[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7171-7182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Continued

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have discussed at considerable length 
the educational issues that have been brought forward by the BEST bill, 
which is the proposal that came out of the Health Committee I serve on, 
chaired by Senator Jeffords from Vermont, and ranking member Senator 
Kennedy from Massachusetts. We talked a lot about policy and the fact 
this bill moves the policy forward to try to reform our school systems 
in a number of ways. It does not necessarily go as far as some Members 
would like, but it is progress in areas which are in significant need 
of progress.
  I have had a chance to speak about the need for more choice, the need 
for basic themes such as being child centered, flexibility, has 
academic achievement as its goal especially for low-income kids, and it 
has accountability standards to make sure the academic standards are 
met.
  I have spoken on a number of specific issues such as how to deal with 
teachers, how it improves the capacity of local school districts to do 
more to get and keep good teachers and hire good teachers.
  I will speak about the issue of the funding in this bill and the 
funding question generally because there has been a lot of discussion 
especially from the other side of the aisle about how inappropriate the 
funding levels are that the President has proposed to support the 
educational reforms he has requested.
  When I hear these representations from the other side of the aisle, I 
am not so sure they come to the table--not to be too aggressive--with 
clean hands on the issue. The issue of funding education in this 
country, especially things such as special education, has been debated 
for the last few years and it has been the Republican side of the aisle 
that has significantly increased the commitments to educational 
funding. I think it is appropriate to review the history of where we 
are in the area of funding.
  First, it is most important to point out the equation for better 
education is not more dollars equal better education. Over and over 
again it has been shown, in study after study, that more dollars do not 
produce better education. The key to better education is a much more 
complex formula than some would have Members believe. Those who suggest 
we put more dollars in and we get better education are wrong. The key 
to education is a formula that involves, No. 1, parental involvement; 
No. 2, good teachers; No. 3, good principles; No. 4, local control over 
the curriculum and how the schools teach; and probably No. 5 on the 
list, dollars. It is a mixture of these factors and other factors, of 
course--facilities and things like that--but primarily it is a very 
complex formula. It is not just more dollars means better education.
  A number of studies have shown this relative to local dollars and 
State dollars. Regarding Federal dollars spent, the statistics are 
especially startling. We have had a Federal program in place now for 
over 30 years, the purpose of which was to raise the level of academic 
achievement of especially low-income children. That is what we were 
focusing on as a Federal Government. Regrettably, our success in this 
area has been singularly poor. This chart reflects this. We have spent 
$120 billion on title I, which is directed at low-income children. Yet 
the score levels of our kids who meet this category of educational 
support has remained absolutely flat for all intents and purposes in 
reading and math. The spending has gone up dramatically, but the score 
levels of these children has been flat.
  In fact, the average child who comes from a low-income family today, 
who is in the fourth grade, reads at two grade levels below a peer in 
that class. That is true not only for the fourth but fifth and sixth, 
and naturally they fall back as they go into the eighth, ninth, and 
tenth grade to the point where this group of kids, low-income families 
and especially minority families from urban areas, are graduating at 
less than a 50-percent rate from high school, even though we spent all 
this money.
  One thing we know for sure is that putting money into the problem has 
not resolved it. The issue is, What should we do? We need to reform the 
system. That is what the President has suggested. Through a lot of hard 
negotiation and aggressive effort on the part of both sides of the 
aisle, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords taking the lead, we 
have been successful coming forward with a bill which in some ways 
significantly reforms the system, although it leaves out key elements I 
would like to see, but it is still a major step in the right direction, 
especially once the bill is amended by the underlying agreement which 
was reached between the chairman and the ranking member and other 
people who negotiated.
  Reform is critical if you get something for the dollars spent. 
Dollars are not the only issue.
  Let me simply say the representation by the other side that this 
administration is not willing to commit the dollars to support reform 
is inconsistent with the history of what has happened over the last few 
years and who has been willing to fund what. If you look at the amount 
of funding which President Clinton suggested we put into the 
educational system over the 8 years of his administration, recognizing 
for the first 4 years of his administration he has the deficit, the 
average amount spent, the average increase, was about 3.3 percent. The 
biggest increase he suggested in any given year was 3 years ago when he 
suggested 8 percent. But generally, his increases have been proposed at 
around 4 percent, 3 percent, 2 percent in the area of spending for 
education.
  President Bush has suggested an increase of 11 percent in his budget, 
twice, three times what President Clinton proposed in any budget over 
the last 8 years. He has suggested, and he has made an offer to the 
other side which would represent a 50-percent increase in spending in 
title I specifically, the single largest increase ever proposed in this 
program by a factor of 10, by my calculations.

[[Page 7172]]

  The simple fact is that the President has been willing to come 
forward, subject to reform being put in place, and commit the dollars 
necessary to support those reforms. Remember something about the reform 
proposals brought forward, even as part of the agreement: There is a 
lead time to those reforms being put in place. They basically all key 
off of something called annual yearly progress, which keys off of a 
testing regime, and the testing regime is not presumed to be effective 
or completely in place for almost 3 years, probably 4 years. It is not 
expected, under this bill, that we will attain our goals because it 
takes so long to ramp up to this type of a situation, for 10 years. 
Thus, the money that is going into the program this year, the 50 
percent increase which the President has been willing to propose, is a 
huge infusion of money upfront when the reforms are not in place. It is 
really a downpayment in anticipation of what will happen in reforms.
  It is really a sign of good faith on his part to make that type of 
commitment. He is saying, as President, I am committed to these 
reforms. I know you have to make the reforms to get decent education 
and achieve improvement in our education. But I also understand money 
is going to have to be committed. Even though I am not going to get my 
reforms immediately, I am willing to put the money upfront, and a 
significant amount of money, a huge amount of money in the context of 
what has been done in this area for years.
  So this argument from the other side that the money is not there, 
there is not any money there--I heard the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee come down this morning and give us an explanation of that--is 
simply inaccurate. Not only has the President proposed to increase his 
budget by 11 percent, not only was the budget reported out with an 11 
percent increase in it, but he has gone much further and said, on the 
appropriating accounts, he is willing to make a much more significant 
increase. And the people on the other side who have been negotiating 
this matter know that. The President has agreed he will find those 
dollars within the contents of the budget that has been settled on, 
huge dollars of increase.
  Let's take another subject in which we have heard a lot of talk about 
money, IDEA, special education. This is something I have been working 
on for a long time. The Senator in the chair has been working on it for 
a long time. The Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the committee, 
has been working on it for a long time. When I came to the Senate, the 
Federal Government was paying 6 percent of the cost of special 
education. It had agreed in 1976 that it would pay 40 percent of the 
cost. So the difference, the difference between 6 percent and 40 
percent, was being picked up by the local communities through their tax 
base or States through their tax base. Essentially States and local 
communities were having to support the Federal obligation.
  As a result, their resources were being skewed and sent places and 
being used to support Federal obligations when they might have wanted 
to use them to do something else at the State level. So a number of us 
made a conscious effort to change that, and we have made huge progress. 
We have gone from the Federal Government picking up 6 percent of the 
cost to the Federal Government today picking up almost 17 percent of 
the cost; and we are closing in on 20 percent of the cost.
  But who is the energizer for this? Did it come from President 
Clinton? Did these additional efforts in the area of special education 
come from President Clinton? For 8 years in a row there was essentially 
no increase sent up here by the Democratic White House to increase 
special education funding of any significance. Only 1 year did they 
send anything up with any significance. In fact, in a number of years 
they essentially flat funded this account.
  It was not until we got a Republican Congress that this issue was 
addressed and began to be addressed aggressively. I have a chart which 
reflects this rather dramatically. This is 1996, the year the 
Republican Congress came into being. The red accounts reflect the 
increase in IDEA funding since that period. As you can see from this 
bar chart, it has gone up every year since there has been a Republican 
Congress. In this period, of course, you had a Democratic President.
  I suggest you go back and look at the budget submissions that came 
from the White House during this period. You will see no increase. If 
this were to track the budget submissions of the White House, those 
lines would be cut off right there. The increase in special education 
funding has come as a result of aggressive initiatives coming from this 
side of the aisle.
  The President this year has put in his budget the single largest 
increase ever proposed by a White House in the area of special 
education--$1 billion. So we will now exceed $7 billion in funding for 
special education if we follow the President's proposal. Those are real 
dollars that will significantly relieve the burden of the local 
communities in the area of education and specifically in the area of 
special education.
  So when we hear this patter from the other side of the aisle that the 
dollars are not there to support the initiatives which the President 
has talked about, it is simply inconsistent with the facts. There is no 
question but that the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been 
suggested on the other side of the aisle are not there because they 
were not responsible and they would not resolve the problem.
  It was ironic, I have to admit, after 8 years of receiving 
essentially no increase or only marginal increases in title I funding 
from a White House controlled by the Democratic Party, that during the 
first few months, when the White House became controlled by the 
Republican Party, suddenly the Democratic Party decided they needed a 
74 percent increase in funding in 1 year in this account. That was 
after 8 years of saying they did not really need any type of increase 
of funding in this account.
  Could it be political? I don't think so. But the fact is, the request 
was made and so far we have heard from the other side that unless that 
request is met, we will be underfunding these accounts.
  The President has proposed, as I said, in his budget and has 
supported in his budget an 11 percent increase overall in education 
funding. That is the single largest item of increase in his budget of 
any account, whether it is defense, NIH, whatever. He has put on the 
table an extra $1 billion for special ed funding. And he has made an 
offer on the appropriating side relative to title I, which would 
represent a 50 percent increase of title I funding in the first year--
the first year, which is not 74 percent, but it is still a pretty 
darned big number.
  My view is that the President has more than gone the distance in 
putting the money on the table necessary to address the reforms which 
are in this package. The reforms are good reforms.
  Once again, let's remember these reforms have a lead-in time which is 
fairly significant. The money is actually going to be available before 
the reforms are in place. So I would say the President is showing 
really good faith in this exercise.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Craig amendment No. 372 is the pending 
business.
  Mr. BYRD. So there is an amendment before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment may be set aside temporarily and that I might offer an 
amendment and hopefully get it acted upon by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 373 to Amendment No. 358

