelmingly supports real 
increases for education, yet they boldly chose tax cuts over educating 
the Nation's children.
  Senators will recall that there were two points to the vote on the 
education amendment offered by Senator Harkin. The first was to reduce 
the size of the tax cut much closer to $1.2 trillion than $1.6 
trillion, and the conference has respected this decision, choosing the 
smaller number. But the Harkin amendment had a second and equally 
important objective. It recognized that additional investments were 
urgently needed in our schools. All available evidence confirms this.
  Only half of the eligible children have access to Head Start and its 
promise of school readiness for 3- and 4-year-olds. Only a third of the 
students in disadvantaged school districts are assisted with the broad 
range of quality enhancements that I have discussed under title I. The 
Federal Government is meeting well under half of its funding commitment 
to disabled students under IDEA, nearly 1 in 5 children are in 
oversized classes of 25 or more, and thousands of school buildings 
remain in such disrepair that they are unsafe or unfit for learning.
  The basic improvements we're debating in this bill today will be 
impossible without additional investments in low-income school 
districts, teacher quality, early learning, smaller class sizes, 
special education, school construction, and accountability.
  Yet the conference report on the budget appears as if it will ignore 
the will of the Senate on the core issue of education. In place of the 
major increases passed by the Senate, the budget proposes to freeze 
education funding at current levels. Because it abandons American 
school children and their parents, it does not deserve our support. I 
urge every one of my colleagues who recognizes the value of improved 
education for the long-term future of the Nation to denounce the budget 
that the conferees have produced, and ask them to try again.
  Our current budget surplus means for once we have the resources 
needed to make major education advances in the coming years. We only 
lack the commitment to put our money where our mouths are. Will we step 
up to the plate on this issue, or will we just have more talk?
  Republican budget negotiators found room for $1.35 trillion in tax 
cuts over 11 years, yet they decline to guarantee that $0.008 trillion 
(or $8 billion) will be available next year to fund the education 
increases that passed the Senate last month in Senator Harkin's 
amendment. Their priorities are clear, and education is not among them, 
no matter what they say about education here on the floor.
  The Nation can afford both tax cuts for everyone and real education 
improvements. But we can't afford education reform and the massive tax 
cuts for the wealthy that Republicans seek. The tax cut that budget 
negotiators appear set to adopt would allocate over $400 billion of the 
current budget surplus to the wealthiest 1% of Americans--those with 
average incomes of $1.1 million per year--yet it provides only about 21 
billion dollars to improve education over the next 10 years.
  Last month, Senator Harkin won a Senate vote to shift $250 billion 
from tax cuts to education investments, still leaving over a trillion 
dollars on the table for tax cuts. Senator Harkin's effort put the 
Senate firmly on record in support of education investments over the 
most extravagant of the tax cuts.
  Republicans shut Democrats out of the conference on the budget, and 
then apparently disregarded the Harkin education amendment. They 
increased the size of the tax cut over the Senate level, and they 
vastly decreased education spending below the Senate level. The 
unfortunate result that Republicans now call a ``compromise'' is a 
compromise only in the sense that it compromises the futures of 
America's school children.
  The Republican decision to ignore the Harkin amendment will have very 
real and immediate consequences for America's school children and their 
parents:
  350,000 fewer students in disadvantaged school districts aided under 
title I;
  115,000 fewer safe, educational after-school opportunities for youth;
  100,000 fewer teachers improved through access to training and 
mentoring;
  50,000 fewer children in Head Start;
  16,000 fewer teachers to reduce class sizes in the critical earlier 
school years;
  100 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools repaired; and
  continued delinquency on the Federal Government's promise to help 
children with disabilities access a quality education under IDEA.
  These are just the consequences for the next school year. Over the 
next decade, the consequences of ignoring the vote on Senator Harkin's 
education amendment will guarantee that we will fall further and 
further behind on the work before us, including:
  19,000,000 fewer title I-aided classroom slots that dramatically 
improve the quality of education available to students in disadvantaged 
districts;
  7,000,000 fewer safe and educational after-school opportunities for 
youth;
  2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start;
  2,000,000 fewer opportunities for teachers to build skills by 
training and mentioning;
  50,000 fewer teachers every year reducing class sizes in the critical 
early grades; and
  2,000 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools repaired.
  Many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle point out that if we 
can't or won't do the work before us in one year, we must at least make 
a commitment to finish the work in a specific number of years. The key 
example is our goal of full funding for title I within the next 4 
years.
  The Republican response on this point is noteworthy. They say it's 
impossible to commit to funding levels for specific education programs 
in any year except next year. But that's clearly not their position on 
taxes. They're

[[Page 6895]]

proud to say just how much they'll cut inheritance taxes for the 
wealthiest 1% every year, all the way to 2011.
  The policy changes that we enact during this ESEA reauthorization 
debate will make no practical difference for children if massive tax 
cuts leave nothing but crumbs for education.
  The bottom line for the budget now nearing completion is that it 
squanders an historic opportunity to improve America's education system 
in favor of tax breaks that only the wealthy will ever notice. It is a 
disgrace, and it reduces all of the education speeches we've heard from 
our Republican friends to empty platitudes. I will vote against this 
anti-education budget and I urge my colleagues to reject it as well.
  If the budget we will be debating in just a few hours had not 
eliminated the Harkin amendment, the children of the country would have 
received a major boost. You cannot educate children on the cheap. You 
can't do it with a tin cup budget. We know what works and what doesn't.
  The education proposal we are endorsing today is a framework, but 
without resources, it will not be successful. If you just have 
resources without reform, you jeopardize success. But if you have 
reform, given the current unmet needs, you guarantee failure. What we 
are challenging this President and this administration to do is to 
provide the necessary resources.
  This Senate went on record in a bipartisan way to say: These are the 
types of resources we believe are necessary for the children of this 
country over the next 10 years. The Budget Committee eliminated those. 
It was wrong. We want the President to speak up. We want him to say, at 
least in the area of Elementary and Secondary Education, and in 
particular in title I, we want to have the funding that is necessary to 
support the policies that we both agreed to place in this legislation, 
so that the benefit of the supplementary services and other protections 
will be available to these children. Otherwise, the words about 
reaching every child in this country within 10 years is a cliche. It is 
a shibboleth.
  That will be the crux of the debate over the next 2 weeks in the 
Senate. We will be debating issues of policy, but make no mistake about 
it, we will be debating the issue of need, of investment, of the type 
of future we are going to have in this country. That is what this is 
all about. Our children are the future. We know the results. If you 
have children who don't learn algebra by the eighth grade, they're much 
less likely to go to college. That is a fact. Any educator will tell us 
that.
  When 80 percent of eighth graders lack trained math teachers, we can 
see what is compromised in terms of the children of this country. At a 
time when we need their talents, their involvement, and their help in 
leading the United States in the world community, we fail to provide 
them the resources they need to build a strong educational foundation. 
That is what this debate over funding is about. It is about our future.
  We know what is out there. Twenty percent of the children in the 
United States live in poverty; 10 million children are eligible for 
title I services. We are only reaching a third of them. So if we are 
going to give life and meaning to ``leave no child behind,'' we ought 
to be out front finding ways to reach all of them, not skimping on the 
10 million children who are eligible under this legislation, and who 
look to us for help.
  We on this side of the aisle, without exception, believe we ought to 
fund the title I program fully and reach all 10 million children. We 
challenge our fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle to join 
with us and ensure that the promise and the pledge of this legislation 
will be a reality, not empty words. The only way this is going to 
happen is through a serious commitment to funding.
  Nothing concerns me more than the reported absence of the Harkin 
amendment from the final budget agreement. I don't know where it went. 
I can remember--maybe others can speak to it--when we were briefed by 
our Democratic budgeteers about how the budget conference came 
together. They were not allowed to take part in any of the 
decisionmaking process. I asked them: Whatever happened to the Harkin 
amendment? They said: You have to look through the numbers and try to 
find it, but Republicans haven't released the numbers yet. We went over 
and talked to the staff.
  Whatever happened to the Harkin amendment? We still want to know. 
When Senators are explaining the budget this afternoon, I hope they 
will tell us what happened to it because you can't find it. It is not 
there. It is not here; it is not there. It has just disappeared.
  The need has not disappeared. The need for those Head Start Programs 
has not disappeared. The need for the supplementary services on title I 
has not disappeared. The need to do something about better trained 
teachers and assisting professional development remains today as it 
existed on the day the Senate passed the Harkin amendment. Those 
schools that are crumbling; they haven't disappeared. The vote on 
Senator Harkin's amendment, and the significance of the vote, after a 
very full and complete debate, has not disappeared. It is still there 
in the history books.
  What has disappeared somewhere is the commitment of the Congress to 
take action and reflect our Nation's priorities in the budget. We're 
fortunate to have the resources to say, ``All right, we are going to 
have a tax cut, but we are not going to do it at the expense of the 
children of this country.'' But that is what evidently has happened. 
That is the regrettable choice made by the GOP.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I certainly withhold.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we generally try to follow a format here, 
where the Members file their amendments, and then those who were the 
principal sponsors speak to them, and those others who are in support 
or in opposition get an opportunity to address it. I welcome the 
opportunity to do so.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand a number of colleagues are 
on their way to the floor to lay down amendments. However, I thought 
this might be a chance to speak for a short period of time about the 
substitute amendment that was laid down by Senator Jeffords but is the 
result of negotiations among a number of Members of this body and the 
administration that is presently under consideration.
  As we consider the substitute, first of all, I give credit where 
credit is due. First, I will give credit where it is due to my 
colleagues from both parties and then raise questions about the result 
of these negotiations that we will consider in this substitute.
  I say to Senator Kennedy, in particular, how aware I am of the 
yeoman's work that he and his staff have done to modify some of the 
most troubling aspects of the issues that were under consideration, 
especially the block-grant proposal that has been known as Straight 
A's. And, I know that Senator Jeffords and his staff have worked hard 
over the last few weeks as well. Other Senators have been part of those 
tough negotiations as well and, in particular, I commend those Senators 
who worked to remove some of the most troubling aspects of the parts of 
this amendment that were up for discussion.
  This morning I just want to discuss two parts of the substitute 
amendment: the so-called Straight A's proposal and the proposal to 
allow some Title I dollars to be used for supplemental services such as 
tutoring.

[[Page 6896]]

  Straight A's is going in the direction of block-granted education 
money to up to seven states and 25 districts. I do recognize that a 
number of important programs, for example, the migrant program, 
homeless, immigrant, Indian education, neglected or delinquent children 
programs, the programs focused on students with special needs, will not 
be consolidated. This is important and I thank my colleagues for their 
yeoman's work in protecting these crucial programs from consolidation. 
This is important because we made a national commitment that those 
students coming from families and communities which are most 
vulnerable--take, for example, homeless children or the migrant farmer 
worker population. We said we would not all of a sudden leave to State 
and local communities whether or not they make a commitment in these 
areas. So, again, I thank my colleagues for the work they have done to 
make sure that we continue with these commitments. I also appreciate 
that, while title I is consolidated in those states and local districts 
that are granted these performance agreements, tough negotiations have 
assured that these programs will remain targeted to the poorest 
children.
  On the other hand, there are other additional programs, including 
afterschool programs and teacher quality that are block-granted here. 
My own view is we are going down a dangerous path. We have moved away 
from an important commitment. The commitment we have made is we are a 
national community, we are one Nation, and there are certain decisive 
priorities we have. Two of these are additional help for kids for 
afterschool programs and a national commitment to teacher training. I 
think this is a slippery slope. It is a huge mistake to move away from 
a national commitment to these priorities. I come to the floor to say 
this part of the agreement is not a step forward. I have some deep 
concerns about this move.
  I know people negotiated in good faith and, as I have said, this part 
of the agreement is much better than any Straight A's proposal that 
we've seen in the past. One thing I appreciate is that if local school 
districts can make the case vis-a-vis a statewide education agency that 
has been named a block grant recipient that, as a local district, they 
do not want to be part of the block grant, and if they want to continue 
to receive money for these important national programs, they can do so. 
However, I also understand that the State agency will ultimately be an 
important player in the decision about whether a local district can opt 
out.
  As a former community organizer, when I think of grassroots politics 
in any State in the country, I don't think the grassroots level stops 
at the Governor's level. I don't think the grassroots is the Governors, 
I don't think the grassroots are Senators and Representatives, I don't 
think they are statewide education agencies. The grassroots are at the 
local level.
  There are decisive priorities for our Nation, no matter where a child 
goes to school, no matter where a teacher teaches. However, I far 
prefer that the designing and implementation and creativity is done at 
the local level. So, this Straight A's concept fails both in 
recognizing the national commitments and fails in encouraging truly 
grassroots efforts in creative implementation. The state level is not 
the place for the decisions about these issues to be made. So, this 
block-grant proposal is my first concern with the agreement.
  My second concern is that in consistently failing schools, up to 15 
percent of the title I program dollars may be given to the parents of 
children in those schools for supplemental services such as tutoring. 
Now, this basic concept of providing parents with funds to pay for 
supplemental services is not one that I fundamentally object to. 
Because it promotes those students finding success in public schools, 
it is significantly different from a vouchers plan in which we promote 
students leaving public schools. And, once again, I recognize that my 
Democratic colleagues and their staffs involved in the negotiations did 
good work to build in a number of safeguards into this program. 
However, despite my basic support for the concept, I do have problems 
with this particular scheme for providing supplemental services.
  My main point is that I don't really understand why we are going to 
take some money out of the title I program, which is already severely 
underfunded at the 30 percent level, to provide additional help for 
kids in other settings, vis-a-vis tutoring done somewhere else, even 
outside the public school system.
  This perhaps is where I register my strongest dissent from the 
direction we are going at the moment. We don't yet have a final 
agreement on whether or not there is going to be a real investment of 
resources to back this bill up. As a result, we now find ourselves 
getting into a situation where we are actually going to be taking money 
away from the title I program, which is the program that is there for 
disadvantaged children. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. 
There are other more specific concerns that I have with this proposal 
as well, but it is the taking funds out of disadvantaged schools when 
we should be focused investing more in these schools that is my 
fundamental problem here.
  Finally, there are some important civil rights issues and questions 
that have been raised with the supplemental services program and with 
the afterschool program as it has been revised in this agreement. They 
both allow public funds to ultimately go to religious providers of 
these services. I am someone who has supported that basic idea that 
religious groups can play a key role in helping to solve social ills. 
And, I have seen the ways in which the religious communities can make a 
lot of very good things happen. But if we are going to put money in 
this direction, we ought to have some guarantee, some language, that 
says clearly that there can't be proselytizing in any of these programs 
funded by tax dollars. It is my understanding that such language is not 
in this agreement.
  In addition, I certainly would not want any public dollars going to 
any religious organization without some type of guarantee that there 
would not be any kind of discrimination against any group of citizens 
in their hiring practices.
  I actually think the religious community in many ways has done superb 
work. That is my view. That is what I voted for in the welfare bill. 
But I would raise these questions about protecting children against 
being proselytized to and about being sure that public dollars do not 
fund discrimination.
  So I thought, as long as we are just at the beginning, that I would 
thank my colleagues for the negotiation. I thank my colleague Senator 
Kennedy in particular for really being so strong and making sure we 
make migrant education and education for homeless children and others a 
national priority. That makes the block-granting portion of this 
agreement much stronger. I argue about some of the other programs that 
potentially could be block-granted. In general this is not what I think 
we should be doing. I think we are moving away from an important 
national commitment. And, as I mentioned, I think in some ways it is 
not decentralized enough. I think the statewide agencies will have too 
much control, versus the school districts, in the implementation of 
these programs.
  Those are my comments on the substitute. Of course, I have other 
concerns about the base bill that really were not part of these 
negotiations. I will have an amendment that says we can go forward with 
this testing if in fact it is done the right way. So, I will ask you a 
number of amendments there. In addition to making sure we do testing 
the right way, certainly we should have a trigger amendment in this 
bill that says, when it comes to title I money, we must live up to our 
commitment so we make sure all these kids can do well before the actual 
implementation of testing takes place. The outcome of the vote on that 
amendment will be extremely important to me.
  I think what we have in this compromise is an example of where we can 
go amiss if we are not careful. Taking money out of title I to give 
additional

[[Page 6897]]

funds to kids outside the title I program doesn't make much sense when 
you have such a severely underfunded program.
  So, these are words of dissent based upon respect for what my 
colleagues have tried to do. Later on, as we get into this amendment 
and into other amendments, I know any number of us, including Senator 
Harkin who will have an important amendment on the IDEA program, will 
have a lot of amendments. I look forward to really being in the thick 
of this debate. I am hoping--maybe I will even use the word 
``praying''--that some of the amendments I have that I believe will 
prevent the abuse of testing, will prevent teachers having to teach to 
a standardized test, will actually encourage teachers to go into 
education as opposed to discouraging teachers from going into 
education, especially amendments that say we trigger this when we make 
an amendment to title I, will be accepted. I hope that we do the 
testing in the right way and that we make sure these children and these 
schools and these teachers have the resources to do well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have been discouraged at times about 
our Nation's willingness to deal with our fundamental educational 
problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Excuse me, Senator.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield the Senator 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 30 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this the time divided earlier 
until noon? Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Of that time, I only have 5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Will the Senator from Vermont yield 5 minutes?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We are waiting right now for the first amendment which 
is in order, so I cannot yield this time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not have any objection to waiting 
for the Senator from New Jersey as long as I still have adequate time 
to offer my amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. All right, the Senator will have that time, and I do 
yield to the Senator an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Maine, the Senator from 
Massachusetts, and the Senator from Vermont--indeed, the entire New 
England delegation--for helping me to make these remarks.
  Mr. President, I have been discouraged at times about, not simply the 
issue of education in America but about the willingness in public 
policy to deal with these fundamental problems. The fact that so many 
Senators have given so much time, commitment, and energy to dealing 
with this problem is one of the most encouraging things I have seen in 
years. Perhaps the Nation is getting ready, in a fundamental way, to 
deal with our educational problems.
  It is none too soon, perhaps, because we all recognize the same 
thing: America's educational problems point like a dagger at the heart 
of our national prosperity--indeed, one day even our national security. 
America cannot long endure with this standard of living without dealing 
in a major way, on a grand scale, with our persistent, almost endemic 
problems of education.
  Indeed, there are a plethora of problems. Who would believe, under 
these economic and budgetary circumstances, that a great nation would 
allow its future leaders, the engines of its future economy, to attend 
classes in trailers, hallways, or gymnasiums? Mr. President, 2,400 
schools need to be built in the next 2 years to relieve overcrowding 
and accommodate rising enrollments--2,400. In some communities with the 
property tax base, they may get built. In others where there is not, 
they will not get built. Every lost school, every child who will not 
meet his or her potential, is a social, economic, and even a political 
problem.
  Our teachers, no matter how dedicated they might be, wage a battle 
with old textbooks and a dearth of modern technology. While we have 
made the Internet available to the smallest business and every 
government agency, only 27 percent of public school classrooms can even 
take advantage of this new asset of technology for learning even if 
they have a teacher who knows how to use it.
  After years of study, we all understand that the problem of children 
unattended, without supervision in the afternoons is a principal reason 
for poor grades, dropouts from school, alcohol and drug use, and lives 
of crime. Indeed, violent juvenile crime triples in the hours after 
school.
  Rising enrollments, inadequate school construction, inadequate 
technology, these are things that we have known and understood not for 
a year, not for a few years, but for a generation. Yet today we meet 
again to discuss these issues, recognizing that this afternoon 15 
million children will arrive to empty homes or spend their afternoons 
on the streets when, indeed, they could have had supervision and used 
the time productively.
  The question is not whether or not we are making insufficient 
progress. I believe the question is whether we are making any progress 
at all. The National Assessment of Educational Progress showed no 
improvement from 1992 to 2000 in fourth grade reading ability. Less 
than a third of the country's fourth graders read at a grade level that 
is appropriate, and the gap in reading skills between the highest 
performance level and that of our lowest performing students is 
widening.
  I will recognize that during this debate, Senators will come with 
ideas from the left or the right. They will have radical solutions or 
modest solutions.
  This much I believe about this debate. I hope that no Senator will 
come to this floor believing that anyone has a monopoly on good ideas, 
and that no one will come to this floor and defend the status quo 
because the status quo does not deserve defense.
  The Bush administration enters into this debate and understandably 
wants to plant their own mark on educational reform. They have a right 
to do so. And, indeed, the administration's view is that accountability 
and improvement of standards in testing is part of educational reform, 
and that is correct.
  All the money in the world will not improve American education and 
accountability. Reform of almost every aspect of American education is 
required. But as certainly as money is not the entire answer, it is 
certainly part of the answer.
  Nine thousand schools nationwide have been identified as needing 
improvement. The number of low-performing schools is rising each year. 
Accountability of those schools will matter. It will shoulder the other 
problems that I mentioned. Accountability will not solve leaking roofs. 
Accountability alone will not bring technology to classrooms. 
Accountability alone will not retain good teachers.
  There is a marriage of ideas of the left and the right, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Other aspects of the administration's plan should be supported. I 
have fought for years for educational savings accounts for K-12. It is 
time to enact them. It makes sense to bring private resources in to 
help with this growing national problem.
  Charter schools are a tested and sometimes workable addition to the 
problems of public education. And they should be supported.
  But as I reach across the aisle and commend the Bush administration 
on its ideas, I hope this much will be granted: There is no alternative 
to a large-scale, immediate national program of building new schools 
for America. One-third of America's public schools need major repairs 
or total replacement. There is a $322 billion backlog to build and 
modernize America's schools. This requires Federal resources. Local 
communities should not

[[Page 6898]]

face a choice of ruinous property taxes or declining opportunities for 
their own children. We are the difference.
  In New Jersey today we are beginning the Nation's largest school 
construction program with $8.6 billion for school construction. I am 
proud of it. It is needed. It is a good bipartisan plan, and it is 
impressive, unless you consider the scale of the problem. We are 
spending $8.6 billion. But New Jersey alone has a $22 billion need for 
school construction.
  This year, my State saw the largest increase in enrollment in 20 
years. Our fastest growing school districts need a new school 
constructed every 3 to 5 years.
  That is why I am supporting the Harkin amendment to fund new school 
construction. As much as we need the Harkin amendment, we need to 
continue with our program of adding 100,000 new teachers.
  I believe in time that the Clinton administration's greatest 
achievement, at least for my State of New Jersey and I believe for the 
country, may be the reducing of class size. Every study that has ever 
been conducted and every review that we have ever chartered has made 
clear that the greatest variable in the performance of a America's 
students is to reduce class size. And the goal of a national class size 
standard of 18 by adding 100,000 teachers, of which 30,000 are now 
employed, is the greatest variable and can make the greatest 
contribution.
  I believe this marriage of ideas from Democrats and Republicans can 
make a real difference. I begin now by endorsing the Harkin amendment 
and by strongly supporting the continuation of our program of hiring 
new teachers.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues for yielding the time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-five minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Maine 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                 amendment no. 359 to amendment no. 358

              (Purpose: To improve the Read First Program)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk as a 
substitute to the amendment that is before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 359 to amendment No. 358.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first let me start by commending the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking minority member, Senator 
Kennedy, for their extraordinary work on this important legislation. 
They have shown real leadership in pulling the Senate together on what 
I believe may well be the most important legislation we consider this 
year; that is, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  My amendment would make a series of improvements to an extremely 
important component of the bill, and that is Reading First. I have 
worked with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as well as with 
the administration, the Secretary of Education, and the President to 
ensure that both the Early Reading First and the Reading First 
initiatives are truly focused on our goal of helping every child to 
learn to read.
  We can do so much more to ensure that every child learns to read. 
Reading First is based on the principle that the best way to ensure 
that no child is left behind is to teach every child to read.
  Reading First encourages States and school districts to take a 
preventive role when dealing with reading programs.
  It would provide assistance to States and school districts to 
establish reading programs for students in grades kindergarten through 
the third grade to better ground specifically based reading research in 
order to ensure that every student can read at or above grade level by 
the end of the third grade.
  It would provide assistance to States and school districts to better 
prepare our teachers who are on the front line and who are so important 
in this crusade.
  It would give them professional development and other support so that 
teachers can identify specific reading barriers facing the students and 
have the tools that they need to assist their students in learning to 
read.
  Reading experts tell us that children learn to read in many different 
ways. This isn't a case where one approach serves the needs of every 
student. Some students may need to put their fingers on their mouths 
when they say certain words to understand the sounds that make up those 
words. Others may need to clap out the syllables to understand how 
words are constructed.
  These are examples of the kinds of teaching tools that Reading First 
will promote and that will assist teachers in learning.
  The program would also provide assistance to States and school 
districts in selecting and developing diagnostic reading assessments 
that document whether children are learning and will also help us to 
assess the effectiveness of the Reading First Program.
  Reading First would require us to make a real commitment. We should 
not require students to fail before providing assistance. And, yet, 
that is often what we do.
  The most common intervention is placement in special education which 
for most children is simply not a solution. Special education services 
are not designed to solve a children's reading disability, and for the 
most part they do not. Our Early Literacy Program is well documented. 
Approximately 2.8 million students in the United States have been 
identified as having a learning disability. Of those, 90 percent have 
trouble reading. The good news is with proper, effective, and early 
intervention a learning disability can be treated, and children with 
reading disabilities can have the potential to achieve their full 
potential. The bad news is that most States do not now have the 
resources to establish the kinds of reading programs and early 
interventions that are most effective.
  Reading First would address this problem. It provides a national 
focus on early reading intervention. It simply does not make sense to 
wait until the third grade to test a child's reading ability, find out 
that that child's reading skills are far below his or her peers', and 
know that the chance of that child learning to read by grade level by 
the end of elementary school is less than 25 percent.
  By contrast, if a child is tested and receives help in kindergarten 
or first grade, that child has a 90- to 95-percent chance of becoming a 
good reader.
  Since reading is researched more easily and effectively during the 
early years, identifying children who have problems with reading and 
providing them with the help they need early on is very effective.
  Reading First is a comprehensive approach to promoting literacy in 
all 50 States. It will support the efforts of States such as Maine that 
have already made great strides under the Reading Excellence Act in 
promoting reading and literacy.
  The Reading First initiative would provide $1 billion per year--that 
is triple our current commitment--to States and school districts to 
establish and enhance reading partnerships and to develop early 
literacy professional development programs for teachers.
  We know that 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.

