[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10142-10191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Resumed

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 459

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now 
be 1

[[Page 10143]]

hour of debate on the Dodd amendment No. 459 as modified, equally 
divided and controlled.
  Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President,
  Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour of debate equally 
divided on this amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the President. I am somewhat disappointed that we 
have not scheduled a vote on this amendment. But I am told that on the 
expiration of an hour that I will have to set this amendment aside, and 
that the minority floor leader of this bill is opposed to a vote 
occurring on this amendment. I hope that we will have an opportunity to 
cast a vote in this body on the amendment that I have offered on behalf 
of myself, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
  There is at least one other Member, or maybe two, who want to be 
heard in support of this amendment. I ask the Chair on the expiration 
of 10 minutes that I be notified to make sure I reserve time for others 
who want to be heard on this amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Let me explain this amendment once again. I explained it when I 
offered it yesterday afternoon, and again early last evening.
  This is a very straight forward, simple amendment. I said yesterday 
that if there is one word that could be used to describe the underlying 
bill, it is the word ``accountability''--we want greater 
accountability. I would add ``responsibility''--``accountability and 
responsibility.'' Students, parents, school principals, teachers, 
superintendents, and boards of education all have to be more 
accountable and more responsible if we are going to improve the quality 
of public education in our country.
  There is no doubt in my mind that, while there has been improvement 
in recent years in classrooms, there is room for more improvement. We 
need to raise the next generation of young people to be prepared to 
meet the challenges of the 21st century and be competitive in a global 
economy.
  In years past, a child raised in Connecticut, West Virginia, 
Massachusetts, or New Hampshire, competed, if you will, with children 
in the neighboring town or the neighboring county, maybe the 
neighboring State.
  Today, our children compete with children all over the world. So we 
need to prepare a generation like no other in the history of this 
Nation. Therefore, the issue of a sound, firm, good elementary and 
secondary education is critical.
  This bill mandates a number of things. We, will mandate, for the very 
first time, that every child be tested every year from third grade 
through eighth grade. That is a Federal mandate in this bill.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I will note--and the Senator is familiar with this--just 
to make it clear, the Federal Government already mandates that children 
take a test in three grades. This just adds three more grades.
  Mr. DODD. I accept that point. We do. My point being, my amendment 
has been called intrusive. Because I have suggested that the States be 
accountable and responsible, it is said that I am proposing a new 
Federal intrusion into what has historically been a local and State 
decisionmaking process. Yet, as my colleague from New Hampshire has 
pointed out, we already mandate tests. And, this bill mandates even 
more tests.
  We also mandate standards for teachers at the local level. We are 
going to tell school districts that if schools do not perform at a 
certain level, we, the Federal Government, will require them to close 
the school. We require the States to establish statewide content and 
performance standards, and tests that are the same for all children in 
the State.
  The point is, we are mandating decisions at the local level. Down to 
the level of detail of telling third graders, and their parents, when 
they will be taking tests.
  My amendment says that if we are going to ask for accountability and 
responsibility from students, parents, school principals, teachers, and 
school boards, is it unreasonable to ask States to be accountable? 
Since 1965, we have mandated comparable educational opportunity for 
students within school districts. This amendment simply says that there 
should be comparable educational opportunity throughout the State.
  Why do I say that? Of the total education dollar spent in our public 
schools, 6 cents comes from the Federal Government, 94 cents comes from 
State and local governments. In this bill, we are mandating that 
schools and school districts do a better job. If they do not, there are 
consequences. It is a Federal mandate. But the resource allocations are 
not really there, nor are we insisting at a local or State level that 
they meet their obligations.
  My amendment says States must take on responsibility. If we are 
asking students, and parents, and teachers, and schools, and school 
districts to do better, why not the States?
  Many States are working hard at this. But, nevertheless, many 
children, simply by the accident of their birth, have a disparate level 
of educational opportunity. They are born or raised in a school 
district where the resources are not there. A child born in a more 
affluent school district has an educational opportunity that is vastly 
different.
  I see it in my own State. I represent the most affluent State in 
America on a per capita income basis, the State of Connecticut. I also 
have communities in my State that are some of the poorest in America. 
Hartford, our capital, was just rated as the eighth poorest city in 
America.
  So, even in my small State, there are children who attend some of the 
best schools in America because we support education through a local 
property tax, and others, just a few miles away, who have much less 
educational opportunity, for the same reason.
  Just as we are going to test children, and schools, and districts, 
should we not also test States? It doesn't seem to me that providing 
comparable opportunity to all children is too much to ask.
  As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of Federal mandates that 
we already include in law. We withhold funds from States or school 
districts if they do not pass certain laws concerning children and 
guns, for example, in addition to the mandates I discussed earlier. I 
am not drawing judgments, but pointing out that this law is full of 
mandates, supported by both sides.
  We bear a responsibility at the Federal level to do a good job to see 
to it that dollars taxpayers have sent to us go back to support 
education in the ways in which title I and the rest of ESEA. In this 
bill, we say that school districts should do a better job, that parents 
and teachers and school superintendents should do a better job. 
Shouldn't States be included in that community of accountability and 
responsibility? That is all I am suggesting with this amendment.
  We leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of Education to 
determine to what extent administrative funds would be withheld. We 
give these States 6 years to at least demonstrate they are moving in 
the direction of offering ``comparable'' educational opportunity. The 
words I have chosen have been in the law for 36 years.
  I see I have used 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair notifies the Senator from 
Connecticut 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair very much for that notice. I could have 
gone on. As you can see, I was building up a head of steam.
  I see my friend from New Hampshire is in the Chamber. There are 
several colleagues--at least one I know of--who want to be heard on 
this subject. I want to reserve some time for them.
  Would my colleague from New Hampshire like to be heard at this time? 
I know he wanted to respond to some of these very thoughtful and 
persuasive arguments I am making.