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


[[Page 7173]]

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 373 to amendment No. 358.

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

(Purpose: To provide assistance to local educational agencies to carry 
            out activities to reduce underage alcohol abuse)

       On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     SEC. 405. GRANTS TO REDUCE ALCOHOL ABUSE.

       Title IV (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                ``PART E--GRANTS TO REDUCE ALCOHOL ABUSE

     ``SEC. 4501. GRANTS TO REDUCE ALCOHOL ABUSE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration, shall award grants, on a competitive 
     basis, to local educational agencies to enable such agencies 
     to develop and implement innovative and effective programs to 
     reduce alcohol abuse in secondary schools.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     subsection (a), a local educational agency shall prepare and 
     submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require, including--
       ``(1) a description of the activities to be carried out 
     under the grant;
       ``(2) an assurance that such activities will include 1 or 
     more of the proven strategies for reducing underage alcohol 
     abuse as determined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
     Services Administration;
       ``(3) an explanation of how activities to be carried under 
     the grant that are not described in paragraph (2) will be 
     effective in reducing underage alcohol abuse, including 
     references to the past effectiveness of such activities;
       ``(4) an assurance that the applicant will submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report concerning the effectiveness of 
     the programs and activities funded under the grant; and
       ``(5) such other information as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Streamlining of Process for Low-Income and Rural 
     LEAs.--The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator 
     of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration, shall develop procedures to make the 
     application process for grants under this section more user-
     friendly, particularly for low-income and rural local 
     educational agencies.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 
     and such sums as may be necessary in each of the 6 subsequent 
     fiscal years.
       ``(2) Reservations.--
       ``(A) SAMHSA.--The Secretary shall reserve 20 percent of 
     the amount appropriated for each fiscal year under paragraph 
     (1) to enable the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services Administration to provide alcohol 
     abuse resources and start-up assistance to local educational 
     agencies receiving grants under this section.
       ``(B) Low-income and rural areas.--The Secretary shall 
     reserve 25 percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal 
     year under paragraph (1) to award grants under this section 
     to low-income and rural local educational agencies.''.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the warm springtime weather brings to mind 
the words of Shakespeare:

     From you have I been absent in the spring,
     When proud-pied April, dress'd in all his trim,
     Hath put a spirit of youth in everything.

  But, unfortunately, all is not well with many of our youth. While 
most of them are shedding their winter coats and playing in the warm 
sunshine, a shocking number are engaging in some very dangerous 
behavior, dangerous both to themselves and others. I am speaking of 
alcohol abuse.
  When I say ``dangerous behavior,'' I am talking about alcohol abuse.
  According to a study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, get this: The 
extent of alcohol consumption by children ages 9 to 15 is startling, 
and preventing it must become a national priority.
  Consider these facts. Three million children ages 14 through 17 are 
regular drinkers. Twenty-four percent of eighth graders have used 
alcohol in the last 30 days.
  Let me read that again.
  Three million children ages 14 through 17 are regular drinkers.
  Where are the parents? They aren't around.
  Twenty-four percent of eighth graders have used alcohol in the last 
30 days. More than 100,000 12- to 13-year-olds binge drink every month. 
More than 100,000 youngsters 12 to 13 years old binge drink every 
month.
  Ninth graders who drink are almost twice as likely to attempt suicide 
than those who do not drink. Moreover, 40 percent of children who begin 
drinking before the age of 15 will become alcoholics at some point in 
their lives.
  Let me say that again.
  Forty percent of children who begin drinking before the age of 18 
will become alcoholics at some point in their lives.
  America has taken elaborate measures to combat the scourge of drugs. 
We have financed police and military attacks on the drug problem. But 
the most favored drug for Americans is alcohol. That is the most 
favored drug--alcohol. The most commonly abused drug is widely 
available, and it is cowardly promoted--alcohol. Walk into any liquor 
store, show your ID card--sometimes you don't even have to do that, I 
am told--and buy your poison. It is for sale.
  On television, for those who watch it--I do very little of it. I 
watch television very seldomly. I watch it when public television has 
on a truly good informative movie, such as ``Napoleon,'' or ``The Ten 
Commandants.'' I believe I saw ``The Ten Commandments.'' I know I saw 
it. But I believe it was on one of those very good programs on some 
other network, or a station other than public television. Of course, I 
don't ask everyone to do what I do or to follow me as an example. I am 
just saying that as far as television is concerned, I select very 
carefully the programs that I watch on television.
  But on television, sports heroes debate whether a particular type of 
beer tastes great or less filling.
  On television, sports heroes debate whether a particular type of beer 
tastes great or is less filling.
  These commercials send a not-so-subtle message to our young people 
that drinking is what adults do, particularly adults who are popular--
athletes, for example. Drinking is what adults do. So why don't you do 
it? If it is all right for adults, it is all right for you young 
people.
  Comedians joke about drunks. But drinking is no joke. And we must 
make a greater effort to get the word out where it can have the 
greatest impact. Drinking is no joke.
  Don't think that the crisis of youth violence is not connected with 
alcohol. We talk about alcohol abuse. I will just say alcohol, plain 
old alcohol. We tippy-toe around about it and call it alcohol abuse. Of 
course, it is alcohol abuse.
  Let me say this in addition. There are many causes of youth violence. 
The people of this country are concerned about youth violence in the 
schools and elsewhere. There are many causes of youth violence. But 
judgment, which is not always very well developed in the young, is 
clearly impaired by alcohol.
  My amendment would authorize $25 million, which is a very small sum 
for this purpose, for competitive grants to be awarded to local 
educational agencies for the purpose of assisting them with the 
implementation of innovative and effective alcohol abuse prevention 
programs targeted at children and particularly teenagers.
  Out of this amendment, $5 million would be set aside for the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to provide 
alcohol abuse resources to the local education agencies, as well as to 
assist them with the implementation of their program.
  The U.S. Department of Education would work jointly with the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to develop 
the grant application with special attention to the low-income and 
rural educational agencies.
  This program is modeled on the National Awards Recognition Program. 
That program rewards colleges and universities for innovative and 
effective alcohol prevention initiatives. The difference, however, is 
that this amendment would create a program that gives funding to 
schools to create effective alcohol abuse prevention programs targeted 
towards high school students.