[[Page 6899]]

  The amendment I have proposed improves upon the Reading First section 
of the bill in a number of ways.
  First of all, it would improve the targeting of funds so that more 
would be allocated to those local schools that have the most 
schoolchildren who are reading below grade level.
  Second, it would clarify that each State's educational agency would 
be responsible for administering the program.
  Third, it adds greater detail to the criteria that will be used to 
award competitive grants to States by specifying that a State must be 
able to demonstrate improved reading achievement in those schools that 
are receiving Reading First funds.
  It would require the Secretary to minimize the amount of new 
paperwork for States that have already applied for and received a grant 
under the current Reading Excellence Act.
  It would increase accountability by requiring States and local school 
districts to demonstrate improved reading achievement in schools that 
are receiving Reading First funds.
  And it would require that, in carrying out the evaluation of this 
program, the Secretary assess whether it is having an impact on the 
identification and referral of young students to special education 
services under IDEA.
  Let me just elaborate on this latter point. I firmly believe if we 
invest in early reading programs, and identify children who are having 
difficulty in learning reading early on, that many of those children 
will not need special education. The reason this is important is, once 
a child becomes part of special education, the chances of that child 
ever leaving special education are less than 5 percent.
  We know that if we intervene early, 90 to 95 percent of children with 
learning disabilities can be helped. But if those children become part 
of the special education system, the chances of their leaving special 
education are less than 5 percent.
  This is an investment that makes sense.
  President Bush deserves enormous credit for placing reading at the 
top of our education agenda and for being willing to work with us--with 
Members on both sides of the aisle--to hammer out the best possible 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island wanted 5 minutes 
to comment on this legislation. My statement is quite lengthy. What I 
would like to do is ask unanimous consent to be able to yield 5 minutes 
to the Senator from Rhode Island and then reclaim my time so that I can 
complete my statement, if that is acceptable to the managers of the 
bill.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will keep control of time, but I am 
pleased to do as my colleague wishes, and I yield 5 minutes to Senator 
Reed.
  Mr. REED. I thank the chairman very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for the 
gracious yielding of time and for offering her amendment. She has 
offered a very admirable and very important amendment that will 
increase literacy in the United States. It tracks closely President 
Bush's proposals for increased literacy throughout this country. In 
fact, it builds on the Reading Excellence Act which this body passed in 
1998. I believe it is a measure that should be broadly supported.
  I, too, also commend Chairman Jeffords and Ranking Member Kennedy for 
their efforts in the committee to bring this measure to the Chamber 
and, again, Senator Collins for her excellent amendment with respect to 
literacy in reading. I want to use this opportunity to not only commend 
Senator Collins but also to suggest that as important as her amendment 
is, there is a piece I believe that could be added to make it even 
better. That piece is providing access to materials in school 
libraries.
  For years I have been advocating a return to Federal support for 
school libraries. Back in 1965, with the original Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, the Congress passed an initiative that would 
allow--and did allow--school libraries to purchase library materials. 
It was widely successful. In fact, I will suggest that my colleagues go 
to any school in their State--particularly those schools in rural or 
urban areas--go to the school library and look through the shelves. I 
am sure you will find books that are stamped ``ESEA, 1965.'' You 
certainly will find many books with a 1966, 1967, or 1968 copyright. 
Sadly, that is the status of our collections in school libraries 
throughout this country: Many old and out-of-date books purchased 
originally by ESEA. We can do better and should do better.
  The thrust of Senator Collins' amendment and the President's program 
is teacher technique, teaching pedagogy, and teaching instruction. But, 
as I said, there is another aspect; that is, having the materials 
available for young people to actually read.
  Research clearly shows that the modern up-to-date library with new 
material contributes significantly and positively to student 
performance. The research consistently shows this. It suggests that we 
have to do much more in terms of not only providing new technique, new 
instruction, new pedagogy, we have to provide books and media for 
children so they can, in fact, practice what they are taught, and not 
only practice what they are taught but become enthused about using 
libraries and reading books. You cannot do that with some of the out-
of-date collections we have in our school libraries today.
  That is why, as soon as it is appropriate, I will suggest an 
additional amendment. I was tempted, momentarily, to offer a second 
degree to the Collins amendment, but I believe she deserves the 
opportunity to make her case undiluted by other proposals.
  My proposal would, in fact, increase funding authorized for the 
President's program of reading and literacy so school libraries 
throughout the country could actually buy materials as part of the 
Reading First initiative and target these funds to the schools that are 
most in need, the highest poverty schools.
  It would also provide districts and schools with the flexibility to 
use funding to meet local needs. There would be no preset list of books 
or materials. It would be a very local choice which they could use 
themselves to acquire what they need in their particular circumstances.
  It would also encourage resource-sharing initiatives such as those 
that have been established in Ohio and Rhode Island, effectively 
linking all the school libraries together with public libraries and 
with academic libraries in higher education institutions, so that 
children can access, through computerized records, a vast array of 
material. This modern, updated approach can be another additional 
improvement in education throughout the United States.
  Also, it would provide resources and support to train school 
librarians and those people who work in the libraries. Sometimes we 
overlook the fact that we have to have trained professionals in the 
library. It is not sufficient simply to have a teacher walk a class in 
and say, pick a book, children, and go out. It helps immeasurably if 
there is someone in that library who knows not only how to do research 
but also how to use library materials to enhance the education of all 
the children in that school.
  This legislation I am proposing is based upon a bill I introduced 
along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Snowe, Chafee, Daschle, and 
others. It has been modified because, rather than being a separate 
stand-alone portion of the ESEA, this amendment that I will propose 
next week will be part of the President's initiative, part of the 
Reading First initiative.
  It makes sense simply because we are all trying to focus in our 
resources and our attention. In addition, it responds to some 
complaints I have heard that this is not the time to embark on a new 
program. Let me, as a fundamental point, state that this is not a new 
program when it comes to school library support. In 1965, it was 
specifically authorized and funded under the original ESEA. In 1994, we 
reauthorized this particular library program. Unfortunately, it was 
essentially defunded in

[[Page 6900]]

previous Congresses, and it was made part of a larger block grant. As a 
result, the resources have diminished significantly.
  I commend the Senator from Maine. I look forward to her amendment. I 
ask her to consider, along with others, this improvement which I will 
offer at the soonest possible moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont controls the time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. In the spirit of working together, I know we will have 
votes on these amendments. One thing I do want to get a chance to do is 
examine the substitute amendment. It is a huge package which just 
arrived recently. Before we have a vote on it, I want to get a chance 
to look at it so I understand it, and I want to be in touch with people 
in my own State. I suggest that we not vote on the substitute amendment 
until after Senators have had a chance to look at it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We are allowing time for that purpose. We understand 
the Senator's concerns, and they will be accommodated.
  I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is true that probably 5 or 7 percent 
of this has just been drafted, but 85 percent of it had been drafted 
and completed 4 days ago. The Senator is quite within his rights, but 
just for the membership, those on the committees who are interested, 85 
percent of that has been in draft form. It is still a sizable amount.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Minnesota and others, we want 
everyone to understand the underlying substitute. They should have all 
the time they need to do that. In the meantime, we are constructively 
moving forward on the bill. The Senator from Maine has offered an 
amendment. The Senator from Iowa is waiting. It is my understanding you 
have another Senator to offer an amendment. We have Senator Dodd ready 
to offer an amendment. We should be able to move forward on these 
amendments subject to the adoption of the substitute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator. I agree with him. I yield to the 
Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, now that the ranking Democrat on the HELP 
Committee has joined us, I once again repeat my praise of his efforts 
as well as those of the chairman of the committee. Senator Jeffords and 
Senator Kennedy have done incredible work in bringing us together on 
this important issue, as has the Presiding Officer, the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Frist. I thank them for their efforts on what I believe 
to be such an important initiative.
  To reach our goal of helping all children, of ensuring that every 
child knows how to read, the reading programs authorized by this bill 
draw on 30 years of research on reading and reading instruction. These 
programs will enhance our ability to help every child succeed. We know 
that we have a lot of work to do.
  By way of background, I will share with my colleagues some of the 
troubling statistics about reading in this country: 20 million children 
are at risk for reading failure; 75 percent of children with reading 
difficulties who are now helped by the time they reach the age of 9 
will still have poor reading skills at the end of high school. That is 
why early intervention is so important.
  Eighty to 90 percent of children identified with learning 
disabilities have their primary deficits in reading and language-based 
processes. We know that fewer than a third of our fourth graders can 
read at grade level. We know that the reading scores on the national 
tests for reading have been flat for 30 years, and the recent release 
of the NAEP scores for this year would continue this flat line.
  We need to do things differently. We need to increase the Federal 
investment. That is what this bill would do, by tripling funding for 
reading programs.
  We also need a fresh approach. Fortunately, research provides 
reliable ways to determine whether children as young as age 4 are 
developing the necessary skills to learn to read. Early identification 
and effective early intervention can dramatically reduce the numbers of 
students who fail to learn to read.
  Teachers have told me of the excitement they feel when they watch a 
child learn the strategies needed to crack the reading code. For some 
students it is a mysterious code, but teachers have proven over and 
over again that there are strategies and solid research that can bring 
techniques into the classroom to help children discover that they can, 
indeed, become good readers.
  The ability to read unlocks the doors to all other areas of the 
curriculum. Children who can't read don't excel in other subject areas. 
In fact, nonreaders pull away from other academic subjects if they 
don't experience success in reading.
  I find it so exciting that this country is now focused on reading. 
Reading is finally getting the attention, the support, and the 
resources it deserves. It has taken years for the importance of reading 
to rise to national attention. I give our President and the First Lady 
tremendous credit in focusing national attention on the importance of 
reading.
  I believe we are about to take a great leap forward for this Nation 
toward increasing literacy. The amendment I put forth merely 
strengthens the provisions of the reading initiative in this important 
legislation. It will ensure that we have access to the information we 
need to determine whether this program is a success.
  The bottom line: If we act swiftly and effectively to teach reading 
in the early grades, we will provide our children with the solid 
foundation they need for future academic success.
  The Reading First initiative gives meaning to our commitment to leave 
no child behind by making certain that every child can read. This is 
critical because our Nation is in the midst of a monumental global 
change. Unlike previous generations who came of age when the United 
States was primarily an agricultural or manufacturing based economy, 
this generation coming to age now will need reading skills more than 
ever.
  Information processing has become a required skill for so many jobs. 
That is why reading is so important. It is the basic building block for 
participating fully in our society. In this country of opportunity and 
promise, we owe it to our children to make sure they learn to read and 
learn to read well.
  In closing, I thank the leaders of our committee and the National 
Center for Learning Disabilities, as well as the Department of 
Education and White House officials for working together with us to 
improve the Reading First initiative in this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for a 
wonderful effort in making sure this bill will succeed. I commend her 
on it.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume for purposes of supporting 
the amendment.
  At a time when we are sending tourists into space, cloning animals, 
and integrating computers into every facet of our lives, reading 
continues to be one of the most important skills we learn in our 
lifetime. In fact, in this information age, reading has never been more 
important.
  There are two programs in this legislation that have not received as 
much attention as some of the other provisions. Yet, these programs may 
be the most important parts of the bill. Because--while reading is the 
gateway skill to further learning, academic achievement, and success in 
the world--millions of school-age children are not learning to read 
well enough.
  Over the past two days, several Members have talked about how too 
many of our children are not reading well. I have some charts that 
display just how serious the problem is, and what an emergency it is 
for our county.

[[Page 6901]]

  Chart 1 gives an overall view. It is so discouraging, I want to take 
a few moments to let everyone absorb the contents of it.
  What we are looking at here is the reading results for fourth graders 
from the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress. This 
is a nationally representative study carried out by the Department of 
Education.
  The results from the assessment are divided into four categories: 
Below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced. The proficient level is 
the performance expected of students at this grade level. That is where 
every child in America should be.
  As you can see from the bar on the far left, 68 percent of all 
students are reading below proficiency in the fourth grade--68 percent 
are below proficiency in the fourth grade. A little less than 40 
percent have not attained the basic level. That means 40 percent are 
really seriously failing, which means they have not mastered even the 
rudimentary skills of reading. This is inexcusable.
  I will point out some other deficiencies in our educational system. 
We are the only Nation of the industrialized world that does not 
provide education paid for by the public sector for 3- and 4-year-olds. 
I point that out because that percentage of 40 percent is about the 
percentage of those who get no help in the 3- and 4-year level. That is 
our country. No other industrialized nation has that kind of a record.
  As you look down the different bars on the chart, you can see that 
this overall performance actually masks the performance of the 
subgroups identified in the report. For example, only 12 percent of 
black students in the fourth grade are reading at the proficient level.
  Now I want to point out the deficiency of our Head Start Program. We 
will be holding hearings on that later this year. The Head Start 
Program is designed to give custodial care and help and nurturing to 
young children. There is little or no effective educational part of 
that program. Therefore, we have to examine what we can do and note 
that the only program we have that really is in the area of help really 
does not provide the kind of educational help that is necessary.
  Also, nearly 60 percent of Hispanic children are reading below the 
basic level.
  Let us now turn to chart 2. If we look at the next chart, we can see 
that poverty, which cuts across all the groups on the previous chart, 
predicts a great deal of the low performance. Again, we have the same 
problem here with respect to percentages, and we find that our Nation, 
unlike any other industrialized nation, does not provide help to the 
young children, the preschoolers.
  ``Eligibility for free and reduced lunch'' is based on the income of 
a student's parents. As you can see, children living in families near 
or below the poverty line are much more likely to be reading at the 
basic or below-basic level.
  Overall, these numbers have not changed over the past decade. They 
have not changed over the past decade. That means in the last 10 years 
we have seen no improvement. I serve on the Goals panel, and I have 
been there since it was initiated in 1990. We have not seen any 
significant change in the levels of education since that time, when we 
created the Goals panel to see whether we were improving.
  One of the most noticeable changes in the data over time has been a 
decline in the scores for the lowest performing 10 percent. This means 
that those students who are furthest behind have been losing ground. 
That is totally inexcusable for this Nation.
  What is so alarming about these statistics is that by the fourth 
grade, students are expected to have learned how to read well. 
Increasingly, they must read in order to learn about academic matter. 
The emphasis on teaching reading declines, and the opportunities to 
make up lost ground often disappear. There is clearly a relationship 
between the low reading scores for these groups of students, their low 
academic achievement in later grades, and the high rate of dropping out 
of school.
  I can point to another study done by the Glenn Commission and also 
the stories we have with respect to improving in math. Even though our 
children, somehow, are average with respect to industrialized nations 
in the fourth grade in math, from that point, they slip down until they 
are last in the world by the time they graduate from high school. That 
is one of the most serious problems from which our Nation suffers. 
Again, it gets back to the basics of reading as well as, of course, 
understanding math.
  Of course, it should be no surprise that these students, when they 
leave school, become adults with low levels of literacy. For example, 
in 1993 the National Adult Literacy Survey found that 20 percent of all 
adults--or more than 40 million Americans--scored at the lowest level 
of literacy on the assessment.
  Finally, to bring this full circle, a recent report from the 
Department of Education, ``The Kindergarten Year,'' found that the 
children of parents with less high school education arrived at 
kindergarten with far fewer language and literacy skills than their 
peers who had better educated parents. In fact, when these children 
left kindergarten, they scored lower on these skills than when their 
higher performing peers entered kindergarten.
  This is the current situation:
  Some young children fall behind their peers before they even enter 
school; schools improve most students' reading skills, but they do not 
close the gap; these students are much more likely to fail in school 
and, even worse, to drop out later on; children of parents who 
themselves had difficulty learning to read, and who did poorly in 
school, are more likely to have reading difficulties.
  So you can see what we have is a cycle of low literacy in this 
country. Now you can see why I think the Reading First Program and its 
companion, Early Learning First, which gets down to the 3- and 4-year-
olds, preschool-age children, are perhaps the most important parts of 
this legislation that we will be passing.
  I should add that the Even Start Family Literacy Program is also 
being reauthorized by S. 1. It is another important piece of our 
national literacy effort. That is working with both the parents and the 
children at the same time to make sure the family becomes literate 
together.
  I commend the President for his leadership in proposing these reading 
programs and asking for funds to make them a reality. He provided 
similar leadership on this issue as Governor of Texas, with good 
results in Texas. I praise the President for bringing that experience 
to this body so that all of the country may share from it.
  I also want to mention our First Lady, Laura Bush, who I know is also 
very interested. I have been with her at times when she has 
demonstrated that. She is deeply involved in the reading issue. She 
provided leadership on reading and literacy as the first lady of Texas 
and has taken special interest in the development of language and 
literacy skills in preschool-age children, as reflected in the Early 
Reading First initiative.
  I believe very strongly that the only way we can close the gap 
between better performing and lower performing children in our own 
country and between American students and those in other industrialized 
nations is to:
  Provide more opportunities for learning in the preschool years; 
second, improve instruction in our schools and give adults an 
opportunity to improve their own literacy skills.
  I hope my colleagues will support these important programs--Reading 
First, Early Reading First, and Even Start Programs--in the overall 
legislation we are considering today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and colleague 
from

[[Page 6902]]

Maine for an excellent statement and for her amendment. I am in strong 
support of her amendment. I spoke to her briefly yesterday about 
authorizing the Early Reading First Program at $75 million which 
complements the Reading First initiative by supporting effective 
approaches for improving the early language literacy skills of children 
age 3 to 5, and under the program, 4-year competitive grants may be 
awarded to school districts and nonprofit organization consortia, such 
as organizations that serve preschool children.
  Her amendment is not only building on the Reading Excellence Act, and 
not only provides funds for children in the early grades, but also for 
the preschool children. That is an area of opportunity and need as 
well.
  I am hopeful we will, over a period of time, build on that program.
  I thank the chairman of our committee. No one knows this issue better 
than Senator Jeffords. He is the founder of the Everyone Wins Program 
in Washington, DC, and he is constantly urging Republicans and 
Democrats to join him in reading to a child at the Brent School. He and 
I shared that experience on Tuesday. I welcome that opportunity.
  I know when he speaks about reading and the importance of reading, it 
is a deeply held belief and one that is rooted in his soul because he 
lives those words very effectively. It has been a great opportunity. I 
have enjoyed participating with him in that program, and I know a 
number of our colleagues do as well.
  Anyone who has any question in their mind about the importance of 
developing effective programs in reading, if they would spend a few 
hours--just an hour, actually, a week--they would be the most 
enthusiastic supporter of this program. It will have an enormous impact 
on the children. Most important, it will enhance their ability to 
learn. It will excite them about learning. It will give them countless 
joy in the future. It is a wonderful undertaking. The expansion of this 
program, which started a few years ago, will be enormously important. I 
look forward to working with Senator Collins in giving additional focus 
and life to the earlier interventions for children because that is of 
major importance.
  Finally, we have heard a great deal about what title I has not done 
over the years. For the benefit of the membership, this chart is NAEP 
reading scores over the past 25 years. These are the constant scores 
for the same test. If you look at this chart from 1971 to 1999, you 
will see there has been a very modest increase in 13-year-olds over 
that period of time. There has been a very modest increase among black 
teenagers and Hispanic teenagers. There has been a very modest 
reduction in the difference between the races, which is encouraging.
  It is interesting to note, if you look over what was happening to 
children during this period of time with increased poverty, an 
increased number of immigrant children, non-English-speaking children, 
that is also an indicator and has a significant impact on these 
numbers.
  One can see looking at this chart that there is a gradual improvement 
for all 13-year-olds over that period of time.
  The next chart is NAEP reading scores for 9-year-olds over the past 
25 years. We see the same: a very modest increase for 9-year-olds and 
somewhat a closing of the gap among the other children as well, 
although it has been very modest.
  The next chart is in the area of math. The significance of these 
charts show, if one goes from 1973 to 1999, for 13-year-olds, the line 
is moving in a positive direction. That is a hopeful sign. These are 
NAEP scores. If one looks at the black children, we see the gap, which 
was 46 points in 1973, has been reduced to 32 points in 1999 which is a 
very sizable reduction. There have been some rather important gains 
made in math.
  Another chart, again the NAEP tests, the 1990 trends in academic 
progress, shows the gap closing in math for 13-year-olds. It was a 35-
point gap in 1973, and it is down to 24 points. Again, those lines are 
moving in a positive direction.
  This chart is the older children, 17-year-olds, and one will see a 
52-point gap in 1971 down to a 29-point gap.
  The point is we have a long way to go, but we have made some 
important progress.
  The other important point about these charts is the schools that made 
the greatest difference had both reform and resources. That is why we 
come back to the basic point that is underlying this bill and why we 
have been able to fashion a very good, effective bill. In a number of 
ways, if I had been drafting it, I would have drafted it differently.
  This is a very important bill, but it needs the resources to give 
these trend lines a real boost in the future. That is what we want. We 
want reform and resources. We are talking about investments in 
children, investments in the futures of children. Children are the 
future. We need those kinds of investments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be equally charged.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, under Senator Kennedy's time--actually, 
under Senator Harkin's time--I yield to the Senator from Michigan 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I first thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who are working so hard on this important issue of 
education: the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, who is 
providing such important leadership; the ranking member, Senator 
Kennedy. I congratulate him and all of the Members who are so deeply 
involved in focusing on what I believe is the most critical issue 
facing us in the future, not only of our children as it relates to 
their opportunities to succeed but to our economy as well.
  We have all heard--as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I 
heard time and time again in hearings--that we have an increased labor 
productivity that is driving this economy. The basis of that increased 
labor activity is an educated workforce. So the debate in front of us 
is critical.
  I rise today in anticipation of an amendment that will be introduced 
later that I will be cosponsoring. It relates to an important part of 
providing resources and keeping the Federal Government's promise that 
was made 25 years ago concerning funding for special education for all 
of our local communities.
  We have many educational priorities. But as I have met with the 
leaders and parents in communities all across Michigan, they have said 
to me time and time again, if you just did one thing, if you just kept 
your promise to fully fund your portion of special education, it would 
free up dollars for us to serve the other needs of children in schools.
  This is critical in Michigan. We have had numerous court suits that 
relate to the State portion of special education. The lack of Federal 
support has caused a tremendous battle in Michigan over the resources 
for special education.
  We have the opportunity now, in the context of debating the budget 
and the vision for the next 10 years and in the context of this 
important education bill, to set it right. I hear over and over again 
from superintendents and teachers and parents: If we are talking about 
economic good times, if we are talking

[[Page 6903]]

about budget surpluses, why can't you keep your promises? This is an 
incredibly important promise to our children and to our communities. It 
needs to be kept. We are nowhere near meeting the commitment that was 
made 25 years ago.
  Let me give an example. I should say I have been deeply involved over 
the years in the issue of advocating for our children in special 
education. In Michigan, the cost for the 1999-2000 school year was $1.2 
billion for special education alone.
  The Federal Government is supposed to provide 40 percent of that. But 
instead the Federal Government's contribution to Michigan schools was 
$120 million. I am pretty good at math. I know that $120 million is not 
40 percent of $1.2 billion.
  Unfortunately, the State has tried to make up part of those dollars. 
Local communities in Michigan have shifted over $420 million into 
special education that is supposed to be available for other critical 
needs in the schools: lowering class sizes for all children, putting 
more technology in the classroom, upgrading our math and science 
capabilities, and some issues that need to be addressed.
  We have taken a large amount of resources in Michigan away from those 
needs in order to address the very important need of special education, 
one that the Federal Government agreed to help fund and has not yet 
kept its commitment.
  Nationally, the Federal Government provides less than 15 percent of 
its commitment to IDEA, which is our special education funding. We are 
supposed to be providing 40 percent. We are yet to hit 15 percent.
  We can do something about it right now. We have it within our means. 
I am urging my colleagues to do that.
  I would like to share a couple of letters from parents, one from a 
teacher in Michigan, concerning this issue that has profoundly impacted 
the children and the families and the schools in Michigan.
  Richard Spring from Manchester, MI, working in the Webberville School 
District, an important school district outside of Lansing in mid 
Michigan, wrote to me saying:

       In small rural school districts, like the one where I work, 
     the high cost that is incurred by the school district for 
     special education makes it impossible to do a lot of the 
     other things that we know are critical to providing adequate 
     services to all students. For some kids, who don't 
     necessarily qualify for special education, the impact is 
     especially dramatic. For example, many students are on the 
     ``borderline'' in school--they are a year or so behind where 
     they should be for their age. Perhaps they were held back one 
     year. These children do not qualify for special education in 
     our district and there is no extra funding to provide 
     services to help these students who clearly are struggling. 
     This is because the district must carry such a high burden of 
     the special education costs.
       Around the time these marginal children reach middle 
     school, they are no longer able to ``just get by'' in school 
     without any additional services. Often, these students are so 
     frustrated with school that they are diagnosed as emotionally 
     impaired. These are the children whose behavior becomes so 
     disruptive that it interferes with other children's 
     opportunities to learn and a teacher's ability to teach.
       This problem could be easily prevented if the federal 
     government met its commitment of 40% funding for IDEA. This 
     would free up the critical dollars that school districts need 
     to provide other services, like assistance to students who 
     are on the borderline. Even something as simple as summer 
     school could make a difference in these children's lives. But 
     the cost of special education is so high, that my school 
     district has not been able to offer summer school in the 
     seven years that I have been there.

  I very much appreciate Richard Spring's letter to me, and I think he 
speaks very well to the struggles that are going on in our schools 
trying to meet the important needs of children and not having the 
Federal Government coming forward with its promise. We are great at 
mandating. We are great at laying out what ought to be done providing 
rules and regulations, and even when they are important and ones that I 
agree with completely. If we do not keep our commitment on resources, 
we are not keeping our commitment to children.
  I also would like to read one other letter from a parent who wrote:

       I am writing as a parent of a child with special needs. My 
     son Paul is 11 years old. He needs an aide at school to keep 
     him on track, organize his school work and home work and to 
     interpret non-verbal information. He is a very intelligent, 
     sweet, easy-going child and this makes him one of the many 
     who could fall through the cracks if special education 
     funding is not improved.
       The combination of growing enrollment and teacher shortages 
     is putting a strain on our communities to provide quality 
     education for our children. Our district . . . is especially 
     struggling because of its high percentage of autistic 
     students its very high percentage of severely afflicted 
     children.
       The need for federal education funding is greater now than 
     ever before. I see how the special education teachers are 
     overwhelmed with work loads because we can't afford to hire 
     new teachers. Our special education budget is upwards of 
     $500,000 in the hole for next year. All of our students are 
     affected when we cannot provide services to our special needs 
     children. Without appropriate funding, we must pull funds 
     from other areas of our budget. Programs are being cut and 
     education, as a whole, suffers. . . . Please vote and fight 
     to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     and make its funding mandatory.

  Mr. President, I could not say that better myself.
  Again, this is the time for all of us on both sides of the aisle who 
care deeply about the future of our country and deeply about the future 
of our children and families to take this unique time in history and 
keep our commitment because the resources are now there to do so.
  I ask, if we do not pass today an amendment to fully fund special 
education, when will we? When will we have the opportunity again for 
our country to be able to step up and take a small portion of resources 
that are currently in hand and keep our commitment to the children and 
families of this country? Now is the time. We need to keep that 
commitment to special education.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, be allowed to speak as if in morning 
business for 10 minutes and that the time not be charged against either 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada very 
much for that courtesy.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business''.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under 
the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the debate we are having this week and 
next week on education reform in this country may be the most important 
debate we have in the Senate this year. Education is probably the most 
important thing we do as a government. We have the best military, the 
best economy, and the best technology in the world. There is absolutely 
no reason that we should not have the best public schools in the world. 
We are the leader in so many other areas, and we should be the leader 
also in this area.

[[Page 6904]]

  Whether you are talking to teachers, students, school administrators, 
or parents, you hear the same thing everywhere you go. I have townhall 
meetings in North Carolina regularly. I visit schools there regularly. 
You hear the same things every single place. No. 1, everyone wants to 
make sure that every school is a high-performing school. In other 
words, there is no excuse for there being a single low-performing 
school in America.
  Second, we need fine, quality teachers, and we need to pay them well 
and keep them.
  Third, we need to make sure that the performance of every single 
student in America is improved. That is what this education debate is 
about.
  We should make this decade the education decade in America. My home 
State of North Carolina has served as a model for many of the reforms 
that have been debated. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of Education, 
Secretary Paige, came and told the committee that many of the ideas 
that this administration has proposed are, in fact, modeled after work 
that has been done in North Carolina. A centerpiece of that reform 
effort was a sustained effort at identifying those schools that are not 
performing and taking all the steps necessary to make sure those 
schools are turned around.
  I am very pleased that we were able to insert in this bill, with the 
help of my colleagues, a specific provision, a proposal, a system that 
we have used in North Carolina to turn around low-performing schools. 
The concept is very simple, but it is very effective. Once the 
measurement and the testing has occurred and we identify a school that 
is low performing, we gather what is called a special assistance team, 
a team that exists for the purpose of going into low-performing schools 
to turn the schools around. It is comprised of educators, experts in 
the field, and people who know, based on their own education and 
experience, how to turn around a low-performing school. Those special 
assistants go into the school and do what is necessary to turn it 
around. They evaluate the academics of the school; they evaluate the 
personnel at the school; they make recommendations about changes that 
need to be made to restore educational quality at the school.
  Again, it sounds like a simple idea. You figure out a school is low 
performing and you send in a group of experts to turn the school 
around. It is a simple idea, but it works. It has worked in North 
Carolina. Since 1997, we have identified 33 schools as low performing. 
Into those schools we have sent these special assistance teams; their 
job it is to turn the school around. Since 1997, 29 of the 33 schools 
identified as low performing have now been turned around.
  Now, there are, obviously, many things that have contributed to these 
schools being turned around, including a lot of work done in the local 
community. But these special assistance teams have played a pivotal 
role in turning these schools around. Their contribution is important. 
What we have been able to do, with the help of my colleagues on the 
HELP Committee, and with the able leadership of both the chairman and 
the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, is to incorporate into this bill 
exactly at a national level what has been working in North Carolina.
  There has been a lot of talk in Washington and nationally about 
reform. Reform is important. I support it--measurement, accountability, 
identification of schools that are low performing, and doing what is 
necessary to turn those schools around. That is the system. It is the 
system we helped start in North Carolina, and our North Carolina system 
has served as a model for what we are talking about nationally.
  The problem, though, is tough accountability, tough reform will not 
work ultimately in many school districts unless the resources are 
available to turn those schools around. In poor school districts, once 
you go in and identify a school that is low performing, you test and 
measure, all of which are a good idea, and so is real accountability.
  The problem is, if the special assistance team makes a 
recommendation, if the school does not have the resources to do what is 
recommended, it is impossible to turn those schools around. It gets to 
be a very simple proposition: You identify a low-performing school, and 
you send in the experts to tell them what needs to be done. But in 
order to change things, many times resources are needed because in 
these poor school districts all over America, they simply do not have 
the resources to do what needs to be done.
  Without the resources, what you have is Washington, DC, telling 
people in local communities what needs to be done in their schools 
without giving them any help in meeting the standards that are being 
established. It is an unfunded Federal mandate out of Washington. It is 
the Washington people telling local people what they have to do and 
then not providing any help to do it.
  North Carolina is a perfect example of how critical this is. In North 
Carolina, we implemented very tough measurement, tough testing, tough 
accountability. We identified these schools that were low performing 
and went in and intensely made an effort to turn them around. The 
critical component of that, though, was once those schools in North 
Carolina were identified, we made sure the resources were there to 
actually turn the school around.
  That is why this debate over the course of the next 2 weeks is so 
critical because what has worked in North Carolina will work 
nationally. There is no excuse for us having a single, not one, low-
performing school in this country. But the only way to get there is 
once we have done the testing, once we have done the measurement, once 
we have identified the schools that are not performing, the resources 
have to be available to turn around those schools. That is what we did 
in North Carolina. It worked. That is what we should be doing at the 
national level. It is what we are going to be talking about over the 
course of the next 2 weeks.
  The budget debate, which is also ongoing in this Senate and will be 
ongoing over the course of the next several months----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will be voting this afternoon on the Republican 
budget. We will be able to debate that under the time limitations, but 
it is coming back now with a little over $1.2 trillion.
  The Senator, I am sure, remembers the debate we had on the Harkin 
amendment. This body, in a bipartisan way, gave instructions to the 
conference that there be $250 billion more committed to education. It 
is directly relevant to the matters about which the Senator has 
referred: To take what is working in North Carolina--and we might come 
back to that in a minute or two--to take those very excellent examples 
of how North Carolina has taken schools which were seriously behind in 
academic achievement and promoted those schools. I read where one or 
two of them are at the top in achievement.
  As the Senator has pointed out, this is a blueprint we have which the 
Senator worked on in the committee and has been helping us fashion over 
the past few days.
  Does the Senator agree with me that if we have this blueprint, what 
is going to give life to this blueprint is resources? It is about the 
future.
  We are going to be voting on the budget proposal. The Harkin 
amendment had 19 million classroom slots for students. We are reaching 
3 million now. There are 10 million children who qualify. If we had the 
Harkin amendment, we could have gotten to full funding of title I. We 
would have had 7 million more slots for afterschool opportunities for 
youth; 2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start; 2 million opportunities 
for teachers to build skills by training and mentoring; 50,000 more 
teachers every year and reducing class sizes in the critically early 
grades; 2,000 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools. That is what we voted 
for on a bipartisan basis.
  We are not going to get a single one of those in the budget that 
comes here.