[[Page 10144]]


  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I reserve my time because last 
night I was so eloquent, I am just at a loss for words today.
  Mr. DODD. So I have heard.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. 
The absence of a quorum has been suggested. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There being no objection, the quorum call 
is rescinded.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. While I am waiting for one of my colleagues to enter the 
Chamber, I will just take few more minutes to share some additional 
thoughts on why I believe this amendment is worthwhile. And I will 
anticipate some of the arguments my good friend from New Hampshire will 
raise in his eloquent opposition to this amendment so that my 
colleagues may have the benefit of these thoughts.
  I am confident my colleague is going to call this a cookie-cutter 
approach, that I want to establish, at a Federal level, what every 
classroom in America is going to look like. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. What this amendment requires is that every child in a 
State have a comparable educational opportunity with other children in 
that same State. Last evening, I cited the supreme court decision in 
the State of New Hampshire, which makes the case more eloquently than I 
could, saying that in the State of New Hampshire children, regardless 
of the community in which they are raised, ought to have an equal 
opportunity. I stress the word ``opportunity.'' I do not believe any of 
us has an obligation to guarantee any person in America success. That 
has never been the American way.
  What we have always believed, since the founding days of our 
Republic, is that equal opportunity has been the magnet which has drawn 
the world to our shores. Where people had been denied opportunities for 
a variety of reasons--religious, ethnic, gender, whatever--America has 
been the place where they get judged on their abilities.
  There are countless stories of people, coming from the most humble of 
origins, who have risen to the very heights in their chosen field of 
endeavor. I could cite the example of the Presiding Officer as a case 
in point, if he wouldn't mind my making personal reference to it. 
Providing an equal opportunity to everybody, that is all this is. What 
better key to a success than an education? If you don't have a good 
educational opportunity, it is very difficult to achieve your full 
potential.
  My great-grandmother, when she came to this country with my great-
grandfather, was about 16 years old. They were married. They came from 
a small community on the western coast of Ireland. The first thing she 
did--she couldn't read or write--was to get herself elected to the 
local school board in the 19th century because she understood that 
education was going to be the key. She had been raised in a country 
where she couldn't go to school because of her religion. She understood 
that an opportunity for herself and her family--her nine children, my 
grandfather being the ninth child--was going to be education.
  Educational opportunity is what I am focusing on. As we have been 
saying to school districts across America for 36 years, you must 
provide comparable educational opportunity for each child within that 
school district. I am expanding that equation to say in each State 
because the States really bear the responsibility for funding education 
through decisions made by the legislatures. How do they fund education? 
It is a State decision and a local decision. We are mandating things at 
the local level and we are leaving out the States.
  I am suggesting that States also have a responsibility to meet their 
obligations. If we are going to mandate performance and not provide the 
funding for it and exclude the States from being accountable, then we 
are going to be back here a few years from now asserting that the 
Federal Government mandated something, but did not fund it.
  I see my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, on the floor who 
believes passionately in our responsibility for funding special 
education. I agree with her. In fact, we have all fought hard to see 
that we meet that obligation.
  The underlying bill we are considering mandates that children do 
better in schools. We set standards that are going to have to be met. 
We are going to have to provide resources for this. Some communities do 
not have the resources; others do. To mandate a level of performance 
and not provide the resources for children to achieve that level of 
performance is dangerous.
  I see my colleague from New Jersey. How much time remains on the 
proponents