[[Page 7174]]

  Now, this is the beautiful month of May. We are heading right into 
the time when there will be high school commencements all over the 
country. And all too often we read in the newspapers about what happens 
after high school commencements in some instances: An automobile full 
of young people, who have just graduated, perhaps from high school, go 
out for a drive, they drink, they have beer in the car--may have 
whiskey in the war--and they end up with their automobile wrapped 
around a tree. Many of those high school youngsters die on those 
occasions.
  So let us take action now, so that springtimes for decades to come 
can be wholesomely enjoyed, and can orient our youth toward futures 
teeming with possibilities. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Before my colleagues respond, my good friend--and he is my good 
friend--and he is my favorite Senator on this side of the aisle. I will 
not say today who my favorite Senator is on the other side of the 
aisle, but I have no problem doing that when the occasion arises. I 
have several favorite Senators, but Senator Kennedy is my favorite of 
all favorites on this side of the aisle.
  Now, you do not win friends by saying things like that, selecting 
another individual and saying he is your favorite. I like all my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, but Senator Kennedy and I have a 
long history and a long history of friendship. I have great admiration 
for him.
  But in connection with this amendment, Senator Kennedy asked me a few 
days ago, right out of the blue sky, to quote a certain poem. That 
tests your mettle when somebody asks you to quote a poem right in front 
of the television camera. And these poems are not easy to quote in 
situations like that. I am almost tempted, though, to quote that poem 
in connection with this amendment.
     Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
     Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;
     But over its terrible edge there had slipped
     A duke and full many a peasant.
     So the people said something would have to be done,
     But their projects did not at all tally;
     Some said, ``Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,''
     Some, ``An ambulance down in the valley.''

     But the cry for the ambulance carried the day.
     For it spread through the neighboring city;
     A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
     But each heart became brimful of pity
     For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
     And the dwellers in highway and alley
     Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,
     But an ambulance down in the valley.

     ``For the cliff is all right, if you're careful.'' they said,
     ``And, if folks even slip and are dropping,
     It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much.
     As the shock down below when they're stopping.''
     So day after day, as these mishaps occurred,
     Quick forth would these rescuers sally
     To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
     With their ambulance down in the valley.

     Then an old sage remarked: ``It's a marvel to me
     That people give far more attention
     To repairing results than to stopping the cause,
     When they'd much better aim at prevention.
     Let us stop at its source all this mischief,'' cried he,
     ``Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally;
     If the cliff we will fence we might almost dispense
     With the ambulance down in the valley.''

     ``Oh, he's a fanatic,'' the others rejoined,
     ``Dispense with the ambulance? Never!
     He'd dispense with all charities, too, if he could;
     No! No! We'll support them forever.
     Aren't we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
     And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
     Why should people of sense stop to put up a fence,
     While the ambulance works down in the valley?''

     But a sensible few, who are practical too.
     Will not bear with such nonsense much longer;
     They believe that prevention is better than cure.
     And their party will soon be the stronger.
     Encourage them then, with your purse, voice, and pen,
     And while other philanthropists dally,
     They will scorn all pretense and put up a stout fence
     On the cliff that hangs over the valley.

     Better guide well the young than reclaim them when old,
     For the voice of true wisdom is calling,
     ``To rescue the fallen is good, but 'tis best
     To prevent other people from falling.''
     Better close up the source of temptation and crime
     Than deliver from dungeon or galley;
     Better put a strong fence round the top of the cliff
     Than an ambulance down in the valley.''

  That is what this amendment does. It helps--it is not enough--but it 
helps, it begins a program of putting a fence around the edge of a 
cliff to rescue these people, prevent their going to the dungeon or 
galley. I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment, that we 
might put up a strong fence around the edge of the cliff and keep some 
of these young people, hopefully, from bringing disaster upon 
themselves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just about a week ago, Senator Byrd was 
addressing the Senate on a matter of importance, and I took just a 
moment of his time to ask him if he could refresh our recollection of a 
poem that he previously recited about the fence and the ambulance down 
in the valley.
  As things would have it, there was intervening business, and the good 
Senator was kind and patient enough to permit others to proceed. It was 
late in the afternoon, close to the evening, and Senator Byrd agreed to 
respond to my request for recitation of this poem at a later time.
  Little did I know then that his presentation would have such meaning 
in connection with the amendment that he offers today, to try to 
strengthen the academic achievement of children in this country. His 
amendment is absolutely on point, in that it recognizes that investment 
in prevention is a much wiser investment than providing remedies after 
the fact.
  Prevention is what the Senator's amendment is really all about. That 
is the central theme of the Senator's amendment today in terms of 
awakening awareness among our young people across this country about 
the extraordinary dangers and devastations of alcohol.
  The good Senator from West Virginia is not a member of our Education 
Committee, but I am hopeful that in the remaining time the Senate 
considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, at some time the 
Senator will recall for us the importance of a quality education.
  There is no one in this Chamber who can speak more eloquently or more 
passionately or more knowledgeably than he about the basic importance 
of starting a young person off on the right path towards academic 
achievement. And there is no one who can tell the story more 
effectively about the challenges that are presented to young people, 
and the resolve they must have in order to earn the legitimate 
scholarship that results from application of hard work in the 
development of one's academic abilities.
  I do not think there is anyone I know who can remember the names of 
their third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers, as the Senator from West 
Virginia can, the subject matter that was taught, and the lessons 
learned in those classrooms many years ago. I know of no one who can 
make a more persuasive or passionate statement of support for the 
importance of a good education as a matter of national priority than 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  I will certainly urge that his amendment be adopted. But more 
important, I hope that as this body is considering the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and as we get weighted down in the particulars 
of the legislation, at some time during this period, he might remind us 
all of the importance of education in a young life and the difference 
that makes.
  He has a remarkable story. I can remember many of the good Senator's 
speeches. But his past speeches on the importance of a quality 
education is always one I remember with such clarity and such 
profundity. It is an extraordinary story. I hope at the end, or 
sometime during the debate that story of the early educational years of 
Bob

[[Page 7175]]