[[Page 6905]]

Doesn't this concern the Senator from North Carolina when we are trying 
to take this bill we have all worked on in a bipartisan way and believe 
it is a fundamental building stone of the future of this country 
because we are talking about our children, and 20 percent, one out of 
five, are living in serious poverty in this country. We are trying to 
at least move----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 more minutes. We are trying to make 
sure these children will not be disadvantaged in academic achievement 
and will be able to move ahead toward the American dream. That is what 
this is about.
  I am wondering whether the Senator agrees with me that what was 
achieved in North Carolina took resources, took commitment, took a 
blueprint and would not have happened without the resources. With the 
resources, they were able to do it and what a difference it has made to 
those children.
  Mr. EDWARDS. The answer to the Senator's question is simple. Without 
the resources, it would have been impossible to turn those schools 
around in North Carolina. It could not have been done.
  I will give the Senator another example. On his list, he has 
2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start. Every educator in North 
Carolina will tell you that a critical component of what we have done 
to improve the schools in North Carolina is our State program Smart 
Start. Without that, kids do not begin school ready to learn. They are 
not prepared to learn.
  All these other things are very important, but this early childhood 
education is absolutely critical.
  Another thing on Senator Kennedy's list: Opportunities for teachers 
to build skills by training and mentoring. We have focused in North 
Carolina not only on recruiting quality teachers but continuing to 
train them, keeping them, increasing their pay, increasing their 
incentive pay when they perform well. Teacher training and compensation 
is absolutely crucial to make this work.
  It gets to be a pretty simple proposition: No. 1, our kids need to 
start school ready to learn. That is what Head Start is about. That is 
what Start Smart is about. They need to have the best teachers 
possible. It does not do any good to have tough accountability, which 
we support strongly. We are proud of what we have done in my State in 
that area, but you cannot turn the schools around if they do not have 
the resources.
  When those assistance teams come in and make recommendations, that is 
great, but if the recommendations cannot be followed because the 
resources are not there to follow them, it serves no purpose at all. 
That is why it is so crucial that what we voted for in the Senate in a 
bipartisan way to help provide funding, $250 billion for our schools in 
this country--there is nothing, as Senator Kennedy well knows; he has 
been a champion of this for a long time--there is nothing we do that is 
more important than educating our young people.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response. As he knows, this 
$250 billion did not come back as $200, $175, $100, or $50 billion. It 
came back as no dollars. I hope our Republican friends are able to 
explain that.
  I want to ask a final question of the Senator. The State of North 
Carolina, as I understand, is one of 12 or 13 States that uses its own 
money to enhance the Head Start Program. Otherwise, I imagine it would 
be somewhat similar to Massachusetts where about 42, 43 percent of the 
children are in the Head Start Program. Some of the most urban areas 
and some of the poorest have lower percentages than that, 35 percent.
  I was listening to a story about certain areas of the South Bronx are 
down to 25 percent because they have not been able to get the programs 
developed.
  The State of North Carolina has a comprehensive approach. It has 
Smart Start and North Carolina also has the Head Start Program from 
which it is getting additional resources.
  As I understand the position of the Senator from North Carolina, this 
ought to be a continuum. We ought to have early intervention with 
children, help them build confidence, help them build their interests 
in learning, help to open up their minds a bit to the idea of working 
with other students, as child psychiatrists point out, helping to 
develop a sense of humor so they can interact with other children.
  They work in those areas, and also, in their Head Start Programs in a 
number of the North Carolina situations, they build into those programs 
the development of some academic challenges that are suitable for those 
children as well, in an attempt to make sure that when they actually 
get to the schools, they can benefit.
  This is a pathway. I know the Senator is committed to each step along 
the way, as I am. But we are finding out that even if they take this, 
if North Carolina does what is necessary and they arrive at these 
schools, at the Federal level we are only funding a third of all those 
children, those who will be able to get the supplementary services, the 
other kinds of afterschool programs, the other kinds of help and 
assistance these children need. Does the Senator think this is 
important, that we try to build on what has happened in North Carolina, 
to meet our commitments to those children by covering all the eligible 
children in North Carolina?
  Mr. EDWARDS. As the Senator well knows, there is nothing we do that 
is more important. These things all go together. I have been in these 
Head Start centers; I have been in these Smart Start centers; I see the 
effect they have on these kids' lives. It is absolutely amazing. You 
get children ready. Every study that has ever been done has shown the 
early years are the critical years. Once you get kids ready nationally 
with Head Start, Smart Start in North Carolina, then when they are in 
school, they need to be with quality teachers, well trained, well paid, 
treated as the extraordinary professionals and heroes they are. And not 
only that, they are in classes that are small in size so they don't 
have too many kids in the classrooms, particularly in those early 
years. It is absolutely crucial.
  I say to the Senator, I hope as we go forward with this debate we 
recognize, while we strongly support real accountability, tough 
measurement, identification of schools that are low performing, going 
into those schools and turning them around, that there are other 
components to this process that are critical to making them work: Early 
childhood education, quality teachers, the kids going to school in 
decent buildings and classrooms, not sitting on top of each other in 
classrooms, afterschool programs so the kids have a place to go where 
they can be safe and off the street; that is what this is about. We 
have an extraordinary opportunity to do great things, not only for 
America but for our children and the future of this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the Senator one more question. As I 
understand it, North Carolina has this Teaching Fellows Program where 
it recruits talented high school students into the teaching 
profession--those with a minimum 1100 SAT, 3.6 GPA, and in the top 10 
percent of the class--with priorities given to males and minorities. 
The program provides $5,000 a year for 4 years to 400 outstanding North 
Carolina high school seniors who agree to teach for 4 years following 
graduation in one of North Carolina's public schools or U.S. Government 
schools.
  This is a model program in North Carolina. The Senator has spoken to 
it. Has he found this is a program that has helped North Carolina get 
the quality teachers who have made such an important difference to the 
children in North Carolina?
  Mr. EDWARDS. This program has been extraordinarily effective. But the 
key to this is, it is just one step in the right direction. We need to 
be doing much more, much more to attract more quality students to the 
teaching profession, much more to hang on, retain the young people who 
are dedicated to teaching and want to do it for the rest of their 
lives. We need to make sure, No. 1, we get quality people, and,

[[Page 6906]]

No. 2, once we get quality young men and women in the teaching 
profession, we keep them there with good training programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself another 10 minutes.
  There is one final area about which I would like to inquire of the 
Senator. I have a report here that says 36 percent of North Carolina 
schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or 
should be replaced; 68 percent have at least one unsatisfactory 
environmental condition; 75 percent have crumbling roofs; 14 percent 
have inadequate heating; 22 percent, bad plumbing; 23 percent, poor 
ventilation; and 42 percent of the schools do not have sufficient power 
outlets and electric wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia 
equipment in classrooms.
  You can use those figures. I think in my own State it would be higher 
than these. The point is, the GAO has talked about over $120 billion of 
needs out there in our schools. I am just wondering what the Senator 
from North Carolina believes. What sort of message do we send to our 
children if we send them to these schools in these conditions, when we 
have the opportunity--and, Lord only knows the resources, with a $1.6 
trillion tax cut--that we are still not going to fix those schools up? 
What kind of message does that send either to the children of North 
Carolina or the children of Massachusetts who are facing these kinds of 
problems in schools? Should we not try to be a partner with the State 
and local communities, trying to help that situation? Does the Senator 
not believe, with me, that we are talking about these children, now, 
with this bill, to try to help these children to make sure the 
facilities they are learning in are going to be safe and secure--at 
least to respond to the breakdown of some of these buildings 
themselves?
  Mr. EDWARDS. The Senator is right, we have made great strides, but I 
have been in elementary schools where there are no bathrooms inside the 
building, the roof is leaking, the floors are crumbling; they are 
covered up with little pieces of carpet. To get them in the lunchroom, 
they have to start going to lunch at 10 or 10:15 in the morning because 
it is so crowded, they can't get the kids through.
  If you go down the road a few miles, there will be a brand new, shiny 
mall, new store buildings. The Senator is exactly right. What does it 
say to our children when they go to a new mall with beautiful buildings 
and the next morning they get up and go to school and the building is 
falling down? What does it say about what we care about, what our 
priorities are? This is all part of the same issue we have been talking 
about.
  We need to do all these things, and they are all critically 
important, from Head Start, in my case Smart Start, to getting quality 
teachers, keeping them trained, retaining them in the school system, 
having kids in smaller classes so they can learn more, having them in 
buildings that are not falling apart, having afterschool programs and 
technology available to them--this is all critically important. There 
is nothing we do as a government that is more important than educating 
our young people. We have a remarkable opportunity here, and I hope we 
take advantage of it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his very helpful comments. 
Virtually all of us on this side of the aisle believe these investments 
in our children ought to receive a priority.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent 
by 43 different groups that have historically represented children and 
teachers and parents in schools, many of them for 75, 85, 100 years, 
urging full funding for the title I programs. Again, we are reaching a 
third. This is in support of the full funding of the program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter from the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, 
where they are recommending that we have the full funding for these 
programs because they understand what difference it makes to the 
children themselves.
  I also ask to have printed in the Record the letter we have from the 
Governors that indicates if we are going to move ahead with this 
legislation, we should have funding for that program as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 26, 2001.
     Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
     Ranking Member, Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: As you continue your negotiations on 
     the BEST Act (S. 1), the undersigned organizations write in 
     strong support of your efforts to make full funding of Title 
     I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) a top 
     funding priority.
       Just as many of our groups support proposals to fully fund 
     IDEA as a mandatory program, we also believe securing a 
     similar and substantial increase for Title I is a critical 
     piece of this year's ESEA reauthorization. Providing full 
     funding for Title I is consistent with actions taken last 
     month by the Senate HELP Committee, which unanimously 
     approved increasing the Title I authorization level to $15 
     billion in FY 02--a significant increase over the $8.6 
     billion appropriated for FY 01.
       As the cornerstone of ESEA, Title I supports instructional 
     activities that help students in high-poverty schools meet 
     high standards in core subjects. The program currently 
     reaches some 10.3 million poor students nationwide, providing 
     additional instructional time in reading and math and other 
     activities that help students meet the same high standards 
     set for all students.
       Unfortunately, Congress has never met its obligation udner 
     ESEA to fully serve all children identified as eligible for 
     compensatory services under federal law. Over the last five 
     years the average yearly increase for Title I has been only 
     3.6 percent. After factoring in inflation and enrollment 
     increases, Title I has been flat funded. In addition, the 
     Congressional Research Service estimates that, in FY 01, 
     Congress provided local educational agencies with only one-
     third of the resources needed to fully serve all eligible 
     students to help close the achievement gap.
       Under existing law, school districts are eligible to 
     receive 40 percent of their state's average per pupil 
     expenditure (APPE) for each poor child within their 
     jurisdiction. For FY 01, this calculation would be $2,457. 
     However, because of the inadequate funding levels, school 
     districts received an average of only $762 on behalf of the 
     10.3 million students eligible to receive Title I services in 
     FY 00. In order to ``leave no child behind''--meaning all 
     eligible children would receive the full services Congress 
     authorized and for which they are eligible to receive--the 
     average yearly increase for Title I over the next four years 
     would have to be approximately $5.24 billion a year. The 
     cumulative Title I increase over four years (FYs 02-05) would 
     have to be $49.93 billion.
       While we fully support measuring student achievement and 
     holding schools accountable for improving that achievement, 
     testing and accountability alone are not sufficient. Congress 
     also must provide resources to schools most in need to enable 
     them to implement reforms to increase student achievement, 
     such as supplemental instruction, after-school programs, 
     teacher and principal training, effective and research-based-
     curricula, and other reforms that schools and communities 
     determine will help students. Fully funding Title I would 
     also provide significant additional resources to turn around 
     low-performing schools.
       Given the projections of a growing budget surplus, we hope 
     that Congress and the Bush Administration will reach an 
     agreement that fully funds Title I over the next four years. 
     This increase is essential to meet the needs of America's 
     disadvantaged students, and accelerate current efforts 
     focused on closing the achievement gap and raising standards 
     for all children. We also urge that this increase in Title I, 
     as well as increase for other critical education programs 
     including after school, teacher quality, class size, and 
     school modernization, not come at the expense of other 
     important programs for children, but be funded by an overall 
     increase in domestic discretionary funding.
       We appreciate your leadership on this issue and support 
     your efforts to secure additional funding for Title I during 
     this year's reauthorization of ESEA.
           Sincerely,
       American Association of School Administrators.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Jewish Committee.
       Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
       Association of Educational Service Agencies.
       California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
       Chicago Public Schools.
       Consortium for School Networking.
       Council for Exceptional Children.

[[Page 6907]]

       Council of Chief State School Officers.
       Council of Great City Schools.
       Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America.
       Hispanic Education Coalition.
       International Reading Association.
       International Society for Technology in Education.
       National Alliance of Black School Educators.
       National Association for Bilingual Education.
       National Association of Elementary School Principals.
       National Association of Federal Education Program 
     Administrators.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals.
       National Association of School Psychologists.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Association of State Boards of Education.
       National Association of State Directors of Special 
     Education.
       National Association of State Title I Directors.
       National Black Child Institute.
       Natioal Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
       National Education Association.
       National Hispanic Leadership Agenda.
       National PTA.
       National Rural Education Association.
       National School Boards Association.
       National Science Teachers Association.
       New York City Board of Education.
       New York State Education Department.
       People for the American Way.
       School Social Work Association of America.
       Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
       United States Conference of Mayors.
       Women of Reform Judaism.
                                  ____

                                           National Council of the


                                Churches of Christ in the USA,

                                   Federal Way, WA, February 2001.
       Dear Senator: As members of the National Council of 
     Churches of Christ Committee for Public Education and 
     Literacy we urge you to consider one of the great moral 
     issues facing the 107th Congress--the Reauthorization of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As people of faith, 
     we act in the awareness that children are a gift of God, made 
     in God's image. The prophetic call for justice for the poor 
     and excluded and Jesus' deep concern for ``the least of 
     these'' reminds us that there are no more vulnerable persons 
     than children in poverty. Because education is the only 
     possible escape from poverty for millions of these children, 
     Reauthorization of ESEA, especially of Title I, is a deeply 
     moral issue. As you consider options in the upcoming debate, 
     we urge you to keep several fundamental principles in mind:
       Increase funding for Title I to at least $10.88 billion in 
     FY 2002.--Full funding for all eligible children would 
     require $24 billion, three times the current $8 billion 
     funding. We support full funding of Title I and believe it is 
     important to begin moving toward this target, because urban 
     schools with concentrated family poverty need to be investing 
     significantly more dollars to compensate for the ravages of 
     family poverty.
       Avoid punitive accountability. We believe accountability is 
     important but it must not be accompanied by measures that 
     further jeopardize the students who are already at risk.--
     While Title I has been criticized for failing to erase 
     achievement gaps in this nation, Education Week (1/26/2000) 
     reported that, ``Title I provides less than 3 percent of the 
     country's total expenditures for elementary and secondary 
     education. If Title I is expected to close the achievement 
     gap, then conditions must be placed on how states and school 
     districts use the other 97 percent of the funds.'' Schools 
     serving poor children depend on Title I funding for virtually 
     all discretionary innovative programming, because state/local 
     funding is inadequate and inequitably distributed across 
     virtually all the states.
       Maintain the overall objective of the federal Title I 
     program. Resist efforts to convert Title I into block grants 
     (Straight A's Plan or Charter States Plan) to any states.--
     The federal Title I program was designed in 1965 to 
     compensate for what experts agree is the uneven and unfair 
     funding for education at the local level due to reliance on 
     property tax. State governments have done a poor job of 
     compensating for disparities in local tax valuations; 
     according to the U.S. General Accounting Office, across the 
     country school funding in wealthy districts in 1998 averaged 
     24% more than in poor districts, even though residents of 
     poor districts voted to tax themselves at higher rates.
       Ensure that Title I funds continue to be targeted to the 
     schools serving the highest percentages of very poor 
     families, and to the poorest school districts.--Title I was 
     designed to address the correlation of low student 
     achievement with family poverty. A strong federal Title I 
     program is even more important during the 2001 
     Reauthorization because during the past 36 years, the poor 
     have been increasingly abandoned in the urban core as the 
     middle class have moved to the suburbs. Declining student 
     achievement is correlated with the isolation and 
     concentration of families in poverty in specific districts 
     and specific schools, and with the virtual resegregation of 
     urban schools.
       Emphatically oppose converting Title I funds into 
     ``portable'' vouchers of any kind.--Thank you for your 
     attention to Title I, our nation's strongest effort 
     historically to ensure that no child will be left behind.
     Jan Resseger,
                                          United Church of Christ.
     Dave Brown,
     Presbyterians USA, Committee Staff.
                                  ____


             Reform Without Resources Won't Produce Results


  Education leaders Urge Senate to not squander opportunity invest in 
                           kids and education

       Washington, DC.--Education and civil rights advocates 
     joined forces to urge the Senate to continue the fight for 
     adequate education funding and not squander the opportunity 
     to improve public education for all children. Following is a 
     joint statement from the 16 groups:
       ``Reform without White House support for resources, won't 
     produce results. There is no single piece of legislation that 
     is more critical to our nation's children than the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act--now is the time 
     for the Administration and Senate to walk the talk of the `no 
     child left behind' campaign promise.
       ``Despite White House and Senate pledges of support for 
     public education, accountability, programs that boost student 
     achievement and basic civil rights are all in jeopardy in 
     both the President's budget and a negotiated package under 
     discussion in the Senate. Funding levels, civil rights 
     protections, no vouchers, teacher quality, school repair and 
     class size reduction must be resolved before we can support 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act.
       ``Those children who need the most help are getting the 
     least support under President Bush's budget. For example, 
     under the Administration's plan, Title I would only fully 
     serve one-third of eligible children in low-income districts. 
     In contrast, the Senate bill approved in committee would 
     double the number of children currently served and provide 
     more than $500 million in additional funding to turn around 
     low-performing schools.
       ``Glaring funding disparities between the Senate and White 
     House proposals exist in the most critical education 
     programs. The Senate authorizes a much-needed increase in 
     education funding of $10 billion. Despite insistence that 
     education is the number one priority of the new President, 
     the Administration's budget provides only $669 million in 
     increases for public education funding.
       ``Finally, we insist on strong legislative protections in 
     the ESEA bill that would ensure that federally-funded after 
     school programs abide by current civil rights laws. Friends 
     of education and civil rights could never agree to a plan 
     that would use taxpayer dollars to subsidize discrimination 
     in any way. This is just simply unacceptable. The Senate is 
     the only thing that stands in the way of this injustice--on 
     behalf of America's children, we ask our nation's Senators to 
     stand firm and complete an ESEA package that protects our 
     children's civil rights and provides adequate resources to 
     truly `leave no child behind.' ''
       --National Education Association, American Association of 
     School Administrators, League of United Latin American 
     Citizens, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, 
     International Reading Association, American Association of 
     University Women, National Council of LaRaza, National School 
     Boards Association, National Association of Elementary School 
     Principals, National Association of Secondary School 
     Principals, National Parent Teacher Association, American 
     Federation of Teachers, Council of Chief State School 
     Officers, National Urban League, The National Association for 
     Bilingual Education, People for the American Way.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                                   April 13, 2001.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.

     Hon. James M. Jeffords,
     Chairman, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
         Committee, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Ranking Member, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
         Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Jeffords, and 
     Senator Kennedy: The nation's Governors call for full 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     (ESEA) and support efforts by Congress and the Administration 
     to see this important legislation enacted into law in the 
     coming year. The Governors' priorities in this 
     reauthorization are outlined below.
       The overall structure of the major ESEA reauthorization 
     bills currently being debated

[[Page 6908]]

     is to provide funding to state and local education entities 
     but to hold states accountable for performance. For this 
     structure to work effectively, there are four key areas of 
     interest to the nation's Governors.
       It is critical that the federal government not create new 
     accountability systems, but utilize the existing systems in 
     states. Any system of bonuses and sanctions should be based 
     on state performance over time as indicated by the existing 
     state accountability system.
       It is important that new testing requirements are workable 
     and build on the state's current testing system. What is 
     critical is that every child in grades 3 through 8 be tested, 
     not who administers the test.
       The federal government should insist on a strong policy 
     consensus in each state on how ESEA is implemented. This 
     means that it should require both the overall plans as well 
     as major funding allocations to be jointly signed by both the 
     chief state school officer and the Governor.
       There needs to be adequate funding of new accountability 
     provisions, including full funding for the new testing 
     requirements. This means a yearly appropriation for 
     developing and implementing new state testing requirements as 
     well as a yearly appropriation to cover the National 
     Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test.
       Key issues for the Governors include the following:


                               Governance

       Elementary and secondary education policy is broadly 
     defined in state constitutions, specified in state statutes, 
     and implemented by school districts. Current federal 
     education programs bypass the authority of the Governors to 
     determine education policy for these programs by sending the 
     funds directly to the state education agencies. Coordination 
     of state and federal funds allows states to fully leverage 
     education benefits to meet state reform and accountability 
     goals. Therefore, the state education agency and the Governor 
     should jointly sign all state education plans submitted to 
     the federal government.


                                Testing

       Governors support the annual assessment of students in 
     reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and believe that a 
     combination of state and local testing satisfies federal 
     assessments requirements. The Secretary of the U.S. 
     Department of Education should have the authority to approve 
     a state's assessment plan as being in compliance with any new 
     federal requirement for annual student assessment if the plan 
     meets the goals of federal accountability policy. In 
     addition, Governors strongly support the use of 
     accountability measures but these measures must be determined 
     at the state level. Therefore, federal rewards and sanctions 
     in any particular state should not be based solely on NAEP 
     results but should rely on the state's own accountability 
     system and should be shared between state and local education 
     agencies.


                                Funding

       In exchange for higher accountability for student progress, 
     the federal government must provide additional financial 
     support to states. The Governors support an annual flow of 
     funding of several hundred million dollars to be used to 
     assist low performing schools at state discretion and believe 
     that no more than 50 percent should be required to be passed 
     through to local education agencies. Both the chief state 
     school officer and the Governor should jointly determine how 
     these funds are spent.
       Recognizing that development and administration of state 
     assessment systems and the NAEP create a financial burden on 
     states, local education agencies, and schools, Governors 
     believe the responsibility for funding any additional federal 
     testing requirements in all states should fall on the federal 
     government. Although federal mandates may reflect well-
     intentioned policy goals, they often impose unfunded cost and 
     regulatory burdens on states. Federal action increasingly has 
     relied on states to carry out policy initiatives without 
     providing necessary funding to pay for these programs, 
     thereby limiting states of their right and responsibility to 
     set priorities and develop policies that best meet local 
     needs.
       Therefore, the federal government should appropriate two 
     separate funding streams to assist states in financing the 
     federal testing requirements as follows. First, a yearly 
     minimum appropriation of $400 million should be provided that 
     is allocated to states to cover the cost of developing and 
     implementing the new federal testing requirements for reading 
     and math in grades 3 through 8. Testing every child in grades 
     3 through 8 would require testing four additional grade 
     levels, for approximately 14.7 million students, beyond what 
     is required under current law. At a cost of abut $27 per 
     pupil, the total estimated cost of assessing all students in 
     grades 3 through 8, beyond current requirements, would be 
     about $400 million a year. In the first few years states, 
     regardless of size, will incur similar costs for development. 
     However, in the subsequent years the implementation and 
     ongoing development cost should be calculated on a per pupil 
     basis. Second, a yearly appropriation of $165 million should 
     be allocated to states to cover the full cost of the NAEP 
     test and incentives for local participation. Within this 
     amount, $55 million in federal funds should be provided to 
     compensate and/or provide for additional inducements to 
     facilitate state and school participation in NAEP and other 
     National Center for Education Statistics data collections, as 
     recommended by the National Education Goals Panel's Measuring 
     Success Task Force, and $110 million for the administration 
     of NAEP.
       In addition, states that have already developed the 
     assessments and standards being discussed should receive 
     their equal share of funding and should be able to use the 
     funding they receive under this purpose for other activities 
     related to ensuring accountability for results in the state's 
     schools and local education agencies.
       Any new overarching federal accountability requirements for 
     states' public schools must also include a significant new 
     federal investment. Governors believe that strong 
     accountability systems are essential to driving reform at the 
     state and local levels and call on Congress to recognize the 
     federal responsibility in funding education programs. In 
     light of that sanctions for any new federal education program 
     containing accountability standards should not apply if those 
     programs are not adequately funded by the federal government. 
     The federal government has an obligation to fully fund 
     education mandates on the states. Without providing states 
     and Governors flexibility, autonomy, and adequate funding, it 
     will be inappropriate and impossible to hold states and 
     Governors accountable for meeting education reform goals.


                        Performance Partnership

       The National Governors Association (NGA) supports giving 
     states the option to negotiate a performance partnership with 
     the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. Under this 
     agreement, states could choose to consolidate one or more 
     federal programs and federal funds into a single performance 
     plan in exchange for being held to higher levels of 
     accountability for improving student performance. If Title I 
     funds are included in the partnership agreement, states would 
     have to continue the targeting requirements under current law 
     for Title I.


                            Teacher Quality

       Governors support and recognize the importance of having 
     qualified teachers in the classroom and are undertaking 
     efforts to address issues of teacher preparation, licensure, 
     induction, professional development, compensation, and 
     advancement. Through these efforts, states are making 
     progress toward recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. 
     A state's performance should be measured against its own 
     progress and need for improvement, giving consideration to 
     the efforts being made by the state to ensure a supply of 
     qualified teachers, the supply of qualified teachers 
     nationwide, and the circumstances of small rural schools. 
     States should, however, retain authority to establish 
     specific criteria for teacher licensing and alternative 
     certification.


                21st Century Community Learning Centers

       The Governors support providing students with extra 
     learning opportunities to ensure that students can reach high 
     standards. Extra learning opportunities provide school-age 
     children with recreational, academic, and development 
     opportunities that supplement the education provided during a 
     typical school day. Research indicates that such 
     opportunities improve the health of students and their 
     ability to learn. Through the 21st Century Community Learning 
     Centers program, the federal government has helped local 
     communities create such programs. However, many states are 
     now providing some type of extra learning opportunities for 
     students. The federal programs run parallel to the programs 
     that states and localities operate. In an effort to 
     coordinate these funds and programs with the states' extra 
     learning opportunities program. Governors believe that this 
     program should become a state-based program.


               Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

       The Governors continue to place a high priority on making 
     schools safe and nurturing environments for students. States 
     have used federal Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
     Act funds for diverse prevention efforts and they call for 
     the continuation of a specific set-aside to assist Governors 
     in implementing school safety and drug abuse prevention 
     efforts.


                                  IDEA

       While not authorized through ESEA, we would like to take 
     this opportunity to remind you that full funding of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has long 
     been a priority to the nation's Governors. When the law, 
     formerly known as the Education of the Handicapped Act, was 
     passed in 1975, full funding was defined as 40 percent. 
     States do not have the ability to limit their special 
     education programs to the funding available and are committed 
     to ensuring that every student is guaranteed a right to 
     public education. Currently, the federal government's 
     contribution amounts to only 15 percent and states are 
     funding the balance to assist school districts in providing 
     special education and related services. Although Governors 
     strongly support providing the necessary services and support 
     to

[[Page 6909]]

     help all students succeed, the costs associated with 
     implementing IDEA are placing an increased burden on states. 
     Therefore, Governors urge Congress to provide consistent and 
     stable long-term funding for the federal share of 40 percent 
     of Part B services as authorized by IDEA.
       The Governors look forward to continuing to work with 
     Congress and the Administration in developing effective 
     bipartisan legislation to reauthorize federal education 
     programs. We believe that our priorities for reauthorization 
     of ESEA can serve as a road map to developing a strong 
     bipartisan measure. Please contact us if you have any 
     questions, or you may call Julie Manuel of the NGA staff at 
     202/624-7880.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Jim Hodges,
                                          State of South Carolina,
                              Chairman, Human Resources Committee.
     Governor Bob Taft,
                                     State of Ohio, Vice Chairman,
                                        Human Resources Committee.

  Mr. KENNEDY. This, we think, is a very compelling case, particularly 
juxtaposed against what we are going to be voting on this afternoon. We 
find it troublesome we are not able to get the strong support from the 
administration for the funding.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have that remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since 1971 the Nation's schools have 
faced increased challenges, including higher poverty rates, an increase 
in children with special education needs, and steadily rising 
enrollment, with barely adequate resources.
  Listen to this. From 1989 to 1995, the education expenditures for 
students grew by less than 1 percent. Between 1994 and 2000, during a 
time of increasing standards, rising enrollment, increased diversity in 
schools per pupil, expenditures rose by only 6 percent during that 
whole period.
  From 1979 to 1998, the national child poverty rate increased by 
almost 15 percent. The numbers are going up, and poverty is going up in 
terms of the children. The poor children are becoming poorer.
  We hear a great deal about what happened to these poor children. We 
haven't seen an enormous blossoming under the title I program when we 
spend about 1 or 2 cents in comparison to what is being spent by the 
States. We find that in most instances, cities which have the highest 
number of urban poor don't have the ability really to address this.
  If we look at what the projections are going to be, from 2000 to the 
outer 90 years, we are going to double our population. We reach only a 
third of the children now. We ought to at least commit ourselves to 
reaching all of the eligible children now. If we are talking about the 
expanding numbers and extrapolated on that, the figures would be a good 
deal higher. We are just talking about trying to do what is necessary 
now.
  From 1972 to 1998, the percentage of public school students who are a 
part of minority groups increased from 22 percent to 37 percent. From 
1989 to 1997, the enrollment of limited-English-proficient students in 
our Nation's schools grew by 70 percent. During the same period, the 
total enrollment of students grew by 14 percent. In the year 2000, 
States reported more than 864,000 immigrant students enrolled in 
schools during this period of time.
  This is what is happening. The poorer schools are expanding. There is 
a great deal more diversity. More languages are being spoken. In my 
State of Massachusetts, there are 43 different programs for different 
languages in the schools to try to help students.
  There is the impact of the breakup of the family with all of the 
fallout that has on children. We see growth in substance abuse and 
growth of violence in our society. There has been very little done for 
these children.
  With the fashioning and shaping of this legislation which is going to 
offer new opportunity and hope for these children, the principal 
question is, What is going to be the commitment of this body to make 
sure that it is going to reach the greatest number of children?
  That is what we are distressed about at this time. If we are really 
interested in no child being left behind, we can't say we are satisfied 
with the funding commitment of this bill because it will only reach a 
third of them. If we don't reach out to the other two-thirds, this bill 
is effectively a cliche, a shibboleth, a slogan; it isn't real. And 
there has not been anyone on this floor since we have been debating or 
talking about this bill who has made the case that these resources are 
adequate to reach all of the children; they are not.
  Under the proposals that on this side we support and that we are 
going to hear about with the amendment of Senator Dodd and others, we 
meet the challenge as well under IDEA. Under the Bush budget, from 2001 
to 2005, we will cover 4.2 million children out of the 13 million. 
Under our Democratic proposal, by the year 2005 we cover every child. 
And the $250 billion that went to the other side, if the budgeteers and 
if the leadership of the other side of the aisle had taken the 
position, would have come back in support of covering every child. But 
no; we are still back covering only a third. That is wrong. It is the 
wrong priority for this country because we are talking about the future 
of this Nation.
  It is a mistake for the administration not to understand that we are 
going to continue to fight for this every step along the way until we 
get the funding for this program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator for his leadership not only today but 
throughout his career on the issue of education. I would like to ask 
the Senator if he would be kind enough to help me understand some of 
the elements.
  When President Bush first took office, he invited a bipartisan group 
of Democrats and Republicans to come to the White House to talk about 
setting national goals for education. I thought it was a very positive 
conversation and dialog.
  I know the Senator has been working with those on the other side of 
the aisle as well as the White House to come up with new ideas when we 
deal with education, whether it is accountability standards, testing, 
or improving teacher skills and the like. But I wish the Senator from 
Massachusetts would be kind enough to tell us how these ideas which are 
part of the better education for students and teachers are affected 
directly by the funding levels because as I listen to the Senator's 
discussion on the floor today, he is suggesting that the ideas may be 
good ideas but, if they are not funded, too few children will profit 
from them. If we are talking about values for American families, 
certainly we can't ignore two-thirds of our children and only help a 
third of them.
  Can the Senator give us some idea whereas this lack of funding will 
have a direct impact on the education children receive in America?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has asked the absolutely correct question. 
We are making the reforms in this legislation. The question is, Who is 
going to benefit and who is going to be left out, left behind?
  This chart is a reflection of the budget where the appropriation was 
$3.6 billion for 2001. Under the Bush budget, there is requested $1.669 
billion--a 3.5-percent increase. That was the request for this year--
$3.6 billion, down to $1.669 billion.
  We weren't reaching all the children. I wish we had. I wish the 
Democrats had done more in terms of education and the allocation of 
resources.
  It is interesting. If you take the last 5 years of the Democratic 
administration, we averaged a 12.8-percent increase in education at a 
time when we were having the deficits in this country. Now we have the 
surpluses in this country and we are finding out that we are willing to 
request only a fraction of that. We are still only covering a third, 
which can bring you to only one conclusion, and that is that tax breaks 
for the very wealthy individuals, the 1 percent--we could take a small 
fraction of the tax breaks that are going to the 1 percent of this 
country, the top millionaires of this country. Only .008 of the tax 
break could fully fund title I. Imagine that. We are not even asking 
for 1 percent. We are not even asking for a half percent, a fraction of 
that. But no. No. We have to have the tax break.