Byrd will remind us all about what we hope this legislation is really 
about.
  We are talking about different features of the legislation this 
morning, as we did yesterday and we will next week. But Senator Byrd's 
story brings it all together.
  I thank the Senator for bringing this amendment to our attention. I 
think it adds a very important dimension to this legislation. I hope it 
will be accepted at this time, if my good friend from Vermont believes 
it is appropriate to do so.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Again, I commend my good friend from West Virginia on a 
most eloquent statement. I shall in no way try to match or improve upon 
what he has said. I strongly believe in what he is trying to do.
  Senator Kennedy has most eloquently expressed his views and thoughts 
about not only the amendment but the Senator's past. I, for one, admire 
him every time I hear him speak. It always lifts my day a little bit.
  I certainly would accept the amendment. I am checking now to find out 
from other Members to see if we can do that. We cannot do it at this 
time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators. I hope we can adopt 
this amendment today. I would be willing to do it on a voice vote if 
the Senators find it possible.
  While I am on my feet, let me say, with the utmost sincerity and 
gratitude, that the words of my friend, Senator Kennedy from 
Massachusetts, are words I shall always recall as long as I live. These 
words coming from him, and also the words of the Senator from Vermont, 
are most gratifying.
  Senator Kennedy has led in the fight for better legislation and for 
more appropriations for the education of our young people. He has been 
doing this for a long time. When I was majority leader of the Senate 
several years ago, Senator Kennedy was one of those committee chairmen. 
He was almost unique, I would say, but there were one or two others: 
Scoop Jackson, who was a Senator, and when he came to the floor as 
chairman of the committee, he had done his homework; he was well 
prepared. He and Senator Kennedy were two I can think quickly of as 
being Senators who turned out legislation which later became the law of 
the land.
  I can remember those days when I would compliment Senator Kennedy on 
the work he was doing, and I, from time to time, commented that the 
legislation he brought from his committee usually became a statute. I 
can't remember today any Senator who exceeded or who equals the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in developing language for statutes; I 
can't think of any Senator who exceeds or even equals Senator Kennedy 
in that respect.
  It might surprise some people around here to know that in the time I 
have served, I have yet to find a statute which bears the name of 
Webster; I have yet to find a statute which is the Clay law; I have yet 
to find a statute that was authored by John C. Calhoun. Some people 
judge Senators by the number of laws that bear the Senators' names. 
That is not the proper standard. When I think of the three greatest 
Senators of all time, I think of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay because 
they were great Senators for many reasons. But I find that they were 
not great Senators because of statutes or laws that bear their name.
  But I can find many statutes that became such because of Senator 
Kennedy's leadership. And in no area of legislation should one be more 
proud than that of being a leader in promoting and developing and 
managing legislation that becomes law. There is nothing better than 
doing this in the field of education. Those are the best resources for 
our children.
  I am going to accede to Senator Kennedy's request, if I can, and try 
to develop a few words that will respond to his magnificent accolades. 
I certainly salute him as my leader in the field of education. I thank 
him for what he said today. I thank him for his service. I thank both 
Senators for their acceptance of this amendment. I hope we can pass it 
in the Senate today by a voice vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend and colleague 
for his kind words.
  I am also grateful for the Senator's extraordinary service. I say to 
my colleagues, if they want to find out what a Senator's Senator is all 
about, travel to West Virginia with Bob Byrd. And if you want to know 
what the history of this body is, read his lengthy history of this 
institution.
  There are many reasons we are indebted to his service in this 
institution. There is no one who fights to preserve the institution as 
Senator Byrd does, and to those of us who love and respect this 
institution, he stands as Number One. History will not show his equal.
  Mr. President, now I want to take a few moments to review a very 
important aspect of this education debate, and that is the issue of 
funding for the educational reforms that are before us today.
  I ask unanimous consent that this table describing the history of 
past efforts for funding Title I and other elementary and secondary 
education programs be printed in the Record in refutation of Senator 
Gregg's statement on education earlier this morning.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     ESEA BUDGET REQUESTS VS. APPROPRIATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        President's    % Increase                    % Increase
                                                           budget    over previous  Appropriation  over previous
                      Fiscal year                       request (in      year's          (in           year's
                                                         thousands)  appropriation    thousands)   appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994..................................................   $9,124,842          4.58     $8,776,528           0.59
1995..................................................   10,478,889         19.40      9,663,290          10.10
1996..................................................   10,258,296          6.44      9,495,162          -1.74
1997..................................................   10,439,200          9.94     10,620,080          11.85
1998..................................................   11,351,574          6.89     11,523,351           8.51
1999..................................................   13,333,192         15.71     13,851,297          20.20
2000..................................................   14,510,420          4.76     14,811,252           6.93
2001..................................................   18,114,500         22.30     18,411,464          24.31
Average Increase......................................    1,058,716          8.67      1,099,980           9.06
Bush Budget FY 2002...................................      669,000          3.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. KENNEDY. On the education budget, I want to emphasize something 
that is enormously important and to which the American people must pay 
attention: this budget conference agreement, which arrived at 2 a.m. 
this morning, includes an outline of what will be invested in education 
over the next 10 years. This is the budget that has the support of some 
Republicans in Congress and the administration.
  If we look at education and what the funding will be over the next 10 
years, I hope our Members will look at the part of the budget--the 
reference is H1867, in yesterday's Congressional Record from the House. 
Look at the figures there.
  Fiscal year 2001, budget authority of $76.9 billion, outlays of 
$69.850 billion; then for 2002, $81.234 billion in budget authority, 
$76.742 billion in outlays: that is about a 5-percent real increase 
after adjusting for inflation. The Department of Education's FY 2002 
Budget Summary confirms, on page 2: ``The President is requesting $44.5 
billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education 
in fiscal year 2002, . . . an increase of $2.5 billion or 5.9 percent 
over the 2001 program level.''
  Fiscal year 2003, the outlays go from $76 billion to $81 billion. 
Fiscal years 2004 to 2005, it goes from $81 billion to $83 billion; 
2005, it goes from $83 billion to $85 billion; 2006, $87 billion; 2007, 
$89 billion; 2008, $92 billion; 2009, $94 billion; 2010, $96 billion; 
2011, $99 billion. Flat funding for education for the next 10 years 
after accounting for inflation. This is the guidepost for educational 
funding for the next 10 years. Flat funding. No increase.
  With respect to the priorities for this country, how do we reach the 
recognition that education is the No. 1 priority for this country when 
the administration and the Republican leadership in the House and the 
Senate have said no increase; none whatsoever. Flat funding in the area 
of education, not for next year or the year after, but flat funding 
over every one of the remaining 8 years of this decade, that is the 
guidepost in this budget proposal.
  That is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. President. Unacceptable. How are 
we going to explain it? When are we going to hear the explanation from 
the budgeteers? What happened to the Senate

[[Page 7176]]

vote on the Harkin amendment where, in a bipartisan way, the Senate 
voted to increase education investments by $250 billion over the next 
ten years. We wanted funding for Title I. We wanted funding for the 
Head Start Program. We wanted funding for the Child Care and 
Development Block Grant Program. We still want to fund an investment in 
children. Why? Because they are our future. We know if we do not invest 
in our children, they are not going to be able to fully participate in 
our society, in our economy, and be productive and creative members of 
society. That is what this debate is all about.
  There is no issue that comes before us that more defines what we are 
about as a society than whether we are going to have a strong 
educational system.
  What is Republicans' real message? On the one hand, we hear education 
is the No. 1 priority. Yet here's the budget, Mr. President, funding 
over the next 10 years. This is absolutely shocking. It certainly does 
not reflect the opinion of the Senate when yesterday the Senate 
responded to the superb amendment that was offered by Senator Hagel, a 
Republican, Senator Harkin, a Democrat, dealing with special needs of 
children and recognizing we made a commitment to the States that we 
were going to provide 40 percent of funding for special education. We 
are at about 15, 17 percent of the funding now. Yesterday, this body 
went on record saying, yes, we want to keep our promise to those 
children, families, and local communities.
  In the evening yesterday, again in a bipartisan effort with Senator 
Dodd and Senator Collins, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to provide 
full funding for the Title I program over the next 10 years. It 
provided a virtual doubling of the number of children who would be 
reached in the first year under Title I. It was adopted overwhelmingly 
last evening, Mr. President.
  Nonetheless, we have in this budget flat funding for the next 10 
years. Unacceptable, I say.
  If we look further in the budget on pages H1868-69 of yesterday's 
House Congressional Record, the Republican budget says that $336.2 
billion in non-defense discretionary spending will be available next 
year. But the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the amount of 
funding necessary to provide current services over the next year, 
including education, health, NIH, and assistance for Seniors under the 
Older Americans Act, is $343 billion. Just look here in chapter 4, of 
the Congressional Budget Office's Spending Outlook, Table 4-4: $343 
billion will be necessary for all government non-defense discretionary 
spending in 2002. But look at what the budget says, it limits this to 
$336 billion. This means the budget provides $7 billion less, which 
will mean there will be cuts in education, health, the environment, or 
other essential government services.
  These are the facts. We can talk about our priorities. We can talk 
about what the administration is thinking about, but this budget shows 
Republicans' true economic objectives. They focus on tax cuts for the 
super wealthy, period. This budget document says we will have in excess 
of a $1.2 trillion tax cuts going to some of the wealthiest individuals 
in our country and we will have flat funding in education.
  I cannot understand how Members of this body can support this budget 
and say we give education a priority. This is so discouraging.
  We have before us good education reform legislation as a result of a 
bipartisan effort to ensure we are going to combine robust resources 
and accountability to get constructive and productive results from 
schools.
  While we work to make our education policy the best, under this 
budget, we effectively turn our backs on the needs of students across 
this country. It's a disgrace.
  I take issue with comments made earlier about what has been happening 
in Title I. I heard we really don't need to fund Title I because it 
will take so long for the programs we are passing to be put into 
effect: It will take time to develop the tests; it will take time for 
the schools to allegedly fail over a period of time; it will take time 
before we need the resources. I question that. That is not my reading 
of the specific language.
  This bill talks about school improvement for failing schools. We know 
today we have 10,000 failing schools. This particular legislation has 
approaches to help local communities and assist them to get out of the 
category of failing schools. That will take resources. We don't have to 
wait 2, 3, 4, 5 years. We don't have to do that. We know there are 
10,000 failing schools in the country today. We know the average cost 
is $180,000 to turn around a failing school. There are some 57 
research-based, comprehensive school reform models that have been 
identified by the New American Schools Corporation as proven and 
successful. School committees choose their preferred model. The 
decision is made locally.
  For a $1.8 billion commitment, we could begin turning around every 
failing school tomorrow. We have not gotten that. That is what we want 
to try to do. People say, wait for the bill to go into effect. It will 
have to be in effect 3 or 4 or 5 years before we force action to turn 
around failing schools. But there are 10,000 failing schools that can 
be turned around now. The parents want them improved now. Why wait?
  In the BEST bill, we seek to turn around those 10,000 needy schools 
now. Under the budget the administration suggested, we will be able to 
reach only 2,440 schools. This is a missed opportunity. It makes no 
sense. Do we want a $1.2 trillion tax cut or do we want to take a small 
percent of that, less than half of 1 percent that would fund these 
programs? We ought to have the vote on that. Should we have less than a 
one-half of 1 percent reduction in the tax program to try to turn 
around the schools, or shall we go ahead and give the tax cut?
  The Budget Committees, that are the voice of the Republican majority, 
say we will shortchange the schools. We are resisting that. The Senate 
is resisting that in a bipartisan way. Those votes last night were 
bipartisan. That is a clear reflection of where we are. We are very 
hopeful of using those votes to try to persuade the Administration to 
make the kinds of investments in the children needed.
  With all respect to those who spoke earlier today, I would like to 
review what has happened historically in terms of the NAEP test. The 
federal government contributes 6 or 7 cents out of every education 
dollar spent. Education is primarily the State and local 
responsibility. On the federal level, we try to target aid toward the 
neediest children. Fifteen percent of the children in this country are 
poor. You have to be desperately poor to qualify under Title I. There 
are some 10.3 million children we identify as needy for the purposes of 
Title I. But we provide enough funding to reach only 3.5 million of 
those children. We think we ought to fully fund Title I and really 
leave no child behind.
  In recent years, we have seen NAEP achievement gains by needy 
children. They have been gradually going up with regard to white 
children, gradually going up with regard to Hispanics, gradually going 
up with regard to blacks. What is most encouraging, you can say look 
how little progress has been made, or you can say progress has been 
made. We are talking about the poorest of the poor, the neediest of the 
needy.
  The fact we added 5 million disabled children, mainstreamed them, 
with physical and mental challenges, the fact we have had an explosion 
of homelessness, the fact we have had an explosion in the number of 
migrant children impacted, and we have had a dramatic increase in the 
immigrant children attending schools--all those have impacted 
achievement levels. We have had a very significant increase in those 
speaking different languages, foreign languages, and difficulties 
associated with that.
  In spite of these new challenges, the achievement gap between 
children of different races and classes has been reduced. We see in 13-
year-olds, in math, a 46-percent achievement gap reduced to a 32 
percent gap, a 30-percent change. We are moving in the right direction.