[[Page 6910]]

  I do not think that expresses the values of the American people. That 
is translated, I say to the Senator, into the children who are sitting 
there in those classrooms today--whether they are going to get the 
supplementary services, whether their teachers are going to get 
trained. Today in the classrooms across this country, in the urban 
areas, 80 percent of them do not have math teachers. If they do not get 
algebra in the eighth grade, they are never going on to college and 
they are never going to be a participant.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will my colleague yield for a final question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I see my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, is in 
the Chamber. I will be brief.
  The Senator spoke about the dropout rates that face students in 
schools. I think we have all read the recent census data that suggests 
a substantial increase in the Hispanic, Latino population in America.
  The dropout rate for white students in America is 7 percent. The 
dropout rate for African American students is 13 percent. The dropout 
rate for Hispanic, Latino students is 30 percent. It is higher among 
Latinos, Hispanic American women, than those Latino populations.
  I say to the Senator from Massachusetts, how can we have this 
dramatic increase of people coming into this country and dramatic 
dropout rates in this population without terrible consequences for our 
Nation? Could the Senator address, in this final question, what we can 
do, and should do, on this dropout side that is not going to be done if 
we do not receive adequate funding supported by the Bush White House?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. Last year, there were 
about 450,000 to 500,000 children who dropped out. It is a challenge as 
to how we bring them back in. There are a number of very effective 
programs that are doing it, but they are dramatically underfunded. They 
are not prioritized either. We will welcome the opportunity to join 
with the Senator as this process moves forward to see what we can do to 
fund them.
  I thank the Senator.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Maryland?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. May I have 5 minutes?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may have whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Chair, then, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Harkin has 41 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I talked about the three R's 
that are needed in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If we 
have reform--which I am firmly in support of--plus resources, that 
equals results. But if we have reform minus resources, all we end up 
with is rhetoric.
  So I believe we need to practice the three R's that give us the right 
results: reform, plus resources, equals the right results.
  One of the ways that we can really help have reform is by really 
backing what we need to do to help our special needs children. We are 
going to be debating very shortly the expansion of the funding for 
something called IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 
Some years ago, under the leadership of a former colleague, Senator 
Weicker, we passed legislation that said every child in the United 
States of America who had a special need required an individual 
education plan.
  We gave that as a mandate to States and local school districts. We 
also said we would provide 40 percent of the money to help pay that 
bill.
  In over the 20-plus years that IDEA has been in existence, we have 
only funded roughly 15 percent of the cost to local school districts to 
pay for these individual education plans for our children.
  I hope that as we continue the debate on the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, and as we work on the bill, that one of our tools for 
really increasing the resources, without us becoming the new 
schoolmarms or a Federal school board, is to fund the mandate that we 
have given local school districts--to meet the individual educational 
needs of our special needs children.
  Some of these services can cost as much as $75,000 a year. In my own 
State, the average cost to educate a special needs child is roughly 
13,000 and the costs are rising steadily.
  I will tell you, funding for IDEA is not about being a Democrat or a 
Republican. But I can tell you, everywhere in my own State--Democrats 
and Republicans, parents and teachers, doctors and school counselors, 
county executives, mayors, commissioners at the local level keep 
saying: Please increase the funding for the IDEA.
  I believe that if we pass the Harkin/Hagel amendment, we could 
increase the percentage of Federal IDEA funds to school districts and 
by giving them greater flexibility--open up the opportunity to make 
sure we cross the digital divide, hire the right teachers, and reduce 
class size.
  I do hope we have reform, plus resources, to get the results. And one 
of the ways to do that is to dramatically increase the funding for our 
special needs children. I do believe there is very strong bipartisan 
support to be able to do this.
  I look forward to supporting that effort and trying to find a way to 
pass this bill in a way that we can be proud of and that the parents in 
America can count on, so that the children in America will believe that 
the Federal Government is on their side.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and any time I might have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent the time under the quorum call be evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time to the Senator from Nebraska?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand under the previous agreement 
there is time on the Harkin-Hagel amendment; am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senator Harkin has 30 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is that the total time on the amendment, just 30 
minutes? I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of that time be given 
to Senator Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the total time. Without objection, it 
is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.


                 Amendment No. 360 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, myself, and 
others, I send an amendment to the desk to the education bill to amend 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Hagel], for Mr. Harkin, for 
     himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 360 to amendment No. 358.

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

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

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

[[Page 6911]]



     SEC. __. HELPING CHILDREN SUCCEED BY FULLY FUNDING THE 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 
                   (IDEA).

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) All children deserve a quality education.
       (2) In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs. 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (334 F. Supp. 1247)(E. Dist. Pa. 
     1971), and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of 
     Columbia (348 F. Supp. 866)(Dist. D.C. 1972), the courts 
     found that children with disabilities are entitled to an 
     equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment of 
     the Constitution.
       (3) In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (referred to in 
     this section as ``IDEA'') (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to help 
     States provide all children with disabilities a free, 
     appropriate public education in the least restrictive 
     environment. At full funding, Congress contributes 40 percent 
     of the average per pupil expenditure for each child with a 
     disability served.
       (4) Before 1975, only \1/5\ of the children with 
     disabilities received a formal education. At that time, many 
     States had laws that specifically excluded many children with 
     disabilities, including children who were blind, deaf, or 
     emotionally disturbed, from receiving such an education.
       (5) IDEA currently serves an estimated 200,000 infants and 
     toddlers, 600,000 preschoolers, and 5,400,000 children 6 to 
     21 years of age.
       (6) IDEA enables children with disabilities to be educated 
     in their communities, and thus, has assisted in dramatically 
     reducing the number of children with disabilities who must 
     live in State institutions away from their families.
       (7) The number of children with disabilities who complete 
     high school has grown significantly since the enactment of 
     IDEA.
       (8) The number of children with disabilities who enroll in 
     college as freshmen has more than tripled since the enactment 
     of IDEA.
       (9) The overall effectiveness of IDEA depends upon well 
     trained special education and general education teachers, 
     related services personnel, and other school personnel. 
     Congress recognizes concerns about the nationwide shortage of 
     personnel serving students with disabilities and the need for 
     improvement in the qualifications of such personnel.
       (10) IDEA has raised the Nation's awareness about the 
     abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities.
       (11) Improvements to IDEA in the 1997 amendments increased 
     the academic achievement of children with disabilities and 
     helped them to lead productive, independent lives.
       (12) Changes made in 1997 also addressed the needs of those 
     children whose behavior impedes learning by implementing 
     behavioral assessments and intervention strategies to ensure 
     that they receive appropriate supports in order to receive a 
     quality education.
       (13) IDEA requires a full partnership between parents of 
     children with disabilities and education professionals in the 
     design and implementation of the educational services 
     provided to children with disabilities.
       (14) While the Federal Government has more than doubled 
     funding for part B of IDEA since 1995, the Federal Government 
     has never provided more than 15 percent of the maximum State 
     grant allocation for educating children with disabilities.
       (15) By fully funding IDEA, Congress will strengthen the 
     ability of States and localities to implement the 
     requirements of IDEA.
       (b) Local Educational Agency Eligibility.--Clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of section 613(a)(2)(C) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(C)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding clauses (ii) and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A), for any fiscal year for which amounts 
     appropriated to carry out section 611 exceeds $4,100,000,000, 
     a local educational agency may treat as local funds, for the 
     purpose of such clauses, up to 55 percent of the amount of 
     funds it receives under this part that exceeds the amount it 
     received under this part for fiscal year 2001, except where a 
     local educational agency shows that it is meeting the 
     requirements of this part, the local educational agency may 
     petition the State to waive, in whole or in part, the 55 
     percent cap under this clause.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), if the Secretary 
     determines that a local educational agency is not meeting the 
     requirements of this part, the Secretary may prohibit the 
     local educational agency from treating funds received under 
     this part as local funds under clause (i) for any fiscal 
     year, and may redirect the use of those funds to other 
     educational programs within the local educational agency.''.
       (c) Funding.--Section 611(j) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(j)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this part, 
     other than section 619, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, and there are appropriated--
       ``(1) $8,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(2) $11,323,685,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(3) $13,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(4) $16,323,685,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(5) $18,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(6) $21,067,600,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(7) $21,742,019,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(8) $22,423,068,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(9) $23,095,622,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(10) $23,751,456,000 for fiscal year 2011.''.

  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering today would 
fully fund the Federal commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA. When Congress approved IDEA in 1975, which 
mandates that States provide an appropriate education to students with 
special needs, it pledged to provide 40 percent of the funding. 
Congress has repeatedly passed nonbinding resolutions supporting the 
full funding of this commitment. However, even with large increases in 
funding over the last 5 years, from $3.1 billion in 1997 to $6.3 
billion in 2001, the Federal portions of the funds for IDEA has not 
exceeded 15 percent. This leaves State governments and local school 
districts to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program, 
taking away vital local education funds and options.
  There is no question of the intent of this legislation. There was no 
question of the intent 25 years ago. Surely there is no question of the 
rightness of the intent of this program today. IDEA has proven to be a 
great success in ensuring all children, including those with special 
needs, receive a free and appropriate education across the United 
States.
  Prior to its enactment, only 50 percent of students with disabilities 
were receiving an appropriate education. Today the majority of children 
with disabilities are receiving an education in their neighborhood 
schools in regular classrooms with their nondisabled peers. High school 
graduation rates for special needs students have increased 
dramatically, and students served by IDEA are employed at twice the 
rate of older adults who did not benefit from this program.
  Congress did the right thing in passing IDEA 25 years ago. Today we 
are calling on Congress to again do the right thing, to fully fund the 
commitment Congress made to this program and to the people of this 
country.
  It is typical in a way of some of the things we do here in Washington 
to mandate a program and then leave the State or the local governments 
to pay for it. Congress said when it passed IDEA that it would provide 
40 percent of the funding, but 25 years later we are providing barely 
15 percent. This amendment will fulfill that commitment we made 25 
years ago and increase Federal funding for this very important and 
relevant program.
  This amendment increases funding for IDEA in annual increments of 
$2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in 
fiscal year 2007. With these annual increments the amendment provides 
an additional $120 billion for IDEA over 10 years. The amendment will 
also free up at least $28.9 billion and up to $52.5 billion in 
education funds for local school districts by 2007. School districts 
will be eligible for additional flexibility if the State certifies they 
are meeting the requirements of the law. Forcing them to pick up the 
slack for Federal funding of IDEA has caused them to take funds away 
from other important priorities that they, the school boards, the 
teachers, the principals, and the parents think are most important--not 
what Washington thinks is most important but what those closest to 
education in America think is most important.
  This amendment will give local education authorities and taxpayers 
the ability to spend these funds as they see fit to fulfill their own 
education needs. They could hire more teachers, build new schools, and 
increase the technology in their schools. There are so many areas where 
they could use this funding to help our children everywhere achieve a 
better education. This amendment will give them the flexibility to do 
that.
  This amendment fulfills a commitment Congress made but has never 
kept. It increases funding for education. It frees up money for local 
school districts. It gives the local school districts more flexibility 
and at the same time fulfills the commitment

[[Page 6912]]

to our disabled children. It restores local control to local dollars. 
This amendment will help our teachers and our State and local school 
officials to provide the best education possible for our young people. 
That should be our goal.
  In urging my colleagues to support our amendment, I point out it is 
because Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, and Harkin, and many others, both 
Republican and Democrat, over many years have led this effort to assure 
quality education for our disabled children. This amendment 
accomplishes what we set out to accomplish 25 years ago and more. And 
the ``more'' part of this amendment is to free up local school moneys 
to allow those local school districts to put that money where they 
believe their highest priorities are for education.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
and I ask unanimous consent the time not be charged against this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 360 to Amendment No. 358, As Modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk in 
behalf of myself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, and others. I 
ask unanimous consent to send a modification to of the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. __. HELPING CHILDREN SUCCEED BY FULLY FUNDING THE 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 
                   (IDEA).

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) All children deserve a quality education.
       (2) In Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children vs. 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (334 F. Supp. 1247)(E. Dist. Pa. 
     1971), and Mills vs. Board of Education of the District of 
     Columbia (348 F. Supp. 866)(Dist. D.C. 1972), the courts 
     found that children with disabilities are entitled to an 
     equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment of 
     the Constitution.
       (3) In 1975, Congress passed what is now known as the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (referred to in 
     this section as ``IDEA'') (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to help 
     States provide all children with disabilities a free, 
     appropriate public education in the least restrictive 
     environment. At full funding, Congress contributes 40 percent 
     of the average per pupil expenditure for each child with a 
     disability served.
       (4) Before 1975, only \1/5\ of the children with 
     disabilities received a formal education. At that time, many 
     States had laws that specifically excluded many children with 
     disabilities, including children who were blind, deaf, or 
     emotionally disturbed, from receiving such an education.
       (5) IDEA currently serves an estimated 200,000 infants and 
     toddlers, 600,000 preschoolers, and 5,400,000 children 6 to 
     21 years of age.
       (6) IDEA enables children with disabilities to be educated 
     in their communities, and thus, has assisted in dramatically 
     reducing the number of children with disabilities who must 
     live in State institutions away from their families.
       (7) The number of children with disabilities who complete 
     high school has grown significantly since the enactment of 
     IDEA.
       (8) The number of children with disabilities who enroll in 
     college as freshmen has more than tripled since the enactment 
     of IDEA.
       (9) The overall effectiveness of IDEA depends upon well 
     trained special education and general education teachers, 
     related services personnel, and other school personnel. 
     Congress recognizes concerns about the nationwide shortage of 
     personnel serving students with disabilities and the need for 
     improvement in the qualifications of such personnel.
       (10) IDEA has raised the Nation's awareness about the 
     abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities.
       (11) Improvements to IDEA in the 1997 amendments increased 
     the academic achievement of children with disabilities and 
     helped them to lead productive, independent lives.
       (12) Changes made in 1997 also addressed the needs of those 
     children whose behavior impedes learning by implementing 
     behavioral assessments and intervention strategies to ensure 
     that they receive appropriate supports in order to receive a 
     quality education.
       (13) IDEA requires a full partnership between parents of 
     children with disabilities and education professionals in the 
     design and implementation of the educational services 
     provided to children with disabilities.
       (14) While the Federal Government has more than doubled 
     funding for part B of IDEA since 1995, the Federal Government 
     has never provided more than 15 percent of the maximum State 
     grant allocation for educating children with disabilities.
       (15) By fully funding IDEA, Congress will strengthen the 
     ability of States and localities to implement the 
     requirements of IDEA.
       (b) Local Educational Agency Eligibility.--Clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of section 613(a)(2)(C) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(C)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding clauses (ii) and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A), for any fiscal year for which amounts 
     appropriated to carry out section 611 exceeds $4,100,000,000, 
     a local educational agency may treat as local funds, for the 
     purpose of such clauses, up to 55 percent of the amount of 
     funds it receives under this part that exceeds the amount it 
     received under this part for fiscal year 2001, except where a 
     local educational agency shows that it is meeting the 
     requirements of this part, the local educational agency may 
     petition the State to waive, in whole or in part, the 55 
     percent cap under this clause.
       ``(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), if the Secretary 
     determines that a local educational agency is not meeting the 
     requirements of this part, the Secretary may prohibit the 
     local educational agency from treating funds received under 
     this part as local funds under clause (i) for any fiscal 
     year, and may redirect the use of those funds to other 
     educational programs within the local educational agency.''.
       (c) Funding.--Section 611(j) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(j)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this part, 
     other than section 619, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated, and there are appropriated--
       ``(1) $8,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(2) $11,323,685,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(3) $13,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(4) $16,323,685,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(5) $18,823,685,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(6) not more than $21,067,600,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(7) not more than $21,742,019,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(8) not more than $22,423,068,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(9) not more than $23,095,622,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(10) not more than $23,751,456,000, or the sum of the 
     maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection 
     (a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2011.''.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank my colleagues, 
particularly Senator Hagel, for working so hard to come to an agreement 
on this important bipartisan amendment. We have had some good give and 
take on a lot of issues, especially on this one. I believe we have 
produced a proposal that is good for our future, good for our kids, and 
good for our taxpayers.
  This amendment is really quite simple and straightforward. It says 
that the Federal Government is finally going to meet its full 
commitment which we set in 1975. In fact, I remember it well. Senator 
Jeffords, the chair of the health committee in the Senate, and I were 
freshmen in the House that year. Both of us were interested in 
education, especially in issues that dealt with people with 
disabilities.
  In 1975, when IDEA was passed in the House and Senate, there was an 
agreement made by the negotiators on the understanding that this would 
cost our local school districts more resources in the future. The 
negotiators agreed that the Federal Government's goal would be to 
provide at least 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in 
each local education area. There was no timeframe put on it.
  So, for 25 years after 1975, we continued to put more and more money 
into IDEA but never getting close to fully funding it, which would have 
been 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure.
  The amendment that we have at the desk says we are going to put our 
money where our mouth is. We are finally going to be full partners with 
State and local governments.

[[Page 6913]]

  This amendment fully funds the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. It appropriates funds for the next 10 years, gradually 
rising so that within 6 years we are at the level projected to equal 40 
percent of the average per pupil cost.
  That is what was promised. That is what this amendment will deliver, 
plain and simple.
  Let me clarify what the amendment does not do. This amendment does 
not create a new entitlement program. It provides advanced 
appropriations for the next 10 years. That amount would be set in law. 
It does not create an uncontrolled tap on the Treasury, so that 
whatever the 40 percent costs are, we would match. If we did that, the 
incentive would be to shift costs from other education programs into 
IDEA, and the costs would then likely skyrocket. We don't want that. 
Our amendment does not allow for that.
  As Senator Hagel and so many of us have said so many times, this is 
not a partisan issue. Both sides have worked diligently over the years 
to ensure that children with disabilities and their families get a fair 
shake in life, and especially get a fair shake in our educational 
system.
  This really is a win-win-win amendment. With this advanced 
appropriation, students with disabilities will get the public education 
they have a constitutional right to receive.
  Second, school districts will be able to provide these services 
without cutting into their general education budgets. And in cases 
where all of the IDEA-eligible kids are getting the services they are 
entitled to, property taxpayers will get relief.
  Here are some of the specifics of our amendment. First, our amendment 
would set in law appropriations levels for IDEA, an increase in roughly 
$2.35 billion increments annually over the next 6 years. Currently, the 
State grant program within IDEA receives $6.34 billion a year. This is 
about 15 percent of what we should be doing under IDEA. In other words, 
we want to be at 40 percent. This is only about 15 percent of that full 
funding.
  Under our amendment, by 2007 we will meet the goal of 40 percent by 
appropriating just a little over $20 billion--$20 billion with a ``b''.
  Second, our amendment strikes an appropriate balance between the 
needs of our students with disabilities and the needs of our State and 
local governments. Students will get a free and appropriate public 
education, and local schools will be able to deliver these services 
without breaking the bank of the local tax base which they have. Under 
our amendment, States could use 55 percent of the increased funds. That 
could be used for local purposes or for whatever purpose they want.
  Furthermore, if a local school district can show that they are indeed 
meeting 100 percent of the needs of their students with disabilities, 
they can use 100 percent of the increase we are giving them for other 
purposes.
  We did not want an anomaly where if a school district was, in fact, 
meeting all of the needs and services for students with disabilities, 
we would then give them all of their money and they would use this 
money for student disabilities when they don't have any. If they are 
meeting 100 percent of their needs, why should they get more money to 
use for that specific purpose?
  Our amendment says if that is the case, and they can show that, then 
all of the increases that would accrue under their local State agency 
to a local school district they could use for other purposes. Also, our 
amendment provides a new measure to ensure that kids are being served 
appropriately.
  Another section of the amendment says that the Secretary can look at 
a school district and, if there is clear evidence that they are not 
meeting 100 percent of the needs of their students with disabilities, 
these increases then have to go to meet that 100 percent of need.
  This provides a good balance. It allows those local school districts 
that are doing a great job--there are a lot of them who are meeting all 
of the needs of kids with disabilities--they can use this money for 
other purposes. It provides the Secretary with the ability to go in and 
say, No, you are not. In certain areas where they are not meeting their 
constitutional requirements--and there are a lot of cases that do--they 
have to use these increases for that purpose.
  There has been a lot of talk about Federal mandates. Every year since 
I have been in the Senate--that is going on 17 years now--I have come 
to the floor to talk about IDEA and to talk about the fact that while 
we should fulfill our 40 percent requirement or sort of a guarantee of 
40 percent that we put out there 26 years ago, the provision of 
services to kids with disabilities is not a Federal mandate. It is a 
constitutional mandate.
  Two landmark Federal district court cases--PARC v. Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, and another case, Mills v. Board of Education of the 
District of Columbia--established that children with disabilities have 
a constitutional right to a free, appropriate public education.
  Again, there is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States says 
that a State--any State--has to provide a free public education to any 
of its kids.
  Nowhere in the Constitution is that mandated. What the Constitution 
does say, however, under its equal protection laws, is that if a State 
does provide a free public education, it cannot discriminate and say, 
OK, we will just educate white males. It cannot say, we will just 
educate whites but not blacks. It cannot say, we will educate people of 
one religion over another. If they are going to provide a free public 
education, States cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, 
or national origin. And with the two cases in the early 1970s that I 
mentioned, States cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. So a 
child with a disability in America--in Illinois, Iowa, or Nebraska--has 
a constitutional right to a free and appropriate public education.
  In response to those two cases, in 1975 Congress enacted the 
Education of Handicapped Children Act, which later became IDEA. It was 
to help the States meet their constitutional obligations. So even if we 
did not have this, States would still have to provide the funds. But 
since I believe, and I think many of my colleagues believe, that the 
education of children with disabilities is a national problem, that we 
at the Federal level ought to at least live up to what we said 26 years 
ago and provide at least 40 percent of the average per-pupil 
expenditure for children with disabilities.
  Again, that is what this amendment does. It does it over the next 6 
years, so that by the year 2007, fully 32 years later, Congress will 
finally live up to its promise to our States and local education 
agencies.
  Congress enacted Public Law 94-142 for two reasons, first, to 
establish a consistent policy on what it means to provide a free and 
appropriate public education to kids with disabilities; and, second, to 
provide Federal funding to help States meet their constitutional 
obligations.
  Finally, the Supreme Court's decision regarding Garret Frey of Cedar 
Rapids, IA, underscores the need for Congress to help school districts 
with the financial costs of educating children with disabilities. While 
the excess costs of educating some children with disabilities is 
minimal, the excess costs of educating other children with 
disabilities, such as Garret, can be very great. We need to help school 
districts meet these challenges.
  Earlier this year, I heard from the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City 
Chambers of Commerce that more IDEA dollars will help them continue to 
deliver high-quality educational services to every child in their 
school districts. I have heard from parents in Iowa that their kids 
need more qualified interpreters for deaf and hard-of-hearing children. 
Our school districts and our families need better mental health 
services and better behavioral assessments of children.
  Our amendment would let these folks do it all because, over the next 
10 years, my State of Iowa, I figured out, under this amendment, would 
receive over $1 billion in new money.
  Again, there are so many families out there where both parents are 
working. They may be low income families. They may have a child with a 
disability, and all they want for that

[[Page 6914]]

child--a child they love, as we all love our children--is to make sure 
that child is not discriminated against, that child gets the support 
services he or she needs to be as successful in life as their 
capabilities will allow.
  I have heard so many times about how kids in classes, who may have a 
disability--sometimes we hear this old saw about how they act up and 
become disruptive. Consider if you were like my brother, who was deaf, 
and you were in a classroom with a TV monitor but did not have closed-
captions, and you were not provided an interpreter. After a while would 
you get pretty frustrated.
  Sometimes, because you cannot speak well, and you cannot hear, maybe 
you would act out a little bit of your frustrations. What happens then? 
Maybe they would expel you--all for the lack of the needed services to 
provide that free and appropriate public education.
  I must say, my heart goes out to many school teachers in this 
country, especially in elementary schools. A lot of them have large 
classes. I have seen as many as 28 to 30 in a class. Teachers are 
trying to do the best they can to provide instruction to these kids. 
They may have a couple kids with disabilities. These teachers are not 
trained to handle kids with disabilities. They have never been trained 
to do that. They are not experts in behavioral assessments. They might 
not have had any kind of mental health training. They probably have had 
no training at all for any one particular disability or another.
  So I feel sorry for these teachers because they want to teach these 
kids. They may have a big class to teach, and yet they are not getting 
the supportive services they need to ensure that kids with disabilities 
get a good education.
  That is what we hope this amendment will do, to begin to provide the 
funding, so that school districts can provide the supportive services, 
so that our teachers are not frustrated, and so that children will not 
act out their frustrations because they are disabled and are not 
getting the support and the kind of services they need. That is what 
this amendment is all about.
  Over the past 6 years, as ranking member on the appropriation 
subcommittee, I have worked with my chairman, Senator Specter, and many 
others in the Senate, to improve IDEA funding through the normal 
appropriations process. I think we have done quite well. On a 
bipartisan basis, we have been able to almost triple IDEA 
appropriations in the last 6 years. I thank Senator Specter for his 
leadership in this area. So we are now up to 15 percent of the funding 
formula. But that is still not adequate.
  That is why this amendment is so necessary. Yes, we can go by, year 
after year, trying to get some money out of the discretionary pot. But 
then that is always a battle. It is always a battle. With this 
amendment, we will not have to fight that battle every year.
  Let me make very clear what this amendment does. This amendment 
appropriates the money that is necessary to get us to that 40 percent 
level. This is not an authorization amendment, my friends. This 
amendment appropriates the money. And it does it over a 6-year period 
of time.
  I will read the words. The amendment says: Funding. For the purposes 
of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated, and 
there are appropriated--so this amendment isn't just a lot of rhetoric. 
This amendment isn't just a lot of flowery speeches about how we are 
going to help our States. This does it. This puts our money where maybe 
our rhetoric has been in the past. It puts in the money.
  It lists right in the amendment the amount of moneys that will be 
appropriated next year, and every year thereafter, until the year 2011. 
It sets forth those sums. By the year 2007, we will be at approximately 
$21 billion per year or at 40 percent of the average per pupil 
expenditure. That is why this amendment is so critical.
  Now we can say to our States and our local school districts that it 
isn't just the promise that next year we will try to do better, next 
year we will try to do a little bit more, and yet every year they see 
that promise is unfulfilled. This amendment actually means the money is 
going to be there. For kids with disabilities, IDEA is a downpayment on 
the American dream. If we want adults with disabilities to succeed in 
the workplace, we have to first help them succeed in school. Now we 
have this amendment that will do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow, Dodd, Reed of Rhode 
Island, Wellstone, and Levin be added as cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Once again, I thank Senator Hagel for working so closely 
on this amendment to make sure we had one that really did what we 
wanted it to do and did it in a cost-conscious and fiscally responsible 
manner, to make sure we address what is the need out there, the need of 
kids with disabilities who are not getting served, and to help our 
local school districts that are meeting that need to be able to use 
this money to help out their hard-pressed property tax payers.
  I thank Senator Hagel for his strong work on this amendment; Senator 
Jeffords, for his many years of support both on the authorizing side 
and on the appropriations side for kids with disabilities; Senator 
Kennedy, for his stalwart leadership in all aspects of trying to make 
life more fair for people with disabilities; Senator Dodd, who, again, 
has worked hard on these issues through all the years; and my other 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time under the control of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Through all the years, while we may have had 
disagreements on one little aspect of this, I have found generally on 
both sides of the aisle a lot of goodwill to try to reach some 
consensus on how we fulfill the constitutional mandate of providing our 
kids with disabilities a free and appropriate public education.
  We have, indeed, come a long way since I first came here in 1975, 
with the passage of IDEA, then, later on, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, early intervention programs and now, finally, the 
fulfillment of the promise we made 26 years ago that the Federal 
Government would provide the lion's share of funding to our States and 
local school districts so our constitutional mandate could be 
fulfilled.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will take a few moments to talk about the substance of 
the Harkin-Hagel amendment and the reasons I support it.
  Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment of Senator Harkin 
and Senator Hagel. I congratulate both of them for bringing focus and 
attention to this great opportunity and responsibility to the Senate. 
They both deserve great credit. I am on the floor now with my friend 
and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, who has been a strong 
supporter over his lifetime in terms of funding for the special needs 
as well. I know he will have a chance to speak to it. I think all of us 
are very grateful for their leadership, and it is appropriate, as we 
are coming into the Nation's choices about its budget and taxes, that 
we get an idea of some of the alternatives.
  This amendment to fully fund IDEA finally puts real dollars behind 
the goal of full funding by providing $181 billion over the next 10 
years in increased funding for special education. Congress owes the 
children and families across the country the most effective possible 
implementation of this legislation and the Federal funding necessary to 
make it happen.
  For 25 years, IDEA has sent a clear message to young people with 
disabilities that they can learn and that their learning will enable 
them to be independent and productive citizens and live fulfilling 
lives. Prior to 1975, 4 million disabled children didn't receive the 
help they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers 
received the services; 1 million disabled were excluded from public 
schools.

[[Page 6915]]

Now, IDEA serves almost 6 million disabled children from birth through 
the age of 21, and every State in the Nation offers public education 
and early intervention services to disabled children.
  That is a remarkable statement in terms of the American people, to 
transition from this point where so many of these children were 
basically ignored, shunned, placed in the shadows of the communities, 
and it has been extraordinary courage those children have shown, their 
parents have shown, schoolteachers have shown, community leaders have 
shown, and to awaken this Nation to its responsibilities to provide 
education and opportunity for these children to live independent, 
constructive, and positive lives is just virtually unlimited.
  I don't think any day goes by when we don't hear another remarkable 
story. I saw Leonard Slatkin just yesterday. I was commenting about the 
wonderful success the National Symphony had with its brilliant 
symphonies; many positive comments have been made about it. One of the 
comments made was regarding the percussionist, who is tone deaf, for 
the National Symphony. Maestro Slatkin had indicated that this woman is 
probably the best percussionist in the world; she has a general 
worldwide reputation. She plays the instruments with bare feet. She can 
hear the vibrations that are coming through the floor of the concert 
hall as she plays her music. She is able to produce just superlative 
performances.
  Every day we are all reminded of these extraordinary acts of courage. 
So little of that would have been possible if we had not moved ahead to 
develop an IDEA program a number of years ago. IDEA now serves almost 6 
million disabled from birth to age 21. Every State in the Nation offers 
public education and early intervention services to disabled children.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to.
  Mr. REID. I have been impressed with the Senator's statement about in 
1975 it became a Federal edict, in effect, saying we are going to 
educate the handicapped--mentally, physically, and emotionally. It is 
my understanding, though, the reason this amendment is offered on a 
bipartisan basis by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska 
is that the Federal Government hasn't been living up to its financial 
responsibility to take care of these disadvantaged children; is that 
true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mr. REID. So this amendment is to allow school districts to use the 
money they have on programs that are not mandated by the Federal 
Government. They can use the money that we hope will come from this 
amendment to take care of the disadvantaged children; is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is entirely correct.
  Mr. REID. Is it true that one reason school districts all over 
America are just scavenging for money, desperate for money, is the 
necessity that we all accept of educating these children? Is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is true.
  Mr. REID. Well, I look forward to supporting the amendment. Again, in 
this 50/50 split Senate, I look forward to voting for this bipartisan 
amendment on this important issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Just to come back to looking at the history, when the original 
special education law was passed, the Congress intended to work toward 
the goal of fully funding the 40 percent of the cost of educating 
special needs children--a child. After 25 years, the Federal Government 
pays only 13 percent of the excess costs. This bill will obligate funds 
to reach the 40 percent, full funding, in the fiscal year 2007. So that 
is what this bill does. It meets the responsibility we have given to 
the communities. I am sure in your own State, as in mine, you can go to 
a very small community where they have maybe a severely challenged 
child and the child goes to the local school. These extraordinary 
benefits are for the child.
  But these are extraordinary burdens to the community. The community 
wants to help the child, and suddenly they are caught up in something 
they never anticipated or thought possible, and they are sort of left 
out there without assistance. If we recognize that we as a nation have 
additional responsibilities in these areas of the very special needs--
we do this in different ways under the Medicare and Medicaid systems; I 
recognize that--I think that helps define our humanity. But if we are 
going to define our humanity, we ought to at least be able to define it 
in a more complete way, and that is by providing the resources for this 
problem.
  I will just mention a couple of additional facts. I see my friend and 
colleague from Vermont, who I know wants to say a word. Listen to what 
has happened in the schools. The dropout rate for these students has 
decreased, while graduates have exploded. The number of young adults 
with disabilities enrolling in college has tripled. These results do 
not come without financial costs. It is time for the Congress to help 
schools provide the services that give children with special needs the 
educational opportunities to pursue their dreams.
  For too many years there were empty promises. The amendment of 
Senators Harkin and Hagel will help the schools and communities to meet 
the responsibilities. This amendment would make IDEA mandatory, and by 
passing it we will free up discretionary funds that could be allocated 
to other critical education priorities. We can truly ensure that no 
child is left behind; that every needy child has a fair chance at a 
quality education; that more teachers are better trained; that more 
afterschool opportunities are available; and more schools are modern 
and safe.
  This is another chapter, I believe, in no child being left behind. We 
want to make sure that no child with special needs is left behind. We 
need the funding for the title I. We want to make sure that the 
children with special needs are not going to be left behind. This is a 
continuum. We should free ourselves from: Well, look, we have increased 
this fund, that fund by X percent, by Y percent.
  What we are talking about is not leaving the children behind and at a 
time of record surpluses, these are questions and choices. There will 
always be reasons why we cannot. The question is, Do we have the will 
and determination? Now is the time.
  I see my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I 
commend him for his statement.
  As we all know, there is nothing more crucial in this bill than to 
make sure we have the resources available to help the schools and 
communities meet the demands that will be placed upon them by the 
required standards. At present, those resources are not there.
  I correct the Senator's statement on one matter. We do not fund 40 
percent of the cost of the disabled child. We fund it at 40 percent of 
the cost of the average child. That means we are really far from fully 
funding the cost of a child with disabilities. Keep that in mind.
  What we are asking for is 40 percent of the average child, but that 
is billions of dollars in shortfall. If one examines this bill and 
examines the problems in this Nation, what I am concerned about--from 
the perspective of the President--is if we do not have the resources 
that are necessary to bring about the changes in our schools to have 
these young people meet the standards which are going to be required of 
them, then this bill is not going to reach its fulfillment.
  I urge all Members to recognize that if they want to help the 
President's goals that are set forth in this bill, they are going to 
need the resources. Fully funding IDEA will be a big step forward. 
Forty percent of the cost of an average child is far less than the cost 
of a disabled child. This is what is draining the money out of our 
school systems. This is what is putting pressure on property taxes in 
this Nation, to the point that, as in my State and all across this 
country, more and more

[[Page 6916]]

votes are going against additional resources for the schools because we 
do not fund that 40 percent that we promised.
  If we do fund it, then many of the young people who presently will 
not be helped educationally or because of disabilities will be helped. 
The President's goal will not be reached if we do not provide the 
necessary funds.
  I strongly support the Harkin-Hagel amendment. I want to make sure 
everybody understands that if we do not do this, this bill is going to 
have a very difficult time reaching the goals which the President 
desires.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Harkin for his 
work on this amendment.
  I've supported this proposal in a free-standing bill, and today I'm 
proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment. And as 
an appropriator, I have special concerns I want to share.
  We agree as a country that we need to work together, in partnership 
at the Federal, State, and local levels, to make sure that students 
with special needs get the support to succeed.
  Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the 
Federal Government is supposed to provide 40 percent of the average per 
student costs. But we all know that the Federal Government has not paid 
its share.
  This amendment will make sure the Federal Government meets its 
obligation to support special education. This amendment will bring us 
to full funding in 6 years.
  This amendment also has another important advantage. By moving IDEA 
funding from the discretionary side to the mandatory side, we will free 
up about $7.1 billion for education. That money can be used to pay for 
the costs the underlying bill imposes on States.
  As I have mentioned before, the underlying bill creates a number of 
expensive, and unfunded, mandates on States in areas like testing and 
accountability.
  We can not just demand that students pass tests. We have got to give 
them the tools to pass those tests. But funding all the requirements in 
this bill will be difficult because of the limits imposed by the 
President's tax cut.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I'm trying to prevent a 
train wreck. I want to make sure the $7.1 billion freed up by this 
amendment will go to fund the mandates in this bill. If that does not 
happen, we will have to fund this bill's requirements at the expense of 
other priorities such as child care, higher education, and social 
services.
  So we need to pass this amendment because it is the right thing to do 
for students who have special needs, and we also need to use the money 
this amendment frees up to bolster our investment in education. That 
extra money should stay in the classroom.
  I have received many letters and e-mail messages about the importance 
of fully funding IDEA.
  I should like to share with my colleagues a letter I received in 
March from the Yakima School District in Washington State. It is from 
Superintendent Benjamin Soria and Barbara Greenberg, who is president 
of district's board of directors.
  They write that the Yakima School District serves about 1,800 
students with disabilities, about 13 percent of the district's total 
school population.
  Unfortunately, the State of Washington only provides 12.7 percent of 
funding for special education. And, as we know, the Federal Government 
is not paying its promised share.
  As a result, they write:

       The Yakima School District must supplement state and 
     federal funds for special education with local district 
     dollars, this year amounting to $850,000.
       If the district were to receive full funding as promised by 
     Congress, it would amount to more than $3 million to be used 
     to meet the provisions of IDEA as intended 26 years ago.
       It is time for Congress to make good on a long overdue 
     promise.

  I received another letter from John Cady from Seattle. John is the 
parent of a child with a disability.
  He writes:

       I believe that by investing in the education of our 
     nation's children, we are enabling individual growth an 
     productivity that will ultimately lead to financial 
     independence and an adult life of dignity and self-
     fulfillment. The dollars spent on our children in Washington 
     now are well worth the rewards both they and America will 
     receive in the long run.

  Schools throughout the country are working to help students with 
special needs reach their full potential. This amendment will help them 
and will provide additional funding that we should use to support 
classrooms.
  Let's show the educators in Yakima and across the country, and 
parents like John Cady, that we will fully fund our share of special 
education.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin-Hagel 
amendment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
  I have been a strong supporter of full funding for IDEA for many 
years and hope that this amendment finally will realize that goal.
  This Congress, I joined Senators Harkin and Hagel and many others as 
an original co-sponsor of S. 466, to fully fund IDEA.
  Last Congress, Senator Jeffords and I twice offered budget amendments 
to fully fund IDEA, and I have offered many measures over the years to 
increase funding for IDEA.
  The Harkin-Hagel amendment offers Congress the opportunity to fulfill 
our goal of funding 40 percent of the cost of educating children with 
disabilities and to strengthen our support for children, parents, and 
local schools.
  When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we set a goal of helping States 
meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with 
disabilities a free, appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of 
those costs.
  We have made great strides toward that goal in the last few years, 
having doubled Federal funding over the past five years. Nevertheless, 
we still only provide 15 percent of IDEA costs.
  In my own state of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars to fund special education programs, we are facing a 
funding shortfall. In our towns, the situation is even more difficult. 
Too often, our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs 
of their students with disabilities.
  The costs being borne by local communities and school districts are 
rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special 
education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular 
education costs. Our schools need our help.
  Of course, no one in Connecticut, or in any state or community in our 
country would question the value of ensuring every child the equal 
access to education that he or she is guaranteed by our Constitution. 
The only question is how best to do that--and a large part of the 
answer is in this legislation. This amendment would demonstrate that 
our commitment to universal access is matched by our commitment to 
doing everything we can to helping states and schools provide that 
access.
  And, this amendment will help not only our children and schools, it 
will help entire communities, by easing their tax burden. By our 
failure to meet our goal of fully funding IDEA, we force local 
taxpayers--homeowners and small businesspeople--to pay the higher taxes 
that these services require. That's especially a problem in 
Connecticut, where so much of education is paid for through local 
property taxes.
  If we're going to talk about the importance of tax relief for average 
Americans, there are few more important steps we can take than adopting 
this amendment. It will go far to alleviate the tax burden that these 
people and businesses bear today.
  Last year, the National Governors' Association wrote me that 
``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take 
to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new 
budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the 
federal portion of IDEA.''
  Over the next ten years, we're looking at a $2.7 trillion non-Social 
Security, non-Medicare surplus. I think that fully funding IDEA is one 
of the most productive ways that we can use a small part of that 
surplus.

[[Page 6917]]

  I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this 
amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with 
disabilities. Because, I am tired of the false dichotomy that many 
people perceive between parents of children without disabilities and 
parents of children with disabilities.
  By fully funding the Federal share of IDEA, and easing the financial 
burden on states and schools, we can stop talking about ``children with 
disabilities'' and ``children without disabilities,'' and start talking 
instead about all children, period.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in favor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very grateful to Senators Harkin and 
Hagel for proposing this amendment. It is very important. It is a 
promise long overdue.
  If we look at what has happened since we created this program, which 
essentially is a mandate to the schools to ensure that they take care 
of the disabled children in their school districts, we have fallen far 
short of our commitment to those children and to those schools. Every 
one of us knows this, regardless of whether we are from Illinois or 
California, east coast, west coast, North, South.
  The fact is, if you look at the chart behind me, what you see is that 
in 1996, for example, we voted $2.3 billion to help fund this program 
for our disabled children when in fact our commitment really was for 
$12.7 billion. It goes right through: In 2001, $6.3 billion. Remember, 
we added quite a lot, but it still is far short of the $17 billion we 
promised.
  This amendment is about fulfilling a commitment and a promise to our 
disabled children and also to the school districts all across this 
country that are doing so well at taking care of the children. As a 
matter of fact, if you look at the results of this IDEA program, these 
children are doing so much better. Fewer of them are dropping out. They 
are living up to their potential. This is an important and a good 
program.
  I will show this other chart that illustrates in another way the 
unfulfilled promise that has occurred. This is mandatory spending for 
our school districts. Yet that whole inner part of our graph shows how 
we have had an unfulfilled promise. But we will gradually begin to 
fulfill this promise with this IDEA authorization that this amendment 
would bring us, until we get to the point in several years where the 
need and the Federal money, 40 percent of the program, actually meet 
and we are meeting our commitment.
  For too many years we made too many empty promises. I know Senator 
Kennedy believes strongly in this regard. I was pleased he asked if I 
would say a few words. By committing to this level of funding, we are 
not only keeping a promise, which is the moral and right thing to do, 
but we are helping the children who most need our help.
  Again, I hope we have a very good vote in favor of the amendment. It 
is extremely important that we keep our promise to these children.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand all time has expired on our 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two amendments are being considered 
concurrently.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back on the Harkin-Hagel amendment that is now at the desk, and 
I ask consent that the question be put to the Senate regarding that 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, may we add to that request 
that the time until 4 o'clock be evenly divided between the majority 
and minority to speak on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Iowa modify his request 
accordingly?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will modify the request accordingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 360, as modified, 
offered by the Senators from Nebraska and Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 360), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I compliment the Senators from Iowa and 
Nebraska. We need to do more legislating on a bipartisan basis. This is 
a very important amendment that was accepted in this manner, with the 
unanimous consent of the Senate. That says it all. This should set a 
good tone for the rest of this bill. The reason I asked that the time 
be set aside, there are some Members who still want to come and speak 
on this subject. It is very important. Senator Wellstone wanted to 
speak, as do others. I wanted to make sure they could do that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was meeting with some people from the 
small business community. I was an original cosponsor of this very 
important IDEA amendment.
  I congratulate Senators Harkin and Hagel. I understand we actually 
had a voice vote on this amendment. I also congratulate Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and others who were involved in drafting and 
passing this critical piece of legislation.
  I point out to colleagues that by making IDEA part of mandatory 
spending and not leaving it up to the appropriations process year to 
year, we have done something very significant. In the State of 
Minnesota, if we have automatic funding for IDEA--and I think we get to 
fully funding it over a 7-year period--then we are going to have about 
$169 million for education in Minnesota.
  This is extremely important. I am proud to be an original cosponsor. 
The voice vote is a good thing but it makes me nervous; a voice vote is 
an indication of strong support, which is what I take it to be in this 
case. But I also must assert how extremely important it is that this, 
of course, stay in the bill through the conference committee. The word 
from the Senate today on this question is one of clear, unanimous 
support.
  Speaking for my colleague, Senator Dayton, he is going to have an 
amendment next week--and I will join him--that will accelerate the 
timetable for funding IDEA. He feels strongly about it. He campaigned 
on this issue and believes it is a longstanding commitment we have not 
met. I could not agree with him more.
  But for today, this is an extraordinary first step the Senate has 
taken. I congratulate everyone involved.
  In particular, I congratulate Senators Harkin and Hagel. I know this 
is

[[Page 6918]]

near and dear to Senator Harkin's heart because he has been, maybe more 
than anyone in the Senate, the strongest advocate for children with 
special needs. There is some poetry and justice to the fact that 
Senator Harkin has led the way on this issue of funding.
  I am proud of what the Senate has done today. I hope with this and on 
a whole lot of other amendments we will continue to dramatically change 
and improve this bill to the point where we are really doing well for 
education and children. I will take it 1 day at a time or 1 hour at a 
time. This was important action. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business''.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express the appreciation of all of us 
to Senator Hagel and Senator Harkin and their staffs and all those who 
have been part of the effort to bring about this extraordinary and 
incredibly important resolution that will result in hundreds of 
thousands of children having better opportunities for their future. 
This action that was taken here today sends an enormous message of help 
to many children who are growing up, not only with the challenges and 
needs that normal children have, but who have the additional burdens of 
some physical or mental disability or challenge.
  It will make an enormous difference to their lives. It will make an 
incredible difference to their parents' lives. It will make an 
extraordinary difference to those who care for these children. I think 
it is really the Senate at its best. So I thank those two leaders. It 
seems to me you probably do not have to do much more than that, to have 
had a very great mark on the lives of many people in this country.
  I salute them both. This adds a very important, special, and extra 
dimension to this legislation. It will take time for the American 
people to understand it, but it will make an important difference.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question? Does the Senator 
from Massachusetts agree that it also sets a very good tone for this 
very important piece of legislation that one of the most important 
amendments this bill could have was offered on a bipartisan basis and 
approved on a bipartisan basis? Doesn't it set a good tone for the rest 
of the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. It certainly does. I appreciate the Senator mentioning 
that. The underlying blueprint reflects the best judgment of Members on 
both sides of the aisle. It is a blueprint which I strongly support.
  The real gap, as the Senator heard, is placing enormous demands on 
schools, on teachers, and on children. We need to have the resources 
for the children. That requires funding, and we still are not there on 
that particular issue.
  But certainly with regard to the special needs children, this has 
been an extraordinarily bipartisan effort. That is of incredible 
importance to this country. I congratulate our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. This is a very sound, bipartisan effort. We are 
enormously grateful for their initiatives and for the result.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Kennedy in 
congratulating Senators Hagel and Harkin on their amendment with 
respect to IDEA. This amendment will guarantee America's 16,000 school 
districts a long overdue increase in special education funding.
  The amendment proposes to fully fund part B of the IDEA over the next 
6 years.
  One of my first legislative tasks, when I was a freshman Congressman 
in 1975, was to work on the first federal legislation to guarantee a 
free and appropriate public education for children with disabilities.
  Public Law 94-142, later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, was passed in response to numerous court decisions 
involving lawsuits against a majority of the states, and growing 
concerns about the unconstitutional treatment of children with 
disabilities.
  In passing this legislation, it was Congress' intent to define a 
state's obligation to students with disabilities residing in the State.
  In crafting Public Law 94-142, Congress looked at the national 
average per pupil expenditure and estimated that it would cost 
approximately twice as much to educate children with disabilities as it 
would to educate other children.
  At that time, 26 years ago, Congress pledged to assist states and 
localities in meeting the needs of students with disabilities by 
providing federal funding to cover 40 percent of the average student 
cost.
  Although numerous studies conducted since 1975 have verified that it 
costs at least twice as much to educate children with disabilities, 
Congress has never provided more than 14.9 percent of the average per 
pupil expenditure.
  If we were funding 40 percent of the costs educating students as 
promised in 1975, we would have appropriated $17 billion for Part B of 
IDEA for fiscal year 2001. The $6.3 billion that we did appropriate for 
fiscal year 2001 falls far short of that commitment.
  While I commend Congress for increasing the appropriation for Part B 
of IDEA over the years since 1996, it frustrates me to no end that we 
still fall so far short of meeting our 26 year old commitment to fund 
out 40% of the costs.
  However, this amendment will have a far greater impact than simply 
helping students with disabilities. With the Federal Government's 
failure to live up to its obligation under IDEA, State and local 
governments have been forced to incur almost all of the additional 
costs associated with educating children with disabilities and putting 
undue stress on such things as property taxes.
  Money that might have been directed to additional training for 
teachers, to hiring new teachers, to increasing salaries to retain high 
quality teachers, or to repairing schools, has instead gone to meeting 
part of the Federal Government's obligation under IDEA.
  This amendment provides increased flexibility to states and 
localities by modifying the provisions that were included in the 1997 
reauthorization of IDEA which permit a local education agency to treat 
up to 20 percent of the increase in the appropriation over the 
preceding fiscal year's appropriation as local funds.
  Currently, a State or locality must maintain their share of the 
annual special education spending levels regardless of the amount of 
the Federal contribution.
  Our amendment would give local education agencies the flexibility to 
use local funds in an amount up to 55 percent of the increased funding 
over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for other local needs. In 
passing this amendment, we will be increasing our Federal commitment to 
meeting the needs of students with disabilities, and we will be giving 
local communities the flexibility to use local tax dollars that are 
currently meeting the Federal Government obligation for special 
education, for other local purposes and to reduce the stress on 
property taxes.




  While I think the reforms proposed in the BEST Act are critical to 
overall reform in our education system, I feel it is unfair for us to 
demand more of state and local educators when we have failed so badly 
in meeting our obligation to assist in funding special education.
  Without question, we need to dramatically improve the education we 
provide to all of our children. Some of this will come through the 
increased accountability and flexibility we provide in the BEST Act.
  Forty percent of our 4th grade students are not proficient in 
reading. Our 12th grade students come in near the bottom of 
international exams in mathematics and science.
  The crisis we face in math and science was recently underscored by 
the work of the Glenn Commission. Many of its recommendations, which 
were also supported by President Bush,

[[Page 6919]]

have been incorporated in the BEST Act.
  But training and retaining high quality math and science teachers 
requires money, especially when schools are competing in a tight market 
for their skills.
  Turning our schools around will not be easy, and it cannot be done on 
the cheap. This amendment to fully fund IDEA should help us achieve the 
reform we all seek. We owe our children nothing less.
  Increasing special education funding is a top priority for many 
disability groups, for teachers, for school boards throughout the 
country, for local education agencies, for governors, and for children 
with disabilities and their families.
  I have a petition from every school board in my State. Vermont 
schools have made it clear to me again and again that their number one 
priority is to fully fund IDEA. These petitions serve as a sobering 
reminder of my responsibility to the children, and families, and the 
schools in my State.
  I have no doubt that each and every one of us has heard similar 
messages from your state education agencies, local education agencies, 
and school boards, and from the families of children with disabilities.
  This amendment is a win-win for everyone. Children with disabilities 
will get the services they need.
  There will be more money in local school districts to hire personnel 
and to train or retrain personnel to work with children with 
disabilities.
  Schools will be able to provide more support to general education 
teachers who have children with disabilities in their classrooms.
  More money will be freed up for other purposes such as general 
education reform initiatives chosen by local communities.
  School boards will no longer feel as though they are pitting the 
needs of one group of students against another.
  Finally, with predictable, substantial increases in IDEA funds and 
expanded flexibility, school districts will be better able to undertake 
thoughtful planning.
  Over the last few months, I have heard references to the need to 
fully fund special education almost every day that Congress has been in 
session.
  Our country is currently enjoying thoughts of a projected 5.7-
trillion-dollar budget surplus over the next ten years. We are 
discussing over a trillion dollar tax cut. The presence of this large 
surplus and the possibility of providing substantial tax cuts provides 
Congress with the unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the commitment 
that Congress made 26 years ago in passing Pub. L. 94-142. If not now, 
when?
  The time for rhetoric is passed. The time to act is now. I'm glad the 
Senate has agreed to fully fund IDEA and make good on the promise we 
made over 26 years ago.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont has certainly not 
let the people of Vermont down who have been asking for his help on 
this important issue. We have a long way to go on this bill. We have to 
take the wins when we get them. This is a tremendous win, and we could 
not have accomplished it but for advocacy of the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Vermont yield me several minutes of time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
  Mr. CARPER. Terrific. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I serve today in the Senate, but for the 
last 8 years I served as the Governor of Delaware, and for several of 
those years as the vice chairman and chairman of the National 
Governors' Association. I sometimes still think a little bit as a 
Governor. On behalf of the Governors of this country in all 50 States, 
probably, I give a special thank you to those who made possible the 
adoption of an amendment in this Chamber today that would provide for 
full funding of IDEA, to meet the longstanding obligation from the 
Congress for programs throughout the country that are funded in this 
way.
  I cannot recall how many Governors' meetings I sat in where one 
Governor after another--Democrats and Republicans, from one end of the 
country to another--would say, if the Federal Government would simply 
meet its obligations under the Individuals With Disabilities Act, if 
they would only do that, we would be able to meet some of our other 
needs in our schools--whether the needs are small class sizes, extra 
learning time, or technology in our classrooms. The Federal obligation 
is that we would pay 40 percent of the cost of educating these 
children. Today we provide less than 15 percent of the cost of 
educating these children.
  We have taken an important step in the Senate toward meeting that 
obligation. But it is only one step. It needs to be followed by other 
steps when we go to conference with the House, to make sure that what 
emerges from that conference committee, and what we ultimately vote on, 
is a final compromise containing this provision. If we do that, then 
the Governors of those 50 States and the parents--parents of hundreds 
of thousands of children--and the teachers in our schools will stand up 
and applaud.
  I also say that as this bill comes to us today, I am encouraged. It 
is not a perfect bill, but it is one that offers the prospect of 
additional investments from the Federal Government for our schools. It 
offers that money with a bit more flexibility than is the case under 
current law. It makes it clear that we offer that additional money 
targeted where the needs are the greatest, but it offers that money 
more flexibly and demands results.
  As we look more closely at the accountability provisions in this 
legislation, once testing begins in earnest in the various States, in 
accordance with annual testing and in accordance with the standards 
adopted by the various States, there are consequences that come to bear 
for schools that do not make progress in accordance with the schedule 
agreed to, adopted by the individual States.
  If a school is not making progress in meeting its own stated goals by 
the end of the fourth year--if a school continues to fail its 
students--a number of things will happen. One is that those students in 
that failing school must be offered the right to go to another public 
school, where transportation will be provided by the school that is 
failing, by the school district that is failing, using up to 15 percent 
of their title I moneys.
  There are also three other things that must happen to that school 
that fails for the fourth year in a row. One, it has to be closed and 
reconstituted as a charter school, or, two, closed and reconstituted 
with a new administration and with a new faculty, or, three, turned 
over to the State or some profitable enterprise, commercial enterprise, 
to run the school--those three options.
  I simply remind my colleagues, as we move past the adoption of the 
funding for IDEA, we have to keep in mind the accountability 
provisions. We have focused on more money and more flexibility, and I 
support that. But on the accountability issue, if children are really 
going to have the ability to choose another public school, we have to 
make sure we include in this bill assistance to States and school 
districts across America to enable them to adopt public school choice 
statewide. It is not easy and it is not free.
  Secondly, if we are really serious about charter schools being a 
viable

[[Page 6920]]

option for schools that fail 4 years in a row, we need to provide 
assistance, including brick-and-mortar assistance, so that those 
charter schools can be successful, so the kids going to those schools 
will have a fighting chance to get the kind of education they did not 
previously receive.
  I say to Senators Harkin and Hagel, who have worked for weeks on the 
legislation to increase IDEA funding and to make sure we meet our fair 
share of that burden, job well done.
  To the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the committee, and to 
Senator Kennedy, who has been very supportive, I give my thanks as 
well.
  On behalf of all Governors who have sought this support, sought this 
day, this kind of victory, it is a day to salute and celebrate for 
their children, for their students, and all of America.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am not going to propound an additional 
unanimous consent request at this time, although we are working with 
the leaders on both sides of the aisle so we, hopefully, can have a 
further agreement entered into between 4:30 and 5. We will go ahead and 
be able at that time, hopefully, to lock in the sequence of amendments 
that will come after these two.
  I announce to the Senate that following this vote, I will ask the 
Senate to begin debate on the budget resolution conference report 
notwithstanding receipt of the papers. Assuming consent is granted, I 
would expect several hours of debate tonight on this important 
conference report to be followed by a vote on the adoption of the 
budget conference report.
  Therefore, Members should be on notice that a vote is expected to 
occur late tonight on the budget unless an agreement is entered into to 
have it at a specific time in the morning. We expect to continue 
working tonight and go into the night, and we will get exact timing of 
when we might expect another vote hopefully within the next few minutes 
or within the hour.
  If consent cannot be granted to begin debate before the paperwork 
enters the Senate, then a vote would have to be scheduled tomorrow.
  I hope all Senators will cooperate, and I have every indication that 
we will be able to get an agreement so we can vote on the budget 
resolution this evening.
  Then we will also be able to enter further agreements with regard to 
additional amendments.
  I believe we are ready to go to a vote at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
359 offered by the Senator from Maine. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 359) was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 361 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 361 to amendment No. 358.

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

  (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to certain assessments)

       On page 47, beginning with line 13, strike all through page 
     48, line 14, and insert the following:
       ``(i) a State may defer the commencement, or suspend the 
     administration, of the assessments described in this 
     paragraph, that were not required prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Better Education for Students and Teachers 
     Act, for 1 year, for each year for which the amount 
     appropriated for grants under section 6203(a) is less than--

       ``(I) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(II) $380,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(III) $390,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(IV) $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(V) $410,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(VI) $420,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(VII) $430,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and

       ``(ii) the Secretary may permit a State to commence the 
     assessments, that were required by amendments made to this 
     paragraph by the Better Education for Students and Teachers 
     Act, in school year 2006-2007, if the State demonstrates to 
     the Secretary that exceptional or uncontrollable 
     circumstances, such as a natural disaster or a precipitous or 
     unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the local 
     educational agency or school, prevent full implementation of 
     the assessments in school year 2005-2006 and that the State 
     will administer such assessments during school year 2006-
     2007.