[[Page 7177]]

  The reduced achievement gap has come without the further improvements 
brought in this legislation--improvements that will strengthen the 
quality of education for the teachers, improve the curriculum, give the 
schools more authority, fund supplementary services in the afterschool 
programs, and come from an insistence on results.
  We have seen even under the old system that we have been making some 
progress--not as much as any of us would like, but we have seen the 
lines moving in the right direction, which has to be a part of our 
national purpose and goal. In this case, it was for 13-year-olds in the 
area of math.
  In reading, for 9-year-olds, there was a 44 percent gap in the 1970s, 
and a 29-percent gap in 1996. The best results show minority students 
are moving in the right direction--there has been a 34-percent change 
in the last 30 years. It is not a dramatic change, but when you look at 
the expansion of the student body and the significant expansion of 
students, poor children getting poorer, and all the other factors that 
impact children, it is still moving along--not as fast as any Members 
would like, but we are making some progress under the NAEP tests.
  This chart shows for 17-year-olds, in reading, a 52-percent gap at 
the start of the program, down to a 29-percent gap at the present time; 
fairly flat at the top, and moving up with regard to minority students.
  For the 9-year-old kids, in science, a 57-percent gap has been 
reduced to a 41-percent gap, a 28-percent change. Look at the gap in 
minority students. They have moved up in an important way.
  We have made some progress. We spend $400 billion a year on K-12. The 
main federal program is only $8 billion, about 2 cents out of each 
dollar spent, and we are still making progress.
  Yesterday, I used the example of the special situations where we had 
many of the programs we have supported and illustrated in this 
legislation that have resulted in dramatic improvements for children.
  I will just mention a few.

       Goethe Middle School, Sacramento, CA--With chronically low 
     test scores across the curriculum, Geothe Middle School 
     recently decided to attack its academic problems at their 
     root: Many students had never learned to read well. Beginning 
     with the 1997-98 school year, Goethe took a radical step. It 
     trained all instructional staff in Corrective Reading and 
     used fourth period for a mandatory reading class for 
     virtually every student. Although this DI implementation is 
     still too new to judge, preliminary data are encouraging. In 
     the fall of 1997, only 11 percent of Goethe students could 
     read above a sixth-grade level, while 12 percent were at a 
     ``high average'' level for sixth grade. In other words, fewer 
     than one in four students had much hope of keeping up with 
     the reading assignments usually required of middle school 
     students. By the end of the school year, the number of 
     students reading at least at this basic level had more than 
     doubled: 22 percent were at the ``high average'' level, 26 
     percent were above.

  This legislation will expand that type of program.

       Kalispell, MT--The only independent study of Early Steps 
     was conducted in Kalispell, Montana, a small school district 
     with many lower- and middle-class Caucasian families 
     attending Title I schools. In general, the student selected 
     into the study were among the most economically disadvantaged 
     in the district. All students in the study were also 
     performing in the lowest 20th percentile of their class in 
     reading and on related tasks, such as alphabetic knowledge, 
     spelling, word attack and recognition of words in context. 
     Students were assigned to two matched groups, receiving 
     different types of tutorial interventions. After one year, 
     students who had been taught using Early Steps significantly 
     outperformed their peers in reading assessments. In addition, 
     52 percent of the Early Steps students were found to be 
     reading at or above grade level, compared to 23 percent of 
     students in the control group.

  We know that this program can work.

       Cameron Elementary School, Fairfax County, VA--In Fairfax 
     County, Cameron Elementary School's reading scores were below 
     average, and well below those of many schools in the 
     district. With as many as 40 percent of students suffering 
     from low reading achievement, the school decided to implement 
     ECRI as a summer school intervention. By the end of the 
     summer, not only had students in the 4th and 6th grades 
     increased their scores by 10 points, but they also ranked at 
     or above the national average on standardized tests.

  We have adopted the kinds of programs there which have been 
successful.

       Arkansas--The state of Arkansas approved Reading Recovery 
     for statewide use in 1988. From 1991 to 1994, 1,088 
     struggling students received the full RR program (defined as 
     having received 60 lessons). Of those students, 940 (86 
     percent) attained grade level. Fifty-nine students who had 
     successfully completed the program were followed for an 
     additional two years. Compared to a random sample of non-RR 
     students, the RR students tended to perform as well or better 
     on measures of dictation, spelling and text reading in both 
     the third and fourth grades.

  Mr. President, we have many examples of improving academic 
achievement and the reading ability of the nation's schoolchildren. We 
can help children achieve. That is what this legislation is all about. 
We have the ability to do it. The real question is whether we aim to 
reach all of these children, or whether we aim to reach only one-third 
of them? That is the issue.
  Earlier we heard a good deal about the improvements that were taking 
place in Houston, Texas. Secretary Paige is from Houston. All of the 
Houston's educational improvements that were highlighted earlier in 
this debate have come at a cost Houston has seen a 43 percent increase 
in education spending between 1995 and 2000. That is an investment in 
children. That is what we are asking for. We have seen it work in 
Houston.
  In Dallas, too, we have seen results. Dallas has made academic gains. 
Since Dallas made an investment in their accountability system, between 
1994 and 2000, they have seen a 21% increase in the number of students 
that are passing all portions of the TAAS. Before the Texas 
accountability system, Texas was spending $673 million in Dallas. 
Today, they spend $985 million. That is a 46 percent increase--$312 
million.
  These examples indicate real investments. Real money. We have the 
programs and the educational reforms. We know that when the reforms are 
in place, and when we have significant investments, we get results. We 
have a bill that contains the right programs, but now we need the 
resources.


                 Amendment No. 375 To Amendment No. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I ask 
the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 375 to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. KENNEDY. 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 express the sense of the Senate regarding, and authorize 
appropriations for, title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
                              Act of 1965)

       At the end, add the following:

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

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should appropriate $3,000,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002 to carry out part A title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 and thereby--
       (1) provide that schools, local educational agencies, and 
     States have the resources they need to put a highly qualified 
     teacher in every classroom in each school in which 50 percent 
     or more of the children are from low income families, over 
     the next 4 years;
       (2) provide 125,000 new teachers with mentors and year-long 
     supervised internships; and
       (3) provide high quality pedagogical training for every 
     teacher in every school.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out title II part A of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
       (1) $3,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (2) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (3) $4,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (4) $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (5) $5,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (6) $6,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation is focused on ensuring 
that there is a well-trained teacher in every classroom for all of the 
children. This

[[Page 7178]]

amendment is also about providing teachers with opportunities for 
mentorship and other support services to create successful pathways 
toward academic achievement and accomplishment.
  The BEST Act currently authorizes $3 billion professional development 
in the first fiscal year covered by the bill. The current authorization 
includes $1.6 billion previously authorized for class-size reduction, 
and about $500 million for the Eisenhower math-science professional 
development program.
  What we are saying in this amendment is that we should give teacher 
training a special priority in future years as well. The amendment 
provides for a modest increase of $500 million more in authorized 
funding levels in each of the following years, for the next 6 years. 
This is a 7-year authorization bill. Title II, Part A will be used to 
support qualifying teachers, attract new teachers, and provide mentors 
for new teachers. That is what this amendment is about. At the end of 
the 7 years, we will have well-qualified teachers in virtually every 
high poverty classroom. Under current law, we would reach less than 
half that many in 7 years.
  Having a qualified teacher in every classroom is the key to 
educational success. My friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, 
mentioned four or five factors this morning that really strengthen 
education. Well-qualified teachers was one of those factors. Many 
believe it is most important. It is difficult to make a judgment about 
the most important factor influencing achievement, but quality teaching 
certainly, without question, is one of the most important.
  Under current law, there is high-quality professional development for 
less than 5 percent of the Nation's teachers, approximately, 100,000 
out of the current 2.8 million. There are more than 750,000 teachers in 
the high-poverty schools who do not have undergraduate degrees in their 
primary instruction.
  This amendment provides an increased authorization for professional 
development for every teacher in high- poverty schools. It would 
positively impact virtually 50 percent of all teachers. In the first 
year alone, it would provide subject matter training to about 187,000 
teachers in high poverty schools who do not have an undergraduate 
degree in their primary instructional field.
  With the additional funding in the second year, we will get another 
quarter of the 750,000. We will not only do that, but we will also make 
sure that we provide mentoring support for 125,000 new teachers.
  That is what we need--quality training for current teachers, mentors 
for new teachers, and continued and ongoing professional development. 
That is the way you ensure the atmosphere and the climate for learning. 
That is what we find in almost every study that has been done.
  I hope those who are interested in this subject matter take a few 
moments to review this excellent report, ``What Matters Most, Teaching 
for America's Future.'' It was published in 1996. It is the document 
recognized as the leading authority in terms of what is necessary in 
the classroom to help a child learn.
  I will take a few moments to mention a few of the observations. This 
is on page 41.
  Most U.S. teachers have almost no time to consult together or learn 
about new teaching strategies, unlike their peers in many European and 
Asian countries where teachers have substantial time to plan and study 
with one another. In Germany, Japan, and China, for example, teachers 
spend between 15 and 20 hours per week working with colleagues on 
developing curriculum, counseling students, and pursuing their own 
learning. They regularly visit and serve other school classrooms and 
attend seminars provided by university faculty and other teachers, 
conduct group research projects, and participate in teacher-led study 
groups. The result is a rich environment for continuous learning about 
teaching and the needs of students.
  Instead of these ongoing learning opportunities, American teachers 
get a few brief workshops offering packaged programs from outside 
consultants and that contribute little to deepening their subject 
knowledge or teaching skills.
  I couldn't say it better than that. We are trying to change that.
  What about the importance of mentoring? The weight of accumulated 
evidence clearly shows that traditional sink-or-swim induction to 
teaching contributes to high attrition and lower levels of teacher 
effectiveness.
  Sink or swim, put a new teacher with no seniority in the toughest 
class in America, and they don't last. Forty percent leave in the first 
2 years. You put that teacher in the class with an experienced teacher 
and mentor a young teacher, and you find that you reduce the number of 
teachers that leave the profession by about 80 percent.
  Supervised internships or residencies regularly provided for new 
entrants in other professions, such as architects, psychologists, 
nurses, doctors, and engineers, are rare in teaching, but they have 
proven to be quite effective where they exist. Some States have created 
programs for new teacher induction. Few have maintained the commitment 
required. With few exceptions, initiatives during the 1980s focused on 
evaluation and failed to fund mentoring programs. Again, the problem is 
not that we do not know how to support beginning teachers. The problem 
is that we have not yet developed the commitment to do so routinely.
  We know what is necessary and what is needed. Again, work in the 
classroom, getting the well-trained teachers, getting the mentoring and 
doing it in a continuous way is absolutely key.
  I again point out from this study, in addition, that investing in 
targeted recruitment preparation for teachers for high-need locations 
is a national need. That is why we believe we have a responsibility to 
move ahead in this area.
  I will not take additional time in terms of the justification. It is 
all here in a very compelling way.
  I say one additional thing about this at this time. We want to make 
sure in the legislation, in title II part A, that we set a strong 
definition for all qualified teachers who have an academic major in the 
arts and sciences, develop competence in a high-level of in-core 
academic subjects, and are certified and licensed by the States.
  My amendment ensures that professional development and mentoring 
activities are research-based and of high quality. It requires 
professional development activities be an integral part of broad, 
school-wide improvement plans, are sustained, and of such high quality 
and sufficient duration to have a positive and lasting impact on 
classroom instruction.
  My amendment does not promote the one-time workshops we have now but 
what the best available research tells us.
  My amendment promotes mentoring activities that are multi-year and 
designed to help teachers continue to improve their practice of 
teaching and develop their instructional skills.
  It ensures that professional development activities are aligned with 
State content standards, student performance standards, assessment, and 
the curriculum of programs tied to those standards.
  We are trying to get well-qualified teachers in the classroom. We are 
promoting a high-grade curriculum, tests that are not going to be a 
quick, slick, or easy multiple-choice test, but a test that is really 
going to test the ability of the child to think through complex 
problems in math, science, literature, and be able to express them by 
writing in these areas.
  We need all of these reforms. We need thoughtful tests that challenge 
children. We need strengthened curricula, and we need quality teaching.
  We require in this legislation that all teachers in schools with 50 
percent of poverty or higher are highly qualified in 4 years. I don't 
believe, quite frankly, under the bill that we can achieve that with 
the resources provided.
  I think the additional funding that we provide in this amendment will 
move us on a pathway to being able to achieve that. Then we move ahead 
to the other parts.

[[Page 7179]]

  Finally, I hope the Senate will not accept the Craig amendment that 
is before us. It would effectively undermine in a very significant and 
important way what we are really attempting to do. The Craig amendment 
is the wrong approach to improving education. The Craig amendment tells 
already failing schools that they have to improve achievement before 
receiving the additional resources. That is a recipe for failure.
  The schools and children failing need additional resources in order 
to achieve the heightened standards we are demanding of them in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, we have a strong blueprint. We know that once this 
legislation is achieved it will trigger school improvement. And we have 
the ability to do so. For my money, we have a greater demand than there 
are the resources. But we have the ability to do so.
  If we are not going to be able to show results by the range of 
different support that is available under this legislation, we will 
have a prescription for disaster in terms of addressing the real needs 
of children. It is counterintuitive to say to children that we are not 
going to give you what you know you need until you make progress.
  So we will have a chance, I imagine, when the Senator from Idaho is 
present to get into greater debate. But it does seem to me that his 
amendment runs in conflict with the central thrust of this legislation. 
I hope the amendment is not adopted.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
Senator Kennedy.
  In S. 1, we have combined the class size reduction program with the 
Eisenhower math and science program to create a single, substantial 
funding stream for staff development. Given the difficulty in finding 
teachers who have adequate pre-service training in reading, math, 
science, and special education, in-service professional development is 
critically important.
  This amendment establishes a set of ambitious goals for the funding 
of title II of S. 1, much like the amendment of Senators Dodd and 
Collins on title I.
  If we are going to meet the goals established in this legislation--
that every child reach proficiency--then we must upgrade the teaching 
force. This amendment sends the right signal.
  I am pleased to join the Senator in this amendment. I shall work with 
him to get it adopted.
  Seeing no other Senator asking for recognition, 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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, we are debating the education reform act. 
Debate over this bill is increasingly boiling down to debate over one 
question: What is Congress' solution to the problems in our schools, 
specifically, lagging overall achievement and the fact that too many 
children are failed altogether?
  Anyone watching this debate will realize there is a divide between 
those of us who believe that the solution lies in reform and those, on 
the other hand, who believe that the solution is to spend more of your 
money.
  This morning, the Senator from New Hampshire was very clear in 
pointing out how the expenditure of billions and billions of dollars 
over the years has not resulted in any improvement in the test scores 
of our children, and, indeed, after the expenditure of over $120 
billion for the last 30 years, our children are actually falling 
further behind than ever before.
  Granted, those of us who advocate that reform have committed to 
significant funding increases. Again, as the Senator from New Hampshire 
noted earlier today, the budgets offered by President Bush and 
supported by the Republicans in the Senate have called for 
substantially increased spending on the education program. Of course, 
granted, most who focus on spending pay lipservice to the need for 
reform but just not too much of it. I think that is the fundamental 
divide in this debate.
  I am concerned that as we proceed with amendments the spending side 
is making up a great deal of ground, while the reformers who are 
looking to change the system in order to help our kids are losing by 
contrast. Our achievements are looking very meager in contrast.
  As politicians, we will likely benefit, at least in the short term, 
from producing a bill that gives the special interests a taxpayer-
funded windfall, in exchange for a bare minimum of reform. But our 
political exercise will not serve America's children; 6 or 7 years from 
now, we will be making the same excuses to the taxpayers who were 
promised improvement.
  We should stop making excuses for failure and begin by retiring the 
most tired excuse of all, which is that a lack of resources explains 
why our public education system is failing so many of our children--a 
lack of resources, of course, in the form of taxpayer dollars for 
education programs.
  The education special interests may come up short in educating the 
children who most desperately need the help, but they are experts at 
excuses. Here are some in the education sector who have moved beyond 
excuses. This is a book called ``No Excuses,'' by Samuel Casey Carter. 
It has lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools. It shows 
how these schools have implemented commonsense reforms and overcome the 
challenges that others use as excuses for failure.
  The successes of these schools were not achieved by the expenditure 
of large quantities of new funding but by the innovations of caring 
people. Most of the programs are in very poor areas, minority areas, 
and the schools that have some of the best achievements are either 
charter public schools or private schools. They have overcome modest 
budgets, typically budgets more modest than many public schools have. 
They have overcome the psychological and material impediments to 
learning, which many young people suffer from today. In short, they 
have overcome big excuse No. 1, the ``more money excuse,'' and big 
excuse No. 2, also known and characterized by President Bush as the 
``bigotry of low expectations,'' which attempts to excuse failure by 
saying disadvantaged children can't learn and excel.
  The book is full of stories. For example, Patsy Burk's story of Owen 
Elementary School in Detroit, MI, in which 82 percent of the students 
at the school come from low-income families. Yet, the reading and math 
scores have improved dramatically as a result of people who care, the 
innovations in that particular school, and a very innovative team 
approach to teaching in that school.
  Then there is Michael Feinburg School and the Kip Academy in Houston, 
TX. ``There are no shortcuts'' is the simple motto of the Kip Academy. 
They have 9\1/2\ hour days, classes on Saturday, school during the 
summer, and a lot of homework. These are all nonnegotiable at this 
school. They are 95 percent low-income. Yet, the math and reading 
scores are very, very good.
  Example after example is identified in this particular book. It shows 
how these schools have implemented commonsense reform and overcome the 
usual excuses for failure. I think there are practices that parents 
would like to see employed in their own schools, in the schools that 
they would like to have their children attend, that are similar to 
those innovative practices identified in this particular book. But most 
of these parents don't have the same opportunity as the parents of the 
kids identified in this book. These kids had a choice; their parents 
had a choice on where they were going to send their kids. It was that 
very choice that enabled them to provide the kind of education they 
knew was best for their particular kids.
  When you don't have that choice and you are stuck in a failing 
school, there is a great deal of frustration. We have seen that not 
only in the debate today