       On page 778, strike lines 5 through 10, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) Grants for State Assessments and Related 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) State grants authorized.--From amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (3) the Secretary shall award grants to 
     States to enable the States to pay the costs of--
       ``(A) developing assessments and standards required by 
     amendments made to this Act by the Better Education for 
     Students and Teachers Act; and
       ``(B) other activities described in this part or related to 
     ensuring accountability for results in the State's public 
     elementary schools or secondary schools, and local 
     educational agencies, such as--
       ``(i) developing content and performance standards, and 
     aligned assessments, in subjects other than those assessments 
     that were required by amendments made to section 1111 by the 
     Better Education for Students and Teachers Act; and
       ``(ii) administering the assessments required by amendments 
     made to section 1111 by the Better Education for Students and 
     Teachers Act.
       ``(2) Allocations to states.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount appropriated to carry 
     out this subsection for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     first allocate $3,000,000 to each State.
       ``(B) Remainder.--The Secretary shall allocate any 
     remaining funds among the States on the basis of their 
     respective numbers of children enrolled in grades 3 through 8 
     in public elementary schools and secondary schools.
       ``(C) Definition of state.--For the purpose of this 
     subsection, the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     carrying out paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums

[[Page 6921]]

     as may be necessary for each of the succeeding 6 fiscal 
     years.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the role.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it has been so hard to get this very 
important education bill up and actually moving that I hate to let any 
time go by without making some further progress. So we have been 
working on both sides of the aisle, and I believe we have an agreement 
to allow us to proceed with the Jeffords amendment next and then go to 
the Dodd amendment after that.
  Mr. DODD. Dodd-Collins.
  Mr. LOTT. No. I prefer to say just the Dodd amendment.
  Mr. DODD. I am just trying to help out.
  Mr. LOTT. You are giving too much credit here, I say to the Senator. 
No.
  We would try to have the vote on both of these at 7:30. I think that 
is more than enough time. I hope that maybe even some time could be 
yielded back. That way we could make progress. Senators could attend to 
other business and then would be prepared to be here for those two 
votes between 7 and 7:30, or not later than 7:30.
  I also had intended--and hope to get agreement--to proceed to the 
conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, 
immediately following those two votes. I was not going to try to get a 
time specified as to exactly how we would use the time or when a vote 
would occur. I understand that the Democrats are not prepared to agree 
to that at this point. And I cannot force it at this point.
  I do think it is very important we get an agreement on the budget 
resolution as soon as we can so Members can know what to expect 
tomorrow, and/or Monday, and so that we could get this completed so we 
can move on with our annual appropriations bills and also our 
reconciliation bill.
  So I now ask unanimous consent that the next two first-degree 
amendments to be offered to S. 1 be the following, and not subject to 
second-degree amendments: Jeffords No. 361 and the Dodd-Collins 
amendment.
  I further ask consent that votes relative to these amendments occur 
at 7:30 in the order in which they were offered, and the time between 
now and then be equally divided and run concurrently on both 
amendments, and there be 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, other 
than to say that we appreciate the leader not asking for the last 
paragraph of the request that is written on the paper in front of me. 
We are trying to work that out.
  As the distinguished majority leader knows, we are in consultation 
with the ranking member, Senator Conrad. Senator Daschle has been in 
touch with him. We are going to try to work something out as soon as we 
can.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           amendment no. 361

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is right. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my amendment will establish the Federal Government as 
a full partner in the assessments that are required under this bill.
  Earlier today, the Senate went on record, after 26 years, to fulfill 
its responsibility under IDEA. My amendment will ensure we do the same 
on testing, only we do it today, not 26 years later.
  If we want the States to undertake these extensive testing 
requirements, we should be willing to pay for them. Each Senator I have 
spoken to supports the thrust of this amendment--that we avoid creating 
yet another unfunded mandate, especially at a time when we are asking 
more and more of our schools.
  Good tests are not cheap. They must be aligned with the State's 
standard. They should measure higher order thinking, and they should 
constantly be improved. This bill will not just require testing in 
reading and math but will also require standards in history and science 
and an assessment later on in science.
  My amendment calls for close to $400 million in spending each and 
every year to help pay for the cost of developing and implementing 
assessments. If the money is not forthcoming, the State's obligation 
will be suspended until Congress meets its obligation.
  The exact cost of testing cannot be known. I can tell my colleagues 
with confidence that this amendment will cover the great majority of 
those costs. I urge my colleagues to give me their support.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the committee 
for drafting this very important amendment to the bill.
  I have been concerned that we could be imposing an expensive new 
mandate on State and local governments through the testing requirements 
of this bill. Testing is very important, but I think we need to provide 
support. The chairman's amendment will ensure that the funding is 
provided to help States and local school districts develop the very 
best possible tests in order to assess the performance of their 
students and that we will be providing a good chunk of the money to do 
so.
  I commend the Senator for his amendment and for understanding that we 
need an assurance that that funding will be forthcoming before imposing 
this requirement.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Vermont for coming forth with this 
important amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who desires 
to participate in the discussion. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Vermont for his 
amendment. I would add myself as a cosponsor, but I don't want to get 
into trouble. I will tell him I am for it and cast my vote when the 
time comes. He has been a wonderful leader on education issues for many 
years and cares about it very deeply. He comes from a great tradition 
in his home State of Vermont where Members of this body have dedicated 
a good part of their careers to improving the quality of education. I 
commend him not only for the amendment he has just introduced but also 
for his tireless efforts over the years.


                 amendment no. 365 to amendment no. 358

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk offered by 
myself and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and Senator 
Landrieu, among others, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Ms. Collins, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Corzine, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reed, 
     and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 365.


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

[[Page 6922]]



  (Purpose: To increase the authorization of appropriations for local 
                       educational agency grants)

       On page 31, strike line 23 through line 2 on page 32, and 
     insert the following:
       ``(a) Local Educational Agency Grants.--
       ``(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     `Equal Educational Opportunity Act'.
       ``(2) Authorization.--For the purpose of carrying out part 
     A, other than section 1120(e), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated--
       ``(A) $15,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(B) $18,240,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(C) $21,480,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(D) $24,720,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(E) $27,960,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(F) $31,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(G) $34,440,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(H) $37,680,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(I) $40,920,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(J) $44,164,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes. Others may arrive 
shortly. In fact, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment on 
behalf of myself and my good friend and colleague from New England, 
Senator Collins of Maine, among others; Senator Landrieu of Louisiana; 
my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman; and others who have 
been supporters of seeing to it that we have the goal--that is what 
this amendment is; there are no mandates in this amendment--of full 
funding for title I over the next 10 years.
  I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record showing 
how title I funds are presently allocated and what this amendment would 
do if it were an appropriation--which it is not--and were to be 
adopted, in terms of the number of children who would then benefit 
under this amendment if it were to receive full funding.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  ACTUAL FY2000 (2000-2001) ESEA TITLE I, PART A GRANTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Total basic,
                                              Children counted   Total basic and                                       concentration,   Total grants per
                                                in allocating     concentration    Accountability   Capital expenses   accountability,    child counted
                                               part A grants,        grants            grants                            and capital     for allocations
                                                   FY 2000                                                             expenses grants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...............................        10,266,051   $7,807,397,0900      $134,000,000       $12,000,000    $7,953,397,000           $774.73
Alabama.....................................           192,377       129,133,448         2,239,838            25,918       131,399,204            683.03
Alaska......................................            16,346        19,089,449           331,109                62        19,420,620          1,188.10
Arizona.....................................           191,360       121,896,690         2,114,315           131,143       124,142,148            648.74
Arkansas....................................           121,258        79,070,702         1,371,492            37,976        80,480,170            663.71
California..................................         1,440,856       972,870,300        16,874,570         1,830,602       991,575,472            688.18
Colorado....................................            94,208        71,304,340         1,236,784            28,218        72,569,342            770.31
Connecticut.................................            79,352        70,351,232         1,220,252            97,270        71,668,754            903.18
Delaware....................................            17,423        21,268,392           368,903                 0        21,637,295          1,241.88
District of Columbia........................            28,811        25,547,302           443,121           197,710        26,188,133            908.96
Florida.....................................           537,170       363,365,948         6,302,633           169,492       369,838,073            688.49
Georgia.....................................           315,471       210,267,990         3,647,127            29,150       213,944,267            678.17
Hawaii......................................            27,586        20,157,643           349,637             7,521        20,514,801            743.67
Idaho.......................................            34,959        23,516,224           407,892            10,069        23,934,185            684.64
Illinois....................................           386,359       326,710,586         5,666,840           626,443       333,003,869            861.90
Indiana.....................................           146,101       116,421,506         2,019,347           139,161       118,580,014            811.63
Iowa........................................            65,848        53,287,278           924,275           114,797        54,326,350            825.03
Kansas......................................            73,562        56,306,231           976,639            87,760        57,370,630            779.89
Kentucky....................................           170,233       127,790,039         2,216,536            91,428       130,098,003            764.23
Louisiana...................................           260,808       191,235,915         3,317,013           330,407       194,883,335            747.23
Maine.......................................            34,734        31,963,499           554,411            10,007        32,527,917            936.49
Maryland....................................           114,292       102,603,524         1,779,672            75,889       104,459,085            913.97
Massachusetts...............................           149,980       153,374,071         2,660,294           568,641       156,603,006          1,044.16
Michigan....................................           348,377       334,366,422         5,799,632           277,452       340,443,506            977.23
Minnesota...................................           103,181        87,985,945         1,526,128           244,884        89,746,957            869.90
Mississippi.................................           156,879       124,796,295         2,164,609           129,714       127,090,618            810.12
Missouri....................................           190,061       134,785,325         2,337,870           253,523       137,376,718            722.80
Montana.....................................            35,471        26,320,082           456,525            21,940        26,798,547            755.51
Nebraska....................................            38,316        32,206,952           558,634            83,658        32,849,244            857.32
Nevada......................................            37,365        23,321,774           404,519             4,910        23,731,203            635.12
New Hampshire...............................            16,079        19,697,776           341,661             7,458        20,046,895          1,246.77
New Jersey..................................           184,403       177,216,019         3,073,836           400,516       180,690,371            979.87
New Mexico..................................           108,931        66,239,892         1,148,940            72,346        67,461,178            619.30
New York....................................           811,011       731,360,429        12,685,548         1,904,316       745,950,293            919.78
North Carolina..............................           238,302       150,972,799         2,618,644            10,193       153,601,636            644.57
North Dakota................................            18,999        19,820,740           343,793            25,234        20,189,767          1,062.68
Ohio........................................           339,503       302,371,742         5,244,680           458,381       308,074,803            907.43
Oklahoma....................................           153,064        96,337,713         1,670,991            20,448        98,029,152            640.45
Oregon......................................            79,615        68,818,656         1,193,669            46,677        70,059,002            879.97
Pennsylvania................................           354,835       335,858,213         5,825,507         1,382,601       343,066,321            966.83
Rhode Island................................            27,324        24,654,345           427,633            89,998        25,171,976            921.24
South Carolina..............................           159,793       100,733,900         1,747,243             7,521       102,488,664            641.38
South Dakota................................            27,908        19,734,301           342,294            18,335        20,094,930            720.04
Tennessee...................................           191,731       134,693,146         2,336,271            24,488       137,053,905            714.82
Texas.......................................           984,807       665,787,285        11,548,173           453,346       677,788,804            688.25
Utah........................................            39,442        35,293,180           612,165             7,645        35,912,990            910.53
Vermont.....................................            14,064        17,738,863           307,683            15,352        18,061,898          1,284.26
Virginia....................................           178,979       118,413,150         2,053,892            40,027       120,507,069            673.30
Washington..................................           139,324       108,939,573         1,889,572            38,659       110,867,804            795.76
West Virginia...............................            85,656        73,479,762         1,274,517            18,832        74,773,111            872.95
Wisconsin...................................           133,180       125,861,555         2,183,086           285,594       128,330,235            963.58
Wyoming.....................................            13,851        17,754,152           307,948             7,893        18,069,993          1,304.60
Puerto Rico.................................           556,506       262,415,735         4,551,637         1,038,395       268,005,767            481.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DODD. I note my good friend from Alabama is in the chair. His is 
always the first State on the list. But just to make the point, 
presently there would be some 10 million children in the country who 
would be served by title I out of the 55 million children who go to 
school. In the case of Alabama, there would be 192,377 children who 
would be served if we had full funding. That number today is about a 
third of that number, a third of the 192.
  If we go down the list--and what I have provided in the first column 
is what full funding would provide--and look at the number under your 
State and then calculate what one-third of that number is, you would 
get a rough idea of what the present number of children is who are 
being served. Of course, the number itself reflects what full funding 
would amount to in all 50 States. That is what this chart provides.
  As we know, our society is based on the promise of equal opportunity, 
not equal success. None of us bears an obligation to guarantee the 
success of anyone, but we all share the common goal that everyone ought 
to have an equal opportunity to succeed.

[[Page 6923]]

  This amendment, offered on behalf of myself and my colleague from 
Maine, and others, is designed to see to it that, as we ask for in this 
legislation, as we will over the coming days, there be greater 
accountability at the local level--in fact, a requirement of additional 
testing--so that we don't just socially promote students through the 
educational process; that we have some data about how students are 
doing--taking their temperature, in effect.
  Imagine, if you would, taking a temperature every year to see how the 
patient is doing. We know that just taking the temperature doesn't make 
a child better. We may get some idea of their health, but we don't 
really know or are not really providing any medicine that they need in 
order to improve the quality of their health.
  What title I does, and what it has done historically, is to provide 
that needed medicine, which I will demonstrate in these remarks, to the 
most disadvantaged children in our society. Title I represents about 
one-third, or a half, almost, of the entire Federal dollar commitment 
to education in the country. It is what our primary responsibility has 
been over the last 35 years since we decided to enact the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.
  Just to back up a little bit and put this in perspective, the Federal 
Government, when it comes to elementary and secondary education--this 
may come as a shock to some--allocates between one-half and 1 percent 
of our entire Federal budget to elementary and secondary education. If 
we add higher education, that number jumps to about 2 percent of the 
entire Federal budget. If we exclude higher education and just take 
elementary and secondary, it is between one-half and 1 percent of the 
entire Federal budget. That is our commitment.
  If you take the amount of money being spent on elementary and 
secondary education, for every dollar that is spent, that one-half of 1 
percent amounts to somewhere between 4 and 7 cents on the dollar. In 
other words, for every dollar that is spent to improve or invest in the 
elementary and secondary education needs of America's children, about 
94 or 95 cents comes from our local communities or our States, and 
about 5 or 6 cents comes from your Federal Government. That is one-half 
of 1 percent of the Federal budget.
  So when we start talking about title I, which was designed to go to 
the neediest districts in both rural and urban areas, we are talking 
about a sizable percentage of that 4 or 5 cents on the dollar. Yet we 
have never gotten to the full funding of title I since we initiated it 
35 years ago. We are only serving about a third of title I eligible 
children in the country. So what the Senator from Maine, myself, and 
others are saying is that sometime over the next 10 years we have laid 
out a schedule, but obviously the schedule is an authorization subject 
to whatever changes this body and the other body and the President 
would like to adopt. Then we could modify this formula.
  We have laid out a formula for our colleagues that doesn't mandate 
anything. It just sets out a goal and says that as we are going to test 
children, as we are going to ask for greater accountability, we also 
want you to know that we believe as a goal that we ought to fully fund 
title I to give these children a chance to reach their maximum 
potential educationally. That is what this amendment is really designed 
to do.
  Let me lay it out a little bit. Congress passed the ESEA to help 
provide disadvantaged children with an education to enable them to take 
advantage of America's promise of equal opportunity, and the primary 
mechanism for delivering on that promise has been title I grants for 
schools.
  Title I does more than just serve all eligible children. The reason 
why is simple: According to the Congressional Research Service, 
Congress funds title I grants to local education agencies at only about 
one-third of the amount allowed under the formula.
  Twenty percent of schools with poverty levels between 50 and 75 
percent receive no funds at all. Let me repeat that. Twenty percent of 
all the schools in America with poverty levels between 50 and 75 
percent do not receive any title I funds today at all. And 36 percent 
of schools with poverty rates between 35 and 50 percent do not receive 
any funds.
  So it is quite clear that an awful lot of eligible children that are 
clearly disadvantaged, by any standard, are not getting the kind of 
help that we originally envisioned with title I. About one-third are, 
if you take the country as a whole. Some areas get zero.
  So our goal with this amendment, without mandating anything, is to 
say that over the next 10 years we would like to get as close to living 
up to and fulfilling the promise made of serving these children.
  The bill we are debating will impose, as we know, some significant 
testing and accountability standards, many of which I think most 
colleagues support, on States and local schools. I think all of us 
agree--although the devil is in the details--that we need to know how 
students are doing in school and that States and schools need to be 
accountable for educating our children.
  We need to remember that testing and accountability aren't the same 
as reform. They measure reform, or they measure how students are doing, 
but they are not reform in and of themselves. Some of my colleagues 
have said that we should not provide schools with more resources until 
we have implemented these reforms.
  This bill would require schools to set the goal of having all 
children become proficient in reading and math in 10 years. That is 
what the bill says. It only makes sense that we in Congress set a goal 
for ourselves of providing districts with the resources over the 10 
years that they and the students and schools will need to meet the 
goals of proficiency in reading and math. That is reform.
  Some often talk about the importance of communities, not the Federal 
Government, in making decisions about education policy. I don't 
disagree with that at all.
  Mr. President, this is a very important point I want to make here 
because I think this gets lost, and sometimes we talk about titles and 
numbers and programs and you can glaze over the eyes of even the most 
interested listener when you start talking in acronyms and numbers and 
so forth. Average people who even care about education can get lost in 
all of this. But this is a very important point I want to make about 
title I because I think there are a lot of misimpressions about how 
title I funds are allocated and what it means if you get title I funds 
in your town and school.
  Title I funds are used in a completely flexible fashion--completely 
flexible--if you are a qualified district and the students are 
qualified. There has been great flexibility. Schools, for instance, use 
title I funds to hire new teachers and provide them with professional 
development. Title I funds are used to provide new technology in 
schools if the district desires it and thinks that is the best way to 
improve their education. They use title I funds to implement cutting-
edge research based on new academic programs to provide better, more 
intensive instruction in reading and math to students with the greatest 
educational need. They use title I funds to support preschool and 
afterschool activities. They can be used to support any number of other 
activities to increase student achievement.
  The only goal required in the title I that we have ever mandated is 
that they should be designed to reach eligible children and to increase 
student achievement. That is it. So at the local level, if you are a 
qualified student or qualified school district and you are designing a 
program to increase student achievement, then title I funds can be 
used. That is all we really require.
  Despite the rumors and the misinformation about title I, this is not 
some narrowly construed, highly narrow Federal mandate. We really do 
allow great flexibility.
  Contrary to what some have also argued, schools have been 
implementing reforms, and we need to do more to help them. The 
Department of Education 1999 National Assessment of title I, which was 
done, I might add, in consultation with an independent review panel, 
found the following: Since

[[Page 6924]]

1992, national reading performance has improved for nine-year-olds in 
the highest poverty public schools, regaining lost ground in the late 
1980s and early 1990s. Since 1992, math achievement also has improved 
among students in the highest poverty public schools.
  Another study, which I have put up here for the edification of those 
who might like to see it, found in 1999 that students receiving title I 
services increased their reading achievement in 21 of 24 urban 
districts studied, and increased their math achievement in 20 of 24 
urban districts studied.
  Mr. President, it is apparently working. Again, I come back to the 
fact that there were a significant number of school districts where 
students were not receiving any funds. But where they are, it is making 
a difference.
  In 2000, the Rand Corporation found that the largest gains in test 
scores over the last 30 years have been made by African American, 
Hispanic, and white disadvantaged students when title I funds have been 
expended.
  A study published this year concluded that, ``Whenever an inner city 
or poor rural school is found to be achieving outstanding results with 
its students by implementing innovative strategies, these innovations 
are almost invariably funded primarily by title I.''
  Mr. President, these title I funds are making a difference. They 
really make a difference. Our goal is not to mandate these funds, but 
to say that if over the next 10 years we really want to raise the level 
of achievement, and if we are going to test people over the next 10 
years to reach full proficiency in math and reading, our goal is to 
fully fund this program that is making a difference today.
  Some of my colleagues say that although we have spent about $120 
billion on title I since 1965--which is true. Over the last 35 years, 
we have spent about $120 billion in this program--there is still a huge 
achievement gap. There is; they are right. Even the numbers showing 
improvement don't really deserve to be heralded too much because where 
they started from was so low that while it is improvement, it is not a 
level that any one of us would accept as satisfactory, but clearly 
there has been. Therefore, they say, because we spent this amount of 
money and still have an achievement gap, we should not spend any more 
money until we get the reforms.
  Let's keep in mind that title I spending represents only about 3 
percent of all spending on elementary and secondary education 
nationally. Let's not blame all the problems on title I. It is such a 
tiny percentage. Again, you start talking about a dollar being spent, 
and I mentioned that about 5 or 6 cents is the Federal commitment, and 
of the 5 or 6 cents, about 3 cents is title I. So when people say your 
title I money is a waste of money because the 3 cents isn't working, 
remember, there is about 95 cents that we ought to look at in terms of 
where that is going. So title I funds are important.
  Many experts argue that to the extent there is still an achievement 
gap, as I said, title I has kept it from growing even greater. I think 
that is probably a more accurate statement.
  The new Secretary of Education, Secretary Paige, the former 
superintendent of schools in Houston, TX, has often spoken about the 
need to shine a spotlight on those schools so that parents and the 
public will bring pressure to bear where schools aren't doing their 
job.
  I could not agree more. The parents and public have a right to know 
how the schools are doing and a responsibility to get involved. But if 
we do not provide schools with the resources they need to implement 
reforms, then all of the testing and accountability in the world is not 
going to make any difference.
  As my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, has often said--and 
I think it is a good statement--resources without reforms may be a 
waste of money, but reforms without resources are a waste of time. And 
I agree with that statement. Testing and accountability without more 
resources are an unfunded mandate, however well-intentioned.
  No one questions the need for reform and no one should question the 
need for more resources for the full funding of title I. Congress 
passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 36 years ago because 
of the achievement gap, and we need to provide schools with the 
resources to close it.
  This again does not mandate dollars. It sets the goal over 10 years. 
Many agree if we do not have an adequate allocation of resources that 
we may be creating an unfunded mandate, where we are going to shut down 
schools, close the doors, without providing the financial backing that 
is needed.
  As I said, only 2 cents of every dollar go to education, and less 
than that, in fact, if you are talking about elementary and secondary 
education. Eighty percent of American citizens approve more than 
doubling the Federal investment in education in the next 5 years. We 
are talking about a 10-year commitment.
  I know all of us are interested in closing the education gap for 
disadvantaged students. This amendment, while an authorization, is an 
important step in that direction.
  We will have further debates on the appropriations bill down the 
road. There will have to be an agreement struck between the White House 
and Congress, but many of us, Democrats and Republicans, would like to 
go on record that over the next 10 years we ought to try to get it. 
There may be other reasons that get in the way, but sending a message 
to America that we care about this; that as an authorizing bill these 
goals are commendable and deserving of bipartisan support in this body.
  I yield the floor to my colleague from Maine who I know wants to be 
heard. There are several other Members who want to be heard on title I. 
I have already taken more time than I should have. I apologize to my 
colleagues. I thank my colleague from Maine.
  I mentioned earlier my colleague from Vermont who has done so much on 
education issues, but Senator Collins from Maine, from the day she 
arrived, has been committed to these issues.
  There are many reasons why I enjoy my service on the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--I think that is the right 
name. We sometimes change the names of the committees, the education 
committee--but no more significant reason than serving with the Senator 
from Maine whom I have joined on numerous occasions on a variety of 
efforts where we find common ground. We have on this amendment, Mr. 
President, and I am delighted to join her in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. I yield time to my colleague from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I first commend the Senator from 
Connecticut for his extraordinary efforts. He has such a commitment to 
improving the education of disadvantaged children. He has been a leader 
in this effort, and I am very honored and pleased to join him tonight 
as his principal cosponsor of a very important amendment.
  We talked a great deal during the past few days about what the proper 
role is for the Federal Government with regard to education. We all 
agree that States and local communities have the primary responsibility 
for education, but since the mid-1960s, when the Federal Government 
first passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the role of 
the Federal Government has been to promote educational equity, to try 
to narrow that persistent and troubling achievement gap between 
disadvantaged children and their peers. That is the reason the Federal 
Government is involved at all in education. It is to help with the 
education of the poorest children in this country, to help ensure they 
have the same opportunities as children from more affluent families.
  Title I authorizes Federal aid to State and local education agencies 
for the education of these disadvantaged children. Title I grants are 
used to provide supplementary educational and

[[Page 6925]]

other services to low-achieving children attending schools with 
relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families.
  Much has been made of the fact that more than $120 billion has been 
poured in to title I programs over the past 35 years with not much to 
show for results. I understand that argument, and I am concerned that 
we have not made more progress in providing educational opportunities 
to disadvantaged children, but I firmly believe that is about to 
change.
  We are not talking about putting considerably more money and doing 
things in exactly the same manner. We are not talking about pouring 
more money into a failed system. Instead, what we are putting forth 
with this bill is a new approach, a reformed system, a system that sets 
forth the goal of leaving no child behind, including and especially 
those children from disadvantaged families.
  We are talking about having accountability, of holding schools 
responsible for what really counts, and that is improving student 
achievement. We are changing the focus from regulations and rules to 
results. We are asking the right questions. We are asking the question, 
``are our children learning?'' And not, ``Was that form filled out 
correctly?'' That is a fundamentally different approach to education 
policy.
  With the leadership of President Bush and the Members on both sides 
of the aisle, the Senate has produced landmark legislation, the BEST 
Act, legislation that I believe may well be the most important bill we 
consider this year. It is legislation that I believe will help turn 
around many failing schools across America.
  With this act, we are making a fundamental change in our expectations 
for our schools. We are rejecting what President Bush has so eloquently 
called the soft bigotry of low expectations. But along with reforming 
the system, as we are imposing these new requirements and holding 
schools accountable for improved student achievement, we need to 
provide some assistance with the financial aspects of reform.
  The amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Dodd will do just that. 
Our amendment authorizes the Federal Government to provide the poorest 
schools in our country with significant additional funding over the 
next 10 years. Our effort would set the goal of fully funding title I 
programs by the year 2011.
  We may not be able to do it. We may not be able to produce the 
appropriations over the next 10 years that match these authorization 
levels, but shouldn't we set forth the goal of doing so?
  Shouldn't we challenge ourselves, just as we are challenging schools, 
parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, and students all over 
this great Nation to increase their standards, to set high standards 
for our children, and to hold schools accountable for improving student 
achievement?
  Shouldn't we, too, set high standards for ourselves? Shouldn't we 
challenge ourselves to meet the goal of fully funding title I?
  That is what our amendment proposes.
  We should be troubled by the growing achievement gap between 
disadvantaged students and their peers. Recent test results suggest we 
are going in the wrong direction, that the students who are performing 
the worst are actually getting worse. We cannot accept that. We have to 
make the difference.
  The system has failed to narrow this persistent and troubling 
achievement gap over the past 35 years. That is why we need the 
fundamental reforms included in this legislation. But it is also why we 
need to put more resources into the system to support these new 
reforms.
  We have set these challenging goals for the schools of America. Let 
members set an equally challenging goal for ourselves to fully fund 
title I. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to join 
with the Senator from Connecticut and with me in setting this goal for 
America's schools.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Maine for her eloquent statement. 
I know my colleague from Tennessee wants to make some remarks, and I 
yield whatever time he may consume.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have two amendments on the floor now. My 
colleague from Vermont talked 30 minutes ago about an amendment that is 
very important that I want to elaborate on and express my support for, 
while addressing some of the issues that, to me, are very important. It 
is important the American people understand the significance of that 
particular amendment.
  Earlier today we addressed the issue of fulfilling an obligation on 
behalf of our Government, an obligation we made through a mandate 
called IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  As we debated in this body in the past we put a mandate on local 
schools and school districts and on States to fulfill a very important 
obligation. That mandate was to make absolutely sure we didn't leave 
individuals with disabilities behind. In doing that, it imposed certain 
additional costs on the system locally. Yet we never fulfilled our 
obligation in supporting that so-called unfunded mandate. That is 
exactly what it is. We addressed that earlier today.
  In spite of our best efforts over the last 6 years and a true market 
increase in funding, we have a long way to go to address that issue.
  I think this bill, through bipartisan cooperation and the addition to 
the underlying bill worked through the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pension Committee, goes a long way in stressing President Bush's agenda 
of education, looking at local control, accountability, measurable 
standards, and involvement of parents and empowering parents to make 
choices in the best interests of their children, instead of having the 
Federal Government or bureaucrats making those decisions. There will be 
a lot of debate as to whether it went far enough in areas such as 
choice and parental involvement, while others said we went too far.
  It is important to recognize the accountability provisions in this 
bill are strong. They have been strengthened, I believe, after a lot of 
debate in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee and have 
been strengthened through bipartisan efforts of Democrats and 
Republicans and representatives from the administration working very 
hard to make sure whatever we do in terms of streamlining--getting rid 
of red tape, allowing the freedom to innovate--we couple that freedom 
with very strong accountability provisions. These are not block grants 
as we have in the bill elsewhere. These are performance grants. Don't 
just give money to the problem and walk away. We have tried that and it 
does not work. We invest the money and measure the results, and we 
measure the results in a way that it helps not to just identify the 
problem but make the diagnosis specifically as to what the problem is 
so we can fix it. Reward success; do not reward failure. If there is 
failure, further invest if necessary or put in a type of reform in an 
innovative way, that could correct whatever the deficiency.
  What has become apparent to most everyone today is that over the last 
35 years, in spite of very good intentions, we have not made the 
accurate diagnosis as to why the achievement gap is getting worse every 
year and why we are failing to boost the academic achievement of the 
disadvantaged or the underserved, the less fortunate. Looking at 
international comparisons and what progress has been made over the last 
30 years, we have to figure out how to eliminate the achievement gap 
and define it. That means more assessments.
  We will hear people who do not like assessments saying it is a bunch 
of Federal tests we are imposing on local communities, and there is no 
Federal role for that. People will call and say we already have too 
many tests out there and that is not the problem. We are already 
testing our kids four or five times a year.
  It is now apparent for the first time, and this is why the bill is so 
important,

[[Page 6926]]

the accountability, making the diagnosis, identifying the problem, and 
defining it, requires an understanding of where we are today but also 
making comparisons over time. If you just give a test sporadically or 
there is no uniformity to the test, there is no ability to 
longitudinally, year by year, compare and there will be an inadequate 
diagnosis.
  A bunch of results such as A, B, C, D, E, or F, and you will not know 
whether a B in Nashville, TN, is the same in Alaska or down in Florida 
or California.
  All of this requires a degree of standardization but not a Federal 
test. Again, I have talked to people around the country today who are 
calling and asking: Are you going to impose this national Federal test 
designed by bureaucrats or designed by the Department of Education or 
designed by Senators? The answer is no.
  The assessment, however, is critical. We have spent, according to 
Secretary Paige, about $150 billion over the last 35 years, and we have 
hundreds of new programs. In spite of that, too many children are being 
left behind by our education system. That is the problem.
  Now we have to make the diagnosis. It means accountability systems 
and the foundation of making that diagnosis, the foundation of those 
assessments, and the foundation of defining that problem means we have 
to assess, and we have to assess on a regular basis so we can intervene 
at the appropriate time --not just once in the fourth grade, wait 4 
years and test that same individual in the eighth grade because then it 
is too late, and 4 years are lost.
  Thus, in the underlying bill, which I think is critically important, 
we have the annual assessment of all students in reading and math in 
grades 3-8 consistent with President Bush's proposal. That is a 
problem. The problem is out there, and we can define the problem and 
define it earlier. We can track a school or an individual. If they are 
doing OK the first year, worst next year, worst next year, we can 
intervene. Whereas today we cannot intervene because the test that is 
applied, there is no uniformity, and we do not know if the test in the 
eighth grade is the same in the fourth grade, if there is a difference. 
There is no standardization.
  Now, it is critical; this is not a Federal test. We are not designing 
a curriculum. That is dangerous. Everybody will be out there teaching 
just to the test and that will probably not give the results that are 
desired. Therefore, in this bill, it very specifically says that States 
would be free to develop their own assessments, but they have to be 
linked to state standards, No. 1; and No. 2, student achievement 
results must be comparable to year after year after-year--fourth, 
fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. We have to compare year to 
year. It is like looking at the heart, and you take pictures and you 
see parts at a time, and that is useful, but it is really useful to get 
an EKG 1 year, and the next year, and the next year. That is where the 
powerful diagnosis is actually made.
  States would be required, in addition, to report those assessment 
results. Can you do a test and get accurate data to make the diagnosis? 
Unless you give that information to somebody who can use it to 
intervene or correct, once again, it might just be a bunch of test 
results sitting on a shelf that nobody looks at, an accurate test, a 
cross-sectional and longitudinal comparison. Then you have to require 
reporting of that information--this is in the bill--to the parents. 
Again, the importance of this bill is it empowers parents to make 
choices, to be involved, to make demands, to hold teachers accountable 
or schools accountable, again consistent with the principles of 
President George W. Bush. Those results are also reported and spelled 
out to the public in the bill.
  The test results also--again, it is important because of this 
achievement gap--must be disaggregated. You don't want to report in the 
aggregate how good a school or district or State does. You want to be 
able to take out that data, dissect it out. Therefore, in the bill we 
say that you have to do what is called disaggregation. Instead of 
lumping all the data together, you want to be able to take it apart, 
again so you can more specifically and better identify what the 
deficiencies might be, or what groups are doing well, what groups are 
not doing well. So there will be this so-called disaggregation or 
further dissection of the information and data by socioeconomic status, 
by disability, by language proficiency--all of which you can address in 
innovative and creative ways if there is failure.
  All of that brings me back to the Jeffords amendment. That is because 
those are mandates of a sort, but they are mandates that are carried 
out at the local level--again, not a Federal test but a State-designed 
or locally-designed test. But it is a mandate. You have to give the 
test. You have to give the paper. You have to wait the hour or two. You 
have to grade it. You have to develop the test. You have to make sure 
it is a useful test in a longitudinally and cross-sectional way.
  In 1994 when we addressed the reauthorization--and we have to learn 
from our past mistakes--we did not quite get it right. Remember, we 
reauthorized ESEA, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, seven 
times. In 1994, Congress adopted a State assessment requirement for 
title I but at that time did not provide the funds to the States to 
meet that requirement. Again, you have a mandate out there and you have 
no resources to go with it, and therefore it has had very little in the 
way of impact.
  The significance of the Jeffords amendment, once it is added to this 
bill and voted upon in an hour and a half or so, is it will commit the 
Federal Government to sharing the cost of the proposed assessments, of 
the proposed testing. What it specifically does, S. 1, or the Jeffords 
amendment once inserted into S. 1, is it will provide $370 million in 
the year 2002. There will be annual increases of $10 million each year 
all the way out to 2008. A total of about $2.8 billion will be added 
through the Jeffords amendment over 7 years.
  There was a discussion of from where that figure came. It came from a 
lot of analysis and a lot of study. I want to tell my colleagues that 
because this was initially raised in one of the working group meetings, 
the bipartisan working group. It became very clear that we were all 
concerned about giving this additional responsibility to States and 
local communities.
  Everybody said: How much does it cost to conduct a test or to develop 
a test? Again, the data that came back showed that there is a lot of 
variation from State to State.
  A State such as Tennessee has been very involved in testing many 
times during the year for many of the grades and therefore has gotten 
on down the line. The cost is going to be less. We will still be able 
to use many of those tests and adapt them according to Federal 
standards.
  The 7-year cost estimates have ranged, in terms of estimates you see 
in the press circulating around, from $2 billion to some as high as $7 
billion. But the more we as a group looked and analyzed this data, the 
more comfortable at least I became with this figure of about $2.7 or 
$2.8 billion as a part of carrying that additional burden that the 
States will have for this testing. Again, it depends so much on how 
much is already going on in that State.
  It also depends on what types of assessments are out there. You can 
do all sorts of assessments, what is called norm-referenced assessments 
or criterion-based assessments. There are States such as Massachusetts, 
I believe, which have a certain criterion that far surpasses even what 
we require. We are able to compare State by State.
  I, for one, am very comfortable with the Jeffords amendment as 
sufficiently and appropriately supporting that incremental cost with 
this increased requirement, very important requirement, of 
accountability to make sure, in everything else we are doing, we are 
linking any change we proposed in this bill to strong accountability.
  In closing, I urge support of the Jeffords amendment to S. 1.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page 6927]]


  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield as much time as she may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who is a principal cosponsor 
for full funding for title I, an amendment by myself and the Senator 
from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senators Dodd and 
Collins, for their great leadership in this area. In committee on many 
days, in many meetings, in many different forums, these two have been 
just tremendously powerful voices for a very important piece of our 
education reform efforts, and that is, in fact, title I.
  The title, the block grant, if you will, is the money that goes to 
all of our school systems and our districts to help turn around poor 
performing schools, to help reach those children who are in the 
greatest need, to help reach those counties--in Louisiana's instance, 
our Parishes--where the tax base is minimal or weak, where even well-
intentioned individuals who want to give more revenues for schools 
cannot because of their limited capacities. Title I was intended, when 
it was created, to be the answer to that, to help equalize the playing 
field. It was intended to make real what we say about giving equal 
opportunity for children.
  I thank them because they were very forceful in committee and now 
bringing this amendment to the floor, in which it seems many of our 
colleagues are going to join.
  I also thank Senator Kennedy for his outstanding work in the whole 
area of education, for working so diligently to bring us to the 
underlying compromise which Senator Jeffords' amendment represents, 
which is a strong accountability component. The Federal Government now 
really enters into a partnership with States to not just throw more 
money at education but to improve every school. It will give them the 
resources to help frame the goals. It will give them the tools they 
need to set their own standards of performance and to increase testing 
and accountability in addition to adding investments through title I to 
meet those goals.
  Senators Kennedy and Jeffords, Lieberman, Bayh, and so many others 
have been engaged in this compromise. I am proud to be here to support 
it and to speak for just a moment on what the title I amendment will do 
for Louisiana.
  Mr. President, for your State, Alabama, which is similar to 
Louisiana, it will be a tremendous victory for our schools and our 
schoolchildren, particularly in the South, particularly in areas where 
there are high concentrations of the poor. If this amendment we are 
advocating is adopted and the authorization for title I is increased as 
substantially as this amendment calls for and the underlying agreement 
allows, it is going to mean, for Louisiana, an additional $161 million. 
That is going to help add resources to one of the strong accountability 
systems we have in the Nation.
  I commend our Governor and our legislature, our BESE board, for 
stepping out years ago, introducing rigorous tests and accountability, 
trying to identify failing schools. If we are successful in not only 
passing this amendment and authorizing this increase in title I but 
ultimately successful and can lean hard on the appropriators--and I am 
a new member of that committee--to actually get this money 
appropriated, it will be a tremendous help to Louisiana, to Alabama, to 
California, to New York, to Maine, to Connecticut--to all of our 
States, to give those administrators the resources they need to help 
these schools turn around and improve.
  In addition, on a separate amendment which is not what we are 
discussing but was already adopted, we have now made a commitment and a 
statement in the Senate that we want to live up to full funding for 
special education.
  If we will do those two things--get the full funding for special 
education and, in fact, adopt this title I amendment, and get the money 
actually funded through the appropriations process--I would say we have 
done more to really improve, enhance, and strengthen public education 
than we perhaps have done in the last 30, 40, or 50 years. I mean that. 
Let me tell you why.
  Some Senators have made statements that would lead people to believe 
that in the years past we have really funded title I and that the 
problem is we just kept funding it but we didn't ask for results. I 
would like to take issue with that in the few minutes I have.
  Title I was created under President Johnson's administration with the 
idea that for the first time in America the Federal Government would 
step up to the plate and recognize there were some areas of our country 
that needed extra help and tried to provide extra money for these 
schools. We have really barely kept pace with inflation. While the 
amount of money has gone up, when you look at it, it has barely kept 
pace with inflation.
  This amendment would significantly increase our investments in title 
I so we can live up to that promise we made 35 years ago. Whether 
children live in the rural part of Maine or Louisiana, or 
Massachusetts, whether they are in a poor pocket of a large urban area; 
whether their community can afford to pay high property taxes or 
whether there is property of value to tax, these children could get 
qualified teachers; they could get computers; they could get 
technological training; they could have access to wonderful libraries, 
not only physically but on the Internet; they could have courses in 
science and literature to help build the kind of education they need to 
break out of the cycle of poverty.
  We know schools can't do all of it. We know parents, families, and 
the community have a role to play. But I can tell you, as a great 
beneficiary of an education system, that every single Senator in this 
room has benefitted. Some Senators came from very wealthy families, but 
many Senators came from poor families with very limited opportunities. 
If it wasn't for strong parents and a good sense of community and a 
good education, none of us would have made our way to the Senate.
  That is why I believe so strongly in title I and why I thank Senators 
Dodd and Collins for putting forth this amendment while we have a 
projected surplus to make a real commitment in moving these dollars to 
title I.
  Lets add another word about title I. Title I is not just one part. 
There are four parts to it. There is a basic grant that is distributed 
to all the States based on the number of poor children. Then there are 
three other parts laid on top of that to make sure the money we send 
actually reaches to the poorest districts that need the most help.
  While this amendment doesn't specifically direct those dollars in 
that way, the underlying amendment and the underlying bill basically 
say if this amendment is adopted, the new money--we are talking about a 
significant amount of new money, $6.4 billion--will not only be added 
to title I but it will be appropriated through those targeted 
concentration formulas so that States such as Louisiana that have high 
rates of poverty can be well served, and so that in the field Federal 
Government will, in fact, step up and be a real partner to these States 
and these local communities that are trying their very best to make the 
kind of real reforms that we are advocating.
  It will enable them to provide this new testing--not just fake tests, 
not just the easy tests, not testing on the cheap, but good tests and 
good accountability measures so we can identify what schools need help 
and then give them the help they need so we don't leave any child 
behind.
  That is what is exciting about this amendment. I am so proud to be 
working on it with Senators Dodd and Collins.
  I believe it is most appropriate, while we are in this debate about 
the budget and setting parameters for how we are going to spend our 
money--we are going to give significant tax relief, and we can most 
certainly do that--that we set aside the right kind of investments for 
our schools.
  It has been said, and it was repeated to me over the weekend by one 
of the

[[Page 6928]]

outstanding authors on the subject of education in the Nation, and I 
think it is worth repeating at this time, our schools don't just serve 
the public; our schools create the public.
  In a nation that prides itself as being the longest living democracy 
in the world, a nation, while not perfect--we most certainly have many 
flaws and we have much to improve--that is really a model of democracy 
for the world, our education system becomes more than just learning 
facts about what was and what is. Students learn about the 
possibilities of what can be. They learn to think. They learn to 
believe in themselves. They learn to put things in perspective. An 
education system literally becomes a place where we create a public 
that is educated enough to sustain a democracy that not only brings 
hope to every person that lives in America but brings hope to millions 
of people around the world.
  This is a big issue. I don't mean to overemphasize how important 
title I is. But it really becomes imperative that this National 
Government, our Federal Government, give the resources necessary to 
strengthen the schools that create the foundations and the bedrock of 
our Nation.
  Again, I am proud to be part of it. I most certainly hope we have a 
strong vote on this amendment tonight.
  I thank my distinguished colleagues from Connecticut and Maine for 
bringing this amendment to the floor, and I urge passage of the Dodd-
Collins amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to support the Dodd-
Collins amendment.
  I have had the privilege of being a legislator most of my adult life. 
I must admit what we are facing today is not a first. I realize that 
legislation and the legislative process is an imperfect activity. As a 
matter of fact, it was Bismarck, I believe, who was quoted as saying 
that making laws is something similar to making sausage. It is a 
process that you should never see. Today is an example of that, for 
here we are discussing one of the most important subjects facing this 
Nation: How we are going to invest additional funding in education, a 
subject matter that is absolutely essential to the future of this 
country, while at this very moment discussing and hopefully adopting 
the Dodd-Collins amendment that will fully fund title I over the next 
10 years--title I being the funding for disadvantaged students--while 
at the same time we have just received the report from the other end of 
the U.S. Capitol Building that the House is about to take up a 
conference committee report on the budget resolution from which the 
Democratic leadership was excluded. All of the Democrats on the Budget 
Committee were excluded from knowing what was in that budget conference 
report.
  We find, in fact, that what is in it is exactly the opposite of what 
we are debating right now--that instead of fully funding title I, title 
I will not be fully funded; much less, it will not even be adequately 
funded; much less, it will not even be increased over the next 10 
years. That is an irony of all ironies.
  But let's look at some other issues. We understand that the budget 
resolution may come here tonight for a vote, while at the same time we 
are discussing the education bill and voting to invest additional 
resources into education. What we are going to be voting on tonight is 
a budget resolution that has no increase in funding for education. You 
can't have it both ways.
  We understand, although we have not been privy to this documentation 
yet, that not only are there not going to be the increases in title I, 
the subject of the amendment that we are discussing for a significant 
increase--indeed, the full funding of title I--but that there is going 
to be less funding, with no increases, for safe and educational 
afterschool opportunities. Head Start is not going to be significantly 
increased, the program to get children ready to enter kindergarten and 
the elementary school years. It is going to eliminate the additional 
funding for the training of our teachers. It is going to eliminate the 
additional funding for reducing class sizes. And it is going to 
eliminate funding for making our schools more safe.
  What we have just talked about is what the American people want. They 
want safe schools. They want smaller classes. They want better paid 
teachers and better trained teachers with continuing education 
opportunities. They want additional opportunities for disadvantaged 
children. And they want afterschool programs for children.
  That, in large part, is what this entire bill, S. 1, is about, which 
we are talking about and have amended.
  Earlier today we adopted the Harkin amendment. It provided some $180 
billion over the next 10 years for children with disabilities. Yet I am 
told that a stealth budget resolution conference report, that we are 
not privy to see, is coming to this Chamber for a vote tonight. That is 
exactly the opposite of what we are doing in the consideration of this 
education bill.
  I know the process of legislation is not pretty, but this defies 
anybody's description about any kind of symmetry because there is none. 
It is a total irony that we would be giving, with one hand, for one of 
the most fundamentally important needs of this country, education, and 
later tonight taking away with the other hand.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Senate.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Florida. He has 
made an eloquent statement. He raises a very valuable point. I 
appreciate his support for this amendment. This is one way to put us on 
record, in a bipartisan way, to say how critical increased Title I 
funding is to educational reform. Not only must we insist upon 
accountability but we must make it possible for people to demonstrate 
their academic achievement, which is necessary if we are going to be 
successful.
  So I, for one, am very grateful for his support on this amendment and 
also for his comments in relation to the position we may find ourselves 
in with having supported a reauthorization but then finding it 
difficult under the budget agreement to have the resources actually 
committed.
  I thank the Senator for his comments.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes, and then I will 
yield the Senator from Alabama 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the whole issue of funding is very 
important. It is very clear to everybody in this Chamber that we have 
not sufficiently funded title I, especially if we are to focus on 
eliminating the achievement gap. In fact, after the bill passes, we 
will require our States to engage in assessments so we can make the 
diagnosis and understand better why, after 35 years, $150 billion, and 
over 200 programs, we continue to fail the disadvantaged. We have 
failed to eliminate or even diminish that achievement gap. In fact, we 
have done just the opposite. That achievement gap has increased over 
time. The President of the United States has pointed that out again and 
again. That is our charge: to have measurable results, linked with the 
freedom of innovation and the best of what America is all about to 
address this fundamental problem.
  Title I is the cornerstone of the Federal involvement in focusing on 
the disadvantaged in this country. It is a monument, in many ways, to 
our commitment as a nation to boost the academic performance of 
disadvantaged children and to close that gap between rich and poor 
youngsters.
  It is not because of a lack of good intentions; we have a litany of 
programs that are out there today--some have been funded fully and some 
have been inadequately funded--but we have failed the disadvantaged in 
this country. Title I is not accomplishing its purpose today.
  We are talking a lot, in relation to the two amendments we will be 
voting on at 7:30, about markedly increasing

[[Page 6929]]

the funding in title I and in the education bill. We are talking about 
markedly, massively increasing it with this increased authorization.
  I just want to make two points. The answer is not just money. It does 
take an increased investment. But we absolutely have to link that 
increased investment to accountability and to appropriate reforms and 
flexibility. We have to empower parents, have local control, and 
accountability.
  The strategy over the last 35 years of aiming dollars at programs or 
school districts to create just new programs for disadvantaged students 
simply has not worked. I do not want this body to think that just 
throwing money at the problem alone is going to address the issue.
  Part of the problem with title I, and this whole concept of fully 
funding title I, is it is pretty complex. The decision was made about 
30 years ago not to fund individual students. We say: Leave no child 
behind. People think when we are increasing this money, we are giving 
it to that child or to that family, or that the value goes to that 
child or to that family, the disadvantaged student, that the resources 
are aimed at that student.
  In truth, that is not what was decided historically. It has been to 
fund the institutions where the highest percentage of those students 
are but by using a formula which really funds the institutions. That 
means even if we put in an unlimited amount of money into title I, we 
would still not be addressing the issue of covering all the 
disadvantaged students. It is a quirk in the formula. It is a quirk of 
the decisions that have been made in this body.
  I mention that because Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire will 
later, next week, address this issue of portability. If we really care 
about disadvantaged students, shouldn't we, in some way, address every 
disadvantaged student? The best way to do that, conceptually and 
practically, would be at least to take some of these resources and 
attach them to the student--the disadvantaged student, the poor 
student, the student with the disability--and allow that student to 
have the resources that are most appropriate for him or her. Again, it 
comes back to portability. But that is not the issue tonight.
  But as I see the great support for increased funding, we have to link 
it to accountability.
  I want to introduce the concept we will be debating next week, and 
that is portability.
  Just so people will understand, the title I formula is based on the 
number of low-income children living in a district, but the money goes 
to the school and does not go to the child. As a process, we have 
corrected some of it in the underlying bill. The formula favors high 
spending in wealthy States because part of the equation is how much you 
are spending right now in a State, and wealthy States or wealthier 
States--New York spends a lot more per capita or per student than 
Tennessee; that is an important part of the formula--are going to get 
more money through title I than a student will in Tennessee or 
Louisiana or many other States.
  Secondly, districts with high-poverty schools are served first, and 
that is appropriate, but at some level there is a cutoff and, 
therefore, you can't serve all schools. You just don't have enough 
money to serve all schools that have 1, 2, 3, or 4 percent of 
disadvantaged students.
  Third, high-poverty schools receive a priority for funding but 
because of the equation, per pupil, per individual disadvantaged 
student, they receive less than low-poverty schools. It doesn't make 
sense for a high-poverty school to receive less per pupil. It is 
because they have a higher percentage.
  I mention that because the formula, the way it is configured today, 
means that nearly half of low-income children in America receive no 
assistance from title I. Therefore, when you hear that half who deserve 
it don't receive it, then the response is: Let's put more money into 
it.
  I want to point out to my colleagues, you could put more money into 
it and more money into it. I am not arguing against that. I think we 
need to put more money into it, but given the formula and the way we 
target institutions and not the students, with unlimited money put into 
the system as currently configured, you will never be able to take care 
of all the disadvantaged students out there. The only way you can do 
that is looking at portability and saying that you need to attach some 
of these funds to the individual student.
  I know we have been going back and forth.
  Mr. DODD. May I yield to my colleague from Delaware who has another 
engagement before we actually vote? If he could have 2 or 3 minutes and 
then go to my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. FRIST. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to say a word about accountability 
and relate that to resources. In the measure we will be voting on and 
amending later today and for the next week or so, there is a full 
measure of accountability. I want to mention some of the provisions.
  If after 4 years a school has been unable to shed its label of a 
nonperforming school, a school is unable to meet its yearly progress 
goals, a student who is trapped in that school must be offered the 
chance to go to another public school. That school district must 
provide the transportation for that student.
  Under the accountability regimen that is part of this bill, after 4 
years of failure by the school, either that school must simply be 
reconstituted and the administration and teachers let go, or largely 
replaced, or the school has to be turned over to the State or another 
entity. There is real accountability in this legislation. There ought 
to be.
  The question we need to consider is, Are we investing the resources 
that will enable that school and thousands of other schools falling 
short of the mark to help their kids meet the standards that have been 
set by the various States, particularly in reading and in math?
  Our role in the Federal Government--when I spoke yesterday I talked 
about our role--is to level the playing field for kids who come from a 
disadvantaged background. Part of that role is making sure that kids 
are healthy, born healthy, have enough to eat and nutritious food early 
in their lives, and to make sure they have access to health care so 
that when they are old enough to go to school, they are not already 
hopelessly behind.
  It goes beyond that. It is trying to make sure that there is adequate 
child care, as we push people off the welfare rolls, compel them to go 
to work, to make sure that those children of welfare parents have some 
decent child care so that they get that help when their brains are 
young and so much can be done to get them on the right path.
  Our role extends to Head Start. We don't begin to provide the Head 
Start funding that we have promised to provide. We just don't meet our 
obligation for 3- or 4-year-olds in this country. We leave it up to the 
States to try to make up the difference. States such as Delaware and 
Ohio do, but many do not.
  Until the adoption of an amendment earlier today on a voice vote for 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we simply didn't fund 
it. We met about a third of our obligation but not the rest.
  As we prepare to hold schools and school districts and States 
accountable for the children left behind today in failing schools, we 
have to make the appropriate investments. Whether it is Head Start, 
whether it is child care, whether it is individuals with disabilities, 
and whether it is children who are eligible for these title I programs, 
they actually work. To the extent that we can come closer to funding 
for every three kids, to make the program available for those three 
kids instead of, today, one out of three, we will enable those children 
to be successful and enable their schools to avoid being a failure.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Delaware. As a 
former Governor, I know many Governors believe as he does as well. I 
appreciate his comments and thoughts.

[[Page 6930]]

  I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I also commend the Senator from Delaware. 
About 3 years ago, I guess it was, as Governor, he was one of the 
instrumental driving forces in a bill called Ed-Flex, where it, in a 
bipartisan way, was brought to the Senate and passed, providing 
education flexibility. It is a pleasure now that we can all participate 
in a bill in a bipartisan way, although we get partisan at times, 
developing those things that started several years ago.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we would not 
have education flexibility in all 50 States were it not for the 
leadership that he provided in the Senate and the support of Senators 
Dodd and Kennedy and others. I thank him for the great work he does.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss 
once again some of the issues facing education. We can really do 
better. The Government has not, in my view, been effective enough in 
utilizing our resources and our laws and regulations and paperwork to 
produce education excellence.
  Yes, we should have accountability. As the Senator from Delaware: You 
have to have more money then to achieve excellence, and we are going to 
have a lot more money this year in education. That is going to be a 
good start.
  I suggest that that is not the only thing that drives improvement in 
education. Dr. Paige, our Secretary of Education, who served in the 
Houston school system from 1995 to 2000, took over the seventh largest 
system in the country with only 37 percent of the students passing the 
basic Texas test. He applied, when President Bush was Governor, 
principles that he believed in and learned as the dean of an education 
school, as a teacher himself, and as a coach.
  He went to work to improve education in the Houston schools, and in 5 
years, he reported that 73 percent of the students in Houston passed 
that test.
  When asked recently: Didn't you get a lot more money? He said: The 
third year we had a proposal for more money. The voters voted it down. 
Test scores kept going up and things were getting better, and we came 
back again. And we did get more money.
  Most of the progress and the framework for the progress was made 
before he was given any more money.
  Testing, he says, is not an accountability factor so much as a part 
of teaching. It is a way, an ability. The process of helping children 
learn is to find out where they are and what they can do.
  Are they up to speed? Are they behind? What level are they on? How 
can you improve them? We cannot leave children behind. We cannot wait 
until the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth grade, and find out that 
children are able to do basic math and read and write. Isn't that 
terrible? That has been happening, we know, too much in America.
  I would say the key component of testing isn't just some sort of 
accountability, although it does provide accountability; it is a way 
and a technique of identifying children that are falling behind. We 
don't want to leave children behind. No child should be left behind. We 
can intervene early, and the President wants testing from third to 
eighth grade to make sure they are up to speed and not falling behind, 
because he cares about them.
  Dr. Paige said he loved those children. He loved them enough to test 
them and find out how they were doing and make sure they are catching 
up. And he wants to engage parents. You can bring them in if things 
aren't going well. If the whole school is doing badly, you can come in 
and improve it. You can challenge the leadership if they are not doing 
well.
  So I think we have some real potential movement in education, and 
that is exciting. If we allow schools to have more freedom to use their 
education money that they are going to be receiving--and are receiving 
now--in ways that they believe will drive academic achievement, but we 
simply say find out how your children are doing, report that to the 
parents and teachers and the taxpayers, and if you are not doing well, 
let's confront that problem quickly. I think that is something that 
will work.
  We voted today to fully fund the IDEA, the Individuals With 
Disability Education Act. I think that is wonderful, and it is an act 
that has a great goal. It has achieved some very good things. The 
vision of the Individuals With Disability Education Act was to make 
sure that children were not shunted aside, that they were allowed to 
participate fully in the environment in which they would be 
participating when they graduated, and that physically disabled 
children would be able to participate with other children in a 
classroom, that children who are blind or deaf would be able to 
mainstream in the classroom and benefit from it. It had some good 
provisions in it.
  But I am here to tell you that there is a growing problem in America 
with this act, dealing with one just minor--really, in the scheme of 
things--part of it, but it has a major impact; that is, the ability of 
schools to discipline and deal with children who are not able to 
function in a classroom. It is a major source of frustration and anger, 
and a major factor in teachers actually quitting education. We can do 
something about this. We do not have to allow this to continue.
  I have visited in my State approximately 25 school systems within the 
last year and asked them about what is going on. I have been hearing 
routinely about the problems they are having with the disciplinary 
requirements that really limit their ability to maintain order in their 
classrooms. The head of the Alabama Education Association and Teachers 
Group said he believes changes need to be implemented. He said, ``I am 
tired of these people cursing teachers in Alabama and nothing can be 
done about it.''
  So I believe that the time has come to deal with it, and I want to 
share some of the information I have learned over the last year or so 
about this particular subject. Let me read this letter from a student 
that I think gives an indication of what we are about:

       I am a 14-year-old eighth grader. I have a problem. There 
     is this girl that goes to school with me. She is an ADD 
     student. She has been harassing me for no reason. She has 
     pretty much done everything from breaking my glasses to 
     telling me she is going to kill me. This really bothers me 
     because she is an ADD student and the only punishment she 
     ever gets is a slap on the hand. My principal says there is 
     not much he can do because her status as a special ed kid. I 
     asked what would happen if I threatened her back and he told 
     me I would be suspended from school and forced to stay away. 
     The most she has ever gotten is 3 days ``in school'' 
     suspension. I think this is wrong. She scares me and I am 
     tired of this. It has been going on for 5 months and it's 
     really getting scary.

  Doesn't that bother you? Can you hear that child saying that? She is 
exactly correct. That principal is able to discipline her for a threat 
or a violent behavior much more severely and much more effectively than 
he can deal with a special ed student.
  Let me read this story in the Dothan Eagle, a newspaper in Alabama:

       Until recently, Tina Ham never worried about the safety of 
     her child in Geneva County Elementary School in Hartford, AL. 
     But since last week, school safety is all she and other 
     parents have thought about after a third grade special ed 
     student threatened to kill his fellow third graders. Parents 
     say that an 11 year old boy threatened to shoot and kill two 
     African American students and then threatened to kill the 
     entire third grade. Parents say that the boy has a history of 
     behavior problems and has frequent outbursts at school. He 
     has a history of reportedly attacking other students. Sources 
     say the boy can be heard yelling in his classroom, and that 
     he has been seen spitting on people, walking on tables, and 
     throwing books and desks. The threats came to light after 
     calls were made to a State violence prevention hotline.

  I would like to see more States do that, so that if a parent or 
teacher or

[[Page 6931]]

student sees something they are concerned about or violence, they can 
make an anonymous call and perhaps something can be done about it.