[[Page 7180]]

but also throughout the country in the last several years. That is what 
President Bush has tried to get away from--the idea that you are stuck 
in a failing school system.
  As the lessons in this particular book show, when you have a choice 
where you can send your children, not only are you able to take them to 
the school that best fits their needs and where they can excel but the 
competition that is provided by those schools to the failing schools 
tends to bring the failing schools up as well because as kids leave 
those schools, obviously people begin asking questions. Sometimes the 
State dollars leave the school as well. So those schools have an 
incentive to improve.
  I can remember in my own State of Arizona opening the paper one day 
and seeing a full-page ad from a public school--frankly, a public 
school that was pretty good--advertising for students to come back to 
this particular public school. I inquired into it. What I found was 
that in this very fast-growing area of one of the Phoenix suburbs, a 
lot of the kids were joining up with the private schools that were 
available or the charter schools that had opened up in the area. 
Therefore, the enrollment in the large public school was essentially 
flat.
  The superintendent, rather than complaining about it or making 
excuses, had gone to these charter schools and private schools and 
asked why so many kids were leaving his public school district and the 
larger schools and attending these others. He found that they were 
innovating, providing things that the parents of the students really 
wanted. So he chose from among those innovations those that he thought 
could best be incorporated into the large public schools of which he 
was superintendent.
  When those reforms were instituted, he then advertised them to the 
parents of the kids in the school district. He said: We have changed. 
We have instituted some reforms now. We think you are going to like 
these things. Come back to the public schools.
  It has been one of the best examples of a public school system which 
was not doing too badly but could improve. The competition caused it to 
reexamine what it needed to improve, and it did so. The enrollment 
since then has gone up. The students are doing very well on scores, and 
I think but for the competition, that school would not be able to brag 
about that today.
  We need to ask the parents of children in failing schools: Would you 
rather the Federal Government appropriate funds to fully fund your 
failing school or would you rather be given the freedom to enroll your 
child in one of these no excuses schools? The kind about which I am 
talking. I think we all know the answer.
  I am afraid the new 900-page negotiated bill that is going to replace 
the old 800-page bill passed by the committee, while it provides for 
some modest enhancement of school choice, does so only under very rigid 
conditions with significant limitations, and that concerns me greatly.
  There will be amendments to broaden that choice, to extend the 
benefits of education freedom to more of America's families and 
children. I look forward to the debate on those amendments, and I 
certainly look forward to supporting them.
  I believe that giving parents that freedom is the most certain path 
to improvement in education because parents, unlike politicians, are 
not going to accept excuses for failure.
  I look forward to the amendments when they are offered. I look 
forward to offering an amendment on my own which will show through a 
tax credit for contributions to special scholarship funds which can 
provide scholarships for children in low-income areas to attend the 
school of their choice, we can enhance this kind of competition and 
enhance freedom as a result. I look forward to the debate, Mr. 
President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his contribution 
to the debate and his interest in education.


                           Amendment No. 373

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to amendment No. 373.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I understand there is no objection to this amendment, 
and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 373.
  The amendment (No. 373) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute or so as we complete 
the first few days of debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. There are, I am sure, countless amendments still pending that we 
will consider in the following week or two, before we complete full 
consideration of a bill we only deal with--and this may come as a 
surprise to many Americans--once every 5 or 6 years. Unlike 
agriculture, defense, or a variety of other subject matters dealt with 
annually, we only debate elementary and secondary education and higher 
education every 5 or 6 years.
  It seems to me we ought to have an annual discussion of the condition 
of America's public schools, how well they are doing, and what more we 
could be doing to assist local communities and States in providing the 
best possible education for every child.
  Over the last few days, we have begun to consider amendments. Senator 
Collins of Maine offered an amendment dealing with reading which was 
adopted unanimously. Senator Jeffords had a trigger on testing which 
was adopted almost unanimously. Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel 
offered an amendment that dealt with full funding of special education, 
which is something that every mayor, every superintendent of schools, 
every board of education in my State of Connecticut--and, I am 
confident, in other States--have been asking us to do for years.
  Children with disabilities ought to have the same opportunity to 
reach their maximum potential, as every child. I think all Americans 
today accept that notion.
  Over the years, many have advocated for us to reach the goal of a 
quarter of a century ago of funding 40 percent of States' special 
education costs. Today, we're at about 15 percent.
  In the measures similar to the amendment offered by Senator Harkin 
and Senator Hagel or have been offered over the years by Senator 
Jeffords, myself, and many others--on occasion, they actually passed 
the Senate but did not pass the other body or were dropped in 
conference--something always happened to frustrate the overwhelming 
desire of people in this country for the U.S. Government to meet its 
goal. The amendment adopted here will now require that.
  I am confident the bill, for reasons I will state in a minute, will 
become law in this country, and for the first time we will have 
language which takes us to that goal.
  And, along with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, 
I was the author of an amendment that will fully fund title I, the 
heart of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is what this 
bill is all about since, again, about 35 years ago we decided our role 
in public education would be to help the most disadvantaged communities 
and kids of the country. From the beginning in the early 1960s, that is 
what the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to do. 
There are other pieces of it, but about 50 percent of the dollars go to 
title I. Yet, we only fund title I at one-third of the goal we 
established.
  Yesterday, this body went on record with the overwhelming vote of 79-
21 in support of full funding of title I over the next 10 years, with 
the bulk of that obligation being met over the next 4 or 5 years, 75 to 
80 percent of the full funding requirement. This now is going to make 
it possible, in my view, to have a chance to meet the concerns that 
have been raised by many over the quality of public education.
  The bill will also include some long-sought-after reforms on 
accountability and standards so the children are not just warehoused 
and pushed from grade