       About 50 parents confronted the school board members 
     recently to express their concern about the situation. One 
     parent was quoted as saying that she ``didn't want to hurt 
     the child, but I don't want him to hurt my child. I lose 
     faith in school officials.'' One school official explained 
     that since the child was in special education, they would 
     have to meet Federal guidelines in disciplining the student. 
     It is more involved than it is with general students. One 
     school official was quoted as saying that it is a serious 
     situation and has created quite a disruption to the day-to-
     day activities of the school. More intervention is needed. 
     One parent explained, ``I want this child to be helped. I 
     want him to receive the help he needs and my child afforded 
     the education she deserves. If there is a problem, get him 
     some help. I feel this child is capable of killing someone.''

  This is a letter from a teacher from Troy, AL. First, let me just 
add, parenthetically, that as I went about and people would tell me 
stories, I would routinely ask them to send me a letter, put that in 
writing to me and I may share it one day on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. I have received 50 to 75 or more letters with these kinds of 
examples.
  This is a letter from a mid-sized rural town in Alabama:

       As a special educator of 6 years, I consider myself ``on 
     the front lines'' of the ongoing battle that takes place on a 
     daily basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that 
     part of the ``ammunition'' that fuels these struggles are the 
     rights guaranteed to certain individuals by the IDEA act of 
     1997. The law, though well-intentioned, has become one of the 
     single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to 
     provide all children with a quality education delivered in a 
     safe environment. There are many examples that I can offer 
     firsthand. However, let me reiterate that I am a special 
     educator. I have dedicated my life to helping children with 
     special needs. It is my job to study and know the abilities 
     and limitations of such children. I have a bachelor's degree 
     in psychology, a masters degree in special education and a 
     Ph.D. in good ole common sense. No where in my educational 
     process have I been taught a certain few ``disabled'' 
     students should have a ``right'' to endanger the right to an 
     education of all other disabled and non-disabled children. 
     It's nonsense; it's wrong; it's dangerous; and it must be 
     stopped. There is no telling how many instructional hours are 
     lost by teachers in dealing with behavior problems. In times 
     of an increasingly competitive global society it is no wonder 
     American students fall short. Certain children are allowed to 
     remain in the classroom robbing the other children of hours 
     that can never be replaced. There is no need to extend the 
     school day. There is no need to extend the school year. If 
     politicians would just make it possible for educators to take 
     back the time that is lost on a daily basis to certain 
     individuals there is no doubt we would have better educated 
     students. It is even more frustrating when it is a special 
     education child who knows and boasts ``they can't do anything 
     to me'' and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it 
     day after day, week after week. It is clear that IDEA '97 not 
     only undermines the educational process it also undermines 
     the authority of educators. In a time when our profession is 
     being called upon to protect our children from increasingly 
     dangerous sources our credibility is being stripped from us.

  Strong letter. I am reading her words:

       I am sure you have heard the saying: The teachers are 
     scared of the principals, the principals are scared of the 
     superintendents, the superintendents are scared of the 
     parents, the parents are scared of the children, and the 
     children are scared of no one. And why should they be? I have 
     experienced the ramifications of the ``new and improved'' law 
     first hand. I had one child attempt to assault me (he had 
     been successful with two other teachers) He was suspended for 
     one day. I had another child make sexual gestures to me in 
     front of the entire class. Despite the fact that every child 
     in my class and a majority of the children in the school knew 
     of it, I was told by my assistant principal that nothing 
     could be done because ``these special ed kids have rights'', 
     I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my financial 
     obligations to my family and my moral responsibilities to the 
     children I had in my class kept me there.

  She was going to give up the profession she had given her life to.

       The particular child I spoke about frequently made vulgar 
     comments and threats to my girls in my class on every 
     opportunity he had when there was no adult present. 
     Fortunately, the girls, also special ed, could talk to me 
     about it. Unfortunately, they had to put up with it because 
     ``nothing could be done''. I know of a learning disabled 
     child who cut a girl in a fight. The learning disabled child 
     and her parents then attempted to sue the school system 
     because the child was burned when she grabbed a coffee pot to 
     break it over the other child's head. I know of another 
     specific incident where three children brought firearms to 
     school. The two ``regular'' children were expelled. The 
     special education student was back to school the following 
     week. I fully expect that you and your colleagues in 
     Washington will do what it takes to take our schools back 
     from this small group of children who feel it is their right 
     to endanger the education of every other child in school.

  Listen to that:

       I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington 
     will do what it takes to take our schools back from this 
     small group of children who feel it is their right to 
     endanger the education of every other child in school. As my 
     grandmother said, ``right is right and wrong is wrong'' and 
     to enable this to continue is just wrong.

  That is a serious commentary. The example of guns is a good one. For 
example, three children bring guns to school. One of them is a special 
ed student and the other two are not. The two that are not are expelled 
while the special ed student goes right back in the classroom.
  What does that say about equal justice and fairness? Is there any 
concern that the disabilities were not the driving factor in this and 
independent decisions can be made by these children?
  Mr. President, I had 15 minutes. I do not want to go over my time. Is 
anyone keeping time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his 15 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair for allowing me to talk about this 
important subject. We have provided a historic and highly significant 
increase in funding for IDEA, but the Federal IDEA requirements for 
schools all over America have created a dual system of education and of 
discipline.
  It is important, perhaps even more than the money we are spending, 
that we consider trusting those educators who have given their lives to 
special education children and are trained to teach them, and allowing 
them to handle these discipline problems in ways they think are 
appropriate. This would be a lot better than having Federal regulations 
micromanaging the schools. It is a very sore spot among every teacher 
in America, and if any of my colleagues do not think it is, they should 
just ask them. They will tell you about it. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes on the time of 
the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to address the issues before us, 
the Jeffords amendment, and also the Dodd amendment.
  Having listened to my colleague from Alabama, there are many children 
who attend our schools who need assistance. One of the more recent 
studies shows in our city of Boston, a quarter of the children come 
from homes where either substance abuse or violence is present.
  Those who have looked at the profile of children from that urban area 
and similar urban areas understand the need for assistance for children 
who are facing different challenges. One is the kind of violence they 
have at home. Another is the medical challenges they are facing.
  All of us want to find ways to deal with these issues. What we have 
seen in recent times is where, out of the security for other children, 
children are dismissed arbitrarily. Too often we see instances where 
they get further frustrated and resort to other types of violence, such 
as going home and finding a gun and acting out their anger with even 
greater violence.
  These are complex issues and questions. Children ought to be able to 
learn in a climate which lends itself to progress, and we also ought to 
find ways of providing assistance to the children who need it.
  We can address those issues, and I welcome the opportunity to 
participate as we move through the reauthorization of IDEA or at other 
times.
  I want to reserve 4 minutes at the end of my 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in supporting the Jeffords 
amendment

[[Page 6932]]

which proposes the trigger for testing. There is bipartisan support for 
this program.
  The case has been made very eloquently by Senator Jeffords and others 
about the role of testing. I was impressed when I heard Secretary Paige 
and the President talk about their strong views that this should never 
be used as a punitive measure; that the role of these tests is to try 
to determine what the children know and to help the teachers develop 
approaches to assist those students so they can do better in their 
school work and in the future. That is certainly my view. I believe 
that is certainly the view of those who fashioned and shaped this 
proposal that is included in the legislation.
  A reasonable question has been raised about tests, tests which are 
simple, easy, multiple-choice tests that too often are used to test 
children and too often the curriculum or the children are coached or 
taught to those tests. That, clearly, is not our interest.
  During the course of this debate we will attempt to address the issue 
of the quality of the tests, the tests that take critical thinking, 
demonstrate an excellence in writing, tests that examine what the child 
should know. Obviously, the difficulty is calibrated upon a well-
thought-out curriculum taught by a well-qualified teacher. That is 
basically what we are looking at in this legislation.
  We are going to upgrade the curriculums. We are going to incorporate 
professional development for the teachers and thoughtful examination 
for the teachers themselves so they understand the challenges that 
remain for children and help develop the supplementary services that 
will be of high quality to help the children make progress in their 
education. That is certainly the way we want to proceed. That is the 
objective.
  The Jeffords amendment indicates we recognize our responsibility in 
helping fashion, shape, and support those developments. We will give 
our strong support and commitment and help develop those tests. This is 
the essence of the Jeffords amendment. It provides resources. It has a 
trigger. I think this will be funding that, effectively, will be 
assured as we move through the process. I will certainly support it.
  As we make this case in support of the Dodd amendment, we are talking 
about additional resources. As has been said eloquently by the Senator 
from Connecticut and by others, we have devised a new blueprint for 
accountability and responsibility on the schools, on the States, on the 
teachers, and really with the students. What we are pointing out and 
what Senators Dodd and Collins have pointed out is, in order to give 
life to those dreams, we have to have the resources to make sure all of 
the elements of this proposal will be available to the neediest 
children in our society.
  Twenty percent of our children live in poverty. There are 10 million 
who qualify for the benefits of this proposal. Only about 3.5 million 
are reached. Under the Dodd amendment, in the first year we will 
increase children reached from 3.5 to 6.8 million. That is a dramatic 
increase. Over the rest of the years, we are moving for the final 3.5 
million. For those who want to say we have done something important, if 
we support the Dodd amendment we will cover 6.8 million children at the 
end. This is progress. This is what we believe this whole legislation 
should do.
  We will consider later this evening the proposal on the budget of 
$1.2 trillion. What we are talking about in this instance amounts to 
less than six-thousandths of 1 percent of that tax cut in order to be 
able to fund that program. Mr. President, $250 billion was approved in 
this body, Republicans and Democrats, to go to the conference on the 
budget. Virtually zero is coming back. We are asking six-thousandths of 
1 percent, and with that money we are including an extra 6.8 million 
children.
  Investing in these children makes a difference for the children, not 
just for the future but for our country. Although the support for title 
I historically has been very minimal--less than 2 percent of the money 
that has actually been expended--it is important to respond to those 
comments I heard recently on the floor about what has been happening in 
Texas and the fact they made such progress, allegedly, without using 
any more resources.
  The fact is, in 1994, they spent $673 million in the Dallas 
independent school district. In the year 2000, they spent $985 million. 
That is a $312 million increase. What have been the results? The 
results have been a significant increase in the funding and a dramatic 
increase in student achievement. We are not just saying throw the money 
at the problem and that will answer it all. We are saying if the money 
is used, and used effectively, it results in student achievement. We 
have seen it in Dallas, as raised earlier this evening, and we have 
seen it in a number of other places.
  I will mention a few other title I success stories.
  Approximately 80 percent of the students at the Baldwin Elementary 
School in Boston, MA, are from low-income families, and many are recent 
immigrants. With a strong focus on professional development and high 
standards for even the neediest children, test scores soared between 
1996 and 2000. In the year 2000, 96 percent of the third graders and 91 
percent of the fifth graders passed the State reading test, and 60 
percent of the third graders and 39 percent of the fifth graders scored 
proficient at advanced levels.
  At Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary School in Cheverly, MD, in 1994, 
only 17 percent of third graders scored at or above the satisfactory 
level on the State test. Title I was used to implement reform. Each 
teacher was paired with another staff member to provide small group 
instruction during a 90-minute reading period in a language arts block 
in the mornings. All staff utilized specialists as a basis for language 
instruction and were provided with professional development. By 1999, 
73 percent of the third graders performed at or above satisfactory on 
the State tests.
  These are exactly the kinds of programs that have been included in 
this legislation and which the Collins-Dodd proposal intends to 
support.
  The poverty rate at Burgess Elementary in Atlanta, GA, is 81 percent. 
Burgess Elementary staff set out to improve parent involvement in 
working with parents in the classroom, parent volunteer programs, 
academic programs for parent learning, and Saturday school programs for 
parents and students. Parental involvement in the school has boomed. 
Most days, 10 or 15 parents are in the school voluntarily. In 1995, 
only 29 percent performed at or above the norm on the State tests. That 
increased to 64 percent as of 1998, and the math scores have improved 
from 34 to 72 percent.
  Parental involvement is in this bill.
  We can take the other examples and take the time of the Senate to 
review these other examples. We have tried to find the kinds of efforts 
that have demonstrated success and support those in this proposal. But 
unless we are going to provide the investment in the children, we are 
not going to be able to achieve those objectives; we are not going to 
be able to get there. That is what this amendment is all about.
  We have the blueprint. It will do the job. It will make a big 
difference. But we want to make sure no child is left behind. This 
should be a priority. We have an opportunity in a few moments to 
indicate our priorities, our support for this strong bipartisan effort 
to make sure the most needy and poorest children in this country will 
not be left behind.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Let me first say that last evening I had the privilege of 
presenting an award at the Greater Boys and Girls Clubs of Washington, 
DC, to a very good friend of mine, Bud Selig, the Commissioner of 
Baseball. But another recipient of last evening's Boys and Girls Club 
Award was the distinguished Presiding Officer of this body, the Senator 
from Virginia. I will take a moment to commend my colleague--as I did 
last evening--for the recognition he received. I commend his work.
  May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on these amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut controls just

[[Page 6933]]

under 17 minutes, and the Senator from Vermont has about 11 and a half 
minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield myself, if I may, about 6 
minutes. If the Chair will notify me when that time has expired? I know 
that one colleague, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is on her 
way to the floor to be heard. I want to reserve some time for her, and 
then will yield back some time if necessary and get to a vote.
  I thank my colleagues from Delaware and Florida and others who have 
spoken on this amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself, 
Senator Collins, Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, and others, to 
increase title I funding.
  I want to share something with my colleagues. I have submitted for 
the record data about all 50 States and the number of students eligible 
to be served. About 10 million students would be fully served under 
full funding of title I. We are fully serving about 3 million of the 10 
million today.
  I mentioned the numbers in Alabama earlier. I know in the State of 
Tennessee, there are 192,000 eligible children. In Connecticut, there 
are about 80,000 eligible children. In Maine, 34,000. In Georgia, the 
number of eligible students is 300,000. In Virginia, roughly 179,000 
are eligible. In each case, we are only providing about one-third of 
the support that we ought to be.
  I think most of my colleagues who have visited schools and talked to 
superintendents and principals have discovered as they have gone 
around, title I funds really do work. There is a great deal of 
flexibility in how title I funds can be used, particularly in school 
environments. Here are some of the things I have heard from Connecticut 
educators about how title I funds are working.
  Title I has provided the Norwalk Public Schools with 35 highly 
trained professionals in the district for elementary schools, almost 
100 computers and printers, $17,000 for teacher workshops on best 
practices, parent training, and parent center computers. That is title 
I funds at work. It has done a great job in that community.
  In Canterbury, we see improvements in reading. Without this help, I 
am told by the teachers there, some students would be placed in special 
education. We just adopted the special education full funding amendment 
by voice vote, and there are some concerns that too many kids will be 
placed into special education when in fact it may be just that they 
need remedial training.
  The Connecticut Mastery Test Scores for title I students have 
continued to increase. In short, the support provided to title I 
students results in increased achievement, according to the Region One 
school district.
  Norwich, CT, has hired preschool teachers under title I so the 
children can have the language development needed to be ready to learn, 
and an instructional technology coordinator to implement computer-
assisted instruction.
  Title I funding is responsible for the increased number of computers 
available for students as part of their learning in New Haven, CT. 
Title I funding has also made it possible for New Haven to hire 
additional teachers.
  Title I in Ashford, CT, is an integral part of the K-8 program. 
Teachers tell me that title I students go on to high school--many on 
the honor roll, college--many on the dean's list, or the military. And, 
they also tell me that students come back to thank them for ``making me 
do my work'' and ``teaching me to respect teachers.''
  My colleague from Maine and I are not suggesting this is going to 
create a utopia. But, we think if we can get more resources to 
disadvantaged kids through a program that is working, they can reach 
their full potential.
  Obviously, a lot of other things need to happen. More parental 
involvement and more qualified teachers, for example. But we also know 
that poor districts--it could be Virginia, Connecticut, Tennessee, 
Maine--because of local property taxes funding most of the system, do 
not get the resources they need.
  Because of that, as shown by the examples I have cited from my own 
State--and I'm sure other Members could find similar examples in their 
State--we believe this amendment has great merit.
  With that, I will withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have 11 minutes on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little over--11 minutes 17 seconds.
  Mr. FRIST. I yield myself 11 minutes. Will the Chair notify me after 
10 minutes, please?
  Over the last 2 hours we have been debating really two amendments. 
One is the Jeffords amendment and the other is the Dodd-Collins 
amendment. We will be voting in about 22 minutes. We have had a good 
discussion on both amendments, both of which are very important. In the 
case of the Jeffords amendment, we will be making absolutely sure that 
the mandates we are placing on States in terms of assessments and 
districts are adequately funded, that responsibility that is being 
imposed from above--I should say to the benefit of the children who are 
out there so we can make the diagnosis and we can figure out what is 
not working in that failure to diminish that achievement gap which has 
gotten bigger and bigger, and boosting education for all children 
today--and the Dodd-Collins amendment, which fully funds title I 
funding.
  I again want to make the case that money is not the answer. We have 
heard that again and again, that we have to have sufficient reforms. 
There is a fear, I think, of a lot of people, that we commit to a lot 
of money before we really agree on the reforms, and the reforms have to 
involve those elements of flexibility, of getting rid of redtape, 
which, as we hear again and again, really strangles and straightjackets 
our teachers and principals. It happens really across-the-board.
  We have heard testimony in the past that, although the Federal 
funding is only 7 percent--the pie chart showed a little sliver of 
Federal funding--most of it is local and State funding. But coupled 
with those, 7 percent of the funding passes through this body. It comes 
from the taxpayer. We try to send it back down. Coupled with that is 
about 50 percent of the paperwork on which a teacher back in Nashville, 
TN, is working. Every time we do something here, we need to be very 
careful in those mandates that come down for those regulations. That is 
coupled, A, out of the funding, but, B, also adequate reform, local 
control, accountability, parental involvement, and choice.
  It has been fascinating. I am so glad we finally got to the floor the 
underlying bill itself, and the agreement that has been reached in a 
bipartisan way, working with the administration over the last 3 weeks 
because it allows people to see what is in the bill, to read the 
language, and to react to it. It has been a positive and negative 
reaction.
  I, for one, believe it embodies the principles outlined by President 
Bush, although I will say it does not go as far as I wish it to go in 
certain areas of innovation, freedom, putting the parents in charge, 
and allowing them to choose and be more actively involved in their 
children's education. It is very strong on the accountability and in 
areas such as the Straight A's aspect of it. It is very strong on 
flexibility, tied with accountability.
  One area that falls short--and I am very hopeful that over the coming 
couple of weeks that we are on the bill we can address it--is involving 
parents and families in education.
  We hear public education defined as a Federal monopoly. In truth it 
is a monopoly. There is a little bit of fringe innovation going on in 
charter schools. The underlying bill encourages that greatly, although 
I should also add that States like Tennessee do not have charter 
schools yet. It is one of a handful of States that doesn't allow 
charter schools. We need to work in that direction.
  But the area that it falls short in is in parental involvement and 
choice.
  Instead of trying to go through a bunch of points, I would like to 
quote several people. We are going to come back to it next week because 
there will

[[Page 6934]]

be amendments proposed on choice, empowering parents, and portability. 
I have already commented that we have to be careful with the funding. 
We can throw unlimited funds in the current formula, and I still leave 
out disadvantaged children because of the way the formula is focused on 
institutions and not on the individual disadvantaged students--
portability.
  Again, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire will be introducing an 
amendment to that effect.
  This is a quote from Virginia Walden, a single mother and executive 
director of D.C. Parents for School Choice.
  They are actually having a rally tonight. They expected a few hundred 
people to be there, and thousands wanted to come to talk about choice 
here in the District of Columbia.
  This is from the Washington Post of May 24, 1998. I think it captures 
the feelings well.
       I am a lifelong Democrat, and I am not sure when the 
     Democrats decided that siding with the poor and the needy is 
     no longer part of their platform. School choice empowers 
     parents, and I don't care who is behind it, Democrats or 
     Republicans.

  Again, that is from an article from a couple of years ago but 
captures, I believe, the feeling about parental involvement.
  Alveda C. King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has been an 
outspoken person. This is from the Wall Street Journal of September 11, 
1997, which again captures the feeling. I refer again to the District 
of Columbia because we talked about choice.

       The District of Columbia public school system allocates 
     $10,180 per student, the highest in the nation, according to 
     the U.S. Department of Education. Yet, according to the Annie 
     Casey Foundation, 80% of fourth-graders in the Washington 
     public schools score below their grade on basic math skills. 
     The National Assessment of Education Progress reports that 
     72% of Washington's fourth-graders test below ``basic 
     proficiency'' . . . [an] appalling failure. . . .
       Washington's families and teachers favor a right to choose 
     the paths of education for their families. . . . The issue is 
     not what families choose, but rather, that they be allowed 
     and empowered to do so.

  Again, the importance of involving parents, and, again, as people 
look at the bill, they will conclude that we don't go far enough.
  I am hopeful that we can address that to empower parents to be 
involved.
  William Raspberry, a columnist whom our colleagues know of and read 
on a regular basis, in the Washington Post, March 9, 1998, says:

       Look at it from the viewpoint of those parents who grab so 
     avidly for the chance to get their children into better 
     schools: Should they be required to keep their children in 
     dreadful schools in order to keep those schools from growing 
     even worse? Should they be made to wait until we get around 
     to improving all the public schools? . . . Surely voucher 
     opponents cannot believe the logic of their counterargument: 
     that if you can't save everybody--whether from a burning 
     apartment house, a sinking ship or a dreadful school system--
     it's better not to save anybody at all.

  We basically have a provision in the underlying bill which, if you 
are locked into a school that fails 1 year, and then another year, and 
another year, increases resources to try to bring that school up. After 
the third year, that parent is empowered to go to another public 
school. A charter school is a public school.
  But many of us would like to see that expanded to fully empower that 
parent to be able to take whatever money we pay as the taxpayer and 
allow that student to go anywhere. It is not in the underlying bill. 
Again, it stops short of exactly where we would like to be.
  Rod Paige, Superintendent, Houston independent school district, on 
June 16, 1998, said:

       [A limited voucher program] doesn't weaken public school 
     systems, it strengthens public school systems.]

  That is from Houston Chronicle of June 16, 1998.
  One more because the story is a powerful one as we look at choice. 
The President's belief and my belief is that we need to maximize choice 
and demand strong accountability.
  Urban League of Greater Miami, September 23, 1999, Christian Science 
Monitor:

       . . .the Urban League of Greater Miami is opposing a 
     lawsuit against Florida's new voucher program. The NAACP, on 
     the other hand, is one of the parties seeking to stop 
     vouchers. They allow us to have access to educational 
     opportunity. . . .Why should a kid be forced to go to a 
     school where it is obvious that the school is not preparing 
     him or her to be competitive?

  The underlying bill as amended today is a very powerful bill, again 
developed in a bipartisan way, surrounding the principles we believe in 
strongly and that recognize we have not done a service which our young 
people today deserve. Yet there are ways to improve that bill.
  I am very hopeful, as we look to choice, that we can empower because 
it is the parent whom we should trust most with the education of our 
children. The bill does not go as far as I believe we can and that our 
children deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, be added as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes, three seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
New York, Mrs. Clinton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am delighted to be supporting this critical 
amendment, the Dodd-Collins amendment--and the Jeffords amendment--
because I think that both of them offer the kind of real support in 
terms of resources that are needed to make good on the promise of this 
legislation.
  I share the support my friend from Tennessee has put forth on the 
underlying structure of this bill, and what it offers our children and 
parents and teachers. But I also believe strongly that increasing 
accountability without also increasing and targeting resources to those 
children whom we know will have difficulty meeting the accountability 
measures is an essential and critical component to making this piece of 
legislation all that it should be, and hopefully fulfilling the promise 
of leaving no child behind.
  Earlier this week, I came to the floor to talk about my concern that 
increasing accountability without providing resources needed to help 
our children meet these high standards and pass these new tests would 
be an empty promise.
  Right now, we know from the independent, nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service that in fiscal year 2001 Congress provided school 
districts with only one-third of the resources needed to fully serve 
eligible students in order to help close the achievement gap.
  With these limited funds, schools are using 70 to 80 percent of their 
funds to pay the salaries of teachers and instructional aides, and have 
little left over for other critical investments, from ongoing 
professional development to reducing class sizes, or for providing all 
students eligible for title I with the extra help they need to meet 
high standards.
  I have gone in and out of schools in our country for more than 18 
years. I have spent a lot of time in the schools of New York. I know 
that we have the ingredients for improving education, but we have been 
reluctant to provide those ingredients in the quantities needed to the 
children who require them the most.
  Yet even with our limited Federal investment, our urban school 
districts have actually shown gains in reading and math. Since 1992, 
national reading and performance has improved for 9-year-olds in our 
highest poverty public schools by nearly one grade level.
  We know from local examples that title I is working. It will work if 
we target the funds where they are needed. Let me just raise one 
example. I could have picked many to talk about. I talked about some of 
them in my earlier remarks in this Chamber.
  P.S. 172 in Brooklyn, NY, enrolls over 600 students. Three-quarters 
are Hispanic, and virtually all of them receive

[[Page 6935]]

free or reduced-price school lunches. The school has operated a title I 
schoolwide program since 1993. They have combined their Federal 
resources from title I, Goals 2000, title 7, with State and private 
funds to help all students achieve high standards.
  Since 1994-1995, P.S. 172's third and sixth grade reading and 
mathematics scores on the New York State assessments have exceeded 
district and city averages.
  For what have they used this money? They help teachers implement a 
literacy-focused curriculum through intensive professional development. 
A master teacher and a full-time staff development specialist mentor 
first-year teachers. We know how important that is. If we send a first 
year, inexperienced teacher into an overcrowded classroom, and in some 
of the most difficult neighborhoods in our country, and we say: ``You 
are on your own; try to teach these children,'' whose first language is 
not English, who come to school with all kinds of difficulties; ``teach 
them to read, bring them up to standards,'' we are asking a whole lot 
from a young, inexperienced teacher.
  But if we mentor that teacher and say: ``We are going to give you the 
help, the extra attention you need to be an effective teacher,'' we 
will get positive results.
  Teachers share their ideas and their expectations with each other and 
across grade levels. They learn how to work in a crowded classroom with 
children who may not have the attention span that is needed. They do 
everything they can to really marshal those title I resources to make 
it possible to bring about the results that every one of us in this 
Chamber want.
  I do not question any one of my colleagues on either side of the 
aisle about their commitment to improving the quality of education for 
our children, especially our most needy children. But what I do 
question is that we do not look at what has worked. We do not look at 
the best practices where title I is making a difference, where schools 
are able to take those resources and get the kind of results that we 
are seeking.
  In 1999, the Council of Great City Schools found that fourth and 
eighth graders in urban schools did boost their performance. I have 
heard a lot of talk from Senators who say the Federal Government has 
not made a difference, that title I has not made a difference. I 
respectfully ask you to look at the evidence. Go to the schools where I 
go. Talk to the teachers.
  In fact, 87.5 percent of the urban school districts showed reading 
gains in title I schools, and 83 percent showed improvements in math 
achievement for title I students. We also found that the percentage of 
title I students in urban schools below the 25th percentile has been 
declining.
  So we do have the formula. We have a recipe. We just need to make 
sure of the ingredients. Setting standards, testing to see whether 
children meet those standards, and looking for ways to bring more 
resources to bear is a winning strategy.
  I could not be more in favor of what my good friends, Senator Dodd 
and Senator Collins, are attempting to do because if we do not focus 
our resources on these children, then I think our attempt to reform 
education is not only an empty promise but really a fraudulent one. We 
are saying, fine, we are going to test these children. I have used this 
metaphor before. It is similar to handing out thermometers in the midst 
of an epidemic. We are going to find out we have a lot of sick 
children. We know that.
  We know we have children who are under tremendous stresses in the 
world today, who come from very difficult and dysfunctional 
environments, who cannot concentrate in school. Go in and do a random 
test for the children's eyesight, and you will find children who cannot 
see well enough to see the board, and they do not get any medical care 
for that. Do a random dental care check, and you will find children, as 
I have, who have abscessed teeth, who are not concentrating or learning 
to read because they have too much pain which is dulling their 
abilities.
  But we can today, with this debate, and with a bipartisan commitment 
with the administration, make the changes that we know will work.
  So I strongly urge all of my colleagues that we put our resources 
where our promises are. Let's not turn our back on the evidence of what 
works.
  I sometimes joke that Washington occasionally seems to be an 
evidence-free zone. We can come with stacks of evidence, with all kinds 
of reports; we can say, look, if we give a little more help, this title 
I school, using these best practices, will turn itself around. Instead, 
we say, it is not working because all of these children, with all of 
these difficulties, are not reading at grade level.
  I know that if we are true to the mission that brings us to this 
education debate, if we are willing to support, with resources, the 
kind of accountability we are asking from our children, we will see 
results. We have seen results in the past.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment 
which will make a tremendous difference for our children.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2 minutes on his 
side; and the other side has 1 minute 40 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, again, thank our colleagues who have 
addressed this important subject. And I thank my colleague from New 
York for her eloquent statement on the value of expanding the title I 
program, as my colleague from Maine and I are attempting to do with 
this amendment. I do believe, if we have additional resources, based on 
the evidence--and the evidence has been significant--that we will get 
results.
  There are those who suggest that because we have spent about $120 
billion on title I over 35 years and have not fully closed the 
achievement gap, that it is not working. But, over the years that has 
represented less than 3 cents of each dollar spent on education. We are 
proving today, while the results certainly are not perfect, that title 
I is essential to improving student achievement.
  We have listened to those who are working on in the districts, in the 
schools, who do not have Ds or Rs associated with their names or wear 
political labels, who tell us it is making a difference.
  What better evidence could we have than relying on those who every 
day do the hard work of trying to improve the intellectual and learning 
capabilities of the 50 million children who go to public schools in 
America? The amendment we are offering is based on that evidence. It is 
based on the hard evidence that is provided by teachers and school 
boards and school principals and parents who have watched title I funds 
make a difference.
  We think they can make even more of a difference, particularly, in 
conjunction with accountability standards. We think that providing the 
resources to make it possible for these children to reach the goals we 
all want them to reach is absolutely critical if this Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 2001 is to be worthy of our nation's 
children.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Dodd-
Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield back the time, unless my colleague 
from Maine wants to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 6936]]



                          ____________________