[[Page 7181]]

to grade without ever having met the educational requirements. That has 
gone on. We all know about it. Everyone knows about it at local and 
State levels.
  This bill says that we really want some accountability, we want some 
standards, we want some means by which we measure whether or not 
children are, in fact, learning.
  Many of us accept that is something we ought to do in the Federal 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But we also say if you are 
going to do that, you have to put the resources in place so these 
reforms have a chance of producing the desired results. Reform without 
resources is just a lot of hot air. And resources without reforms is a 
waste of money.
  Now we are, I hope, in this bill--having adopted the full funding of 
title I and the anticipated adoption of reforms--going to build on the 
work we did in 1994 to marry reforms and resources. So many of us 
conclude this first week of debate with a sense of optimism that, 
frankly, I did not have 24 hours ago. I had a deep concern we were 
going to adopt mandates for our local communities and tell our 
communities what they had to do and then not participate in providing 
the resources to achieve those goals.
  I still have some outstanding concerns that will not be addressed in 
this bill, but I raise them briefly today. I may try to find some way 
to give expression to these ideas in the coming week in this debate.
  I think it is outrageous that the Federal Government is such a minor 
player, financially, in the cost of educating America's kids. I always 
say this. I think Americans would be stunned to discover that, of their 
Federal taxes that come to Washington, less than 1 percent go back to 
the education of elementary and secondary school students around the 
country. In elementary and secondary education, the earliest building 
block, in many ways, of a child's learning, your National Government is 
really only a minor participant.
  We are very good at instructing our towns and cities how to educate 
children, and telling the States, but when it comes to putting our 
money where our mouth is, as the old expression goes, we are pretty 
cheap.
  That goes back a long time. ``Education was only the responsibility 
of local communities. The National Government just ought to stay as far 
away from elementary and secondary education as possible.'' That was 
the idea in the 19th century. That was the idea through much of the 
20th century.
  We ought to be rethinking the structure of funding education in this 
country as we enter the 21st century. No longer will the children in my 
State merely be competing with the children of New Jersey or California 
or Texas or New York. The child growing up in Connecticut will be 
competing with children in Beijing, Moscow, South Africa, Australia, 
Paris, London. That is the world they will be entering. The idea that 
we would accept a 19th and 20th century structure to educate children 
to compete in a 21st century global economy is outrageous, in my view, 
and foolish.
  You cannot expect sufficient resources to help these children to come 
exclusively or almost exclusively, as they do in at least in 40 States, 
to come from a local property tax. You are going to bankrupt these 
homeowners. And, in the poorest communities where the need is greatest 
for creating opportunity, the resources are the most scarce. I would 
like to see us say at some point to our communities and States: You 
bear one-third apiece and we will pick up a third of the cost.
  First of all, just think of the property tax relief for millions of 
Americans. They are sending their money to Washington. We are taking 
their Federal taxes. As I said, less than one-half of 1 percent is 
going to secondary and elementary education. Why not see if we can 
become a better partner?
  As we lecture States and localities about what they are not doing, it 
might be helpful if we also increased what we are doing to contribute 
to their attracting qualified teachers, seeing that schools are modern 
and wired with the technology kids will need to be economically 
independent, contributing members of what we want to be the greatest 
country on Earth in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century.
  I very much would like to see us do that. We will not do that in this 
bill, but I invite some discussion of how, in the coming years, we can 
be a better partner in education.
  The great irony is that we spend the bulk of our tax dollars in the 
area of 18 to 22 through Pell grants and Stafford loans, assistance for 
higher education. And, without question, those programs are invaluable.
  But we know that the most important years of a human being's 
development in terms of their ability to learn and to have the tools 
necessary to succeed in life, occur in the earlier years of life. We 
ought to do more in the earliest stage. If we do, more children will 
succeed as they go on toward adulthood.
  The second point I wanted to make is this: I want to see some 
accountability out of the States, too. We are telling towns and 
localities they have to do a better job. If not, we are going to shut 
down their schools.
  I don't agree with the idea that the solution that we are going to 
solve the problem of schools in poor-inner city or poor rural areas by 
paying for the students to attend private schools. In desperately poor 
areas there are not those kinds of alternatives except in the most rare 
of circumstances.
  We are talking about being pretty tough with local schools in this 
bill. I'm all for accountability, but I would like to raise the 
possibility of getting a little tough with the States, as well. This 
may be an anathema for some.
  There is great disparity based on the affluence and poverty of our 
respective communities within these States. This has provoked a great 
debate about the States. I am not suggesting a one-size-fits-all 
solution, but it seems to me, we might want to include the States in 
this discussion so that you will at least begin to minimize the 
disparity in opportunity.
  My State is a good example. I don't blame present administrations or 
recent administrations. Administrations have wrestled with this idea 
for a long time. I am sure this is the case in your State, Mr. 
President, in New Jersey. It is pretty much the case in all of our 
States.
  I represent the most affluent State in America. Here we are, a State 
with incredibly affluent communities. They do a magnificent job in 
allocating their resources to improving the quality of public education 
in their communities. Yet I can take you from one of those 
communities--I am not exaggerating--for a car ride in less than 15 
minutes to a neighboring community that ranks in the top 10 of the 
poorest communities in America. One community will have a public high 
school that can compete with a community college in terms of its 
facilities, athletics, radio, television stations, language 
laboratories, and wonderful teachers who receive more than decent 
compensation to teach children in that community. And 15 minutes away, 
I can take you to a place where the buildings are falling apart, 
technology is rarely available, and police officers are on every floor. 
You begin to wonder if you are in a school or a detention facility.
  There are wonderful teachers and wonderful students in these schools 
who struggle every day to provide and receive the best educational 
opportunity they can. But in the most affluent State in the country, in 
the most affluent Nation on the face of this Earth, we have communities 
within minutes of each other where the educational opportunity--that is 
all I am talking about--is light-years apart.
  We can't accept this anymore. Especially as we enter the 21st century 
with the economic gap growing wider every day, when we will end up 
having those who are well prepared to fit in this information 
technology age and the global economy, and those who will have a hard 
time finding the most menial jobs in America because we didn't provide 
a decent education.
  I say to our partners in all of this, our States, just as we say to 
our communities, that we want you to do a better job as well. I am 
going to explore

[[Page 7182]]

some legislative language on how we might demand greater accountability 
for seeing that equal opportunity for education is going to be met at 
the State as well as the local and national levels.
  I don't expect anything dramatic to be adopted in this Chamber on 
this particular bill. But it is a debate we ought to start. Chaka 
Fattah, a very effective Member of Congress from the city of 
Philadelphia, is a good friend of mine. Chaka Fattah wrote language 
which specifically addresses this issue. In fact, he offered it in the 
U.S. House of Representatives in the previous Congress and received 
close to 200 votes in the other Chamber. It is a rather complicated 
proposal but one which goes to the heart of this issue, again without 
insisting on any particular formulation but saying the States have to 
do a better job in working to see to it that equal opportunity in 
education is going to be available to all students and be held to some 
degree of accountability on this issue.
  I commend Congressman Fattah for offering that amendment and for 
provoking that debate. He sent me the language on that. I am going to 
submit it for the consideration of my colleagues, perhaps with some 
variation, over the next couple of weeks.
  Again, I thank the membership for their hard work, and especially of 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member and chair of 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I have 
the pleasure of sitting. I know my colleague from New Jersey has a 
strong desire to join at some point. We hope he will be there with us. 
It is an exciting committee. They have done a good job.
  I commend Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and Senator Lott as 
well, for moving this debate along.
  This has been a pretty good first week--better than I ever thought it 
would when we started the week. We see a lot more has to be considered. 
I will have amendments to offer with Senator Shelby of Alabama and 
Senator Domenici of New Mexico. We will be proposing those amendments 
at the appropriate time, which we hope our colleagues will support.
  I look forward to those debates and discussions, and other amendments 
our colleagues will be offering.
  I think we have started out on a pretty good foot. We have not 
answered all of the questions. But I think we are going to marry 
resources and reforms in a package that most of us are going to be able 
to support.


          Amendment No. 375 To Amendment No. 358, As Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, I send a modification to the desk of an 
amendment he has offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 375) to amendment No. 358, as modified, is as 
follows:

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

       At the end, add the following:

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

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Congress should appropriate $3,000,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002 to carry out part A title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 and thereby--
       (1) provide that schools, local educational agencies, and 
     States have the resources they need to put a highly qualified 
     teacher in every classroom in each school in which 50 percent 
     or more of the children are from low income families, over 
     the next 4 years;
       (2) provide 125,000 new teachers with mentors and year-long 
     supervised internships; and
       (3) provide high quality pedagogical training for every 
     teacher in every school.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out title II Part A of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
       (1) $3,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (2) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (3) $4,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (4) $5,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (5) $5,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       (6) $6,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

     

                          ____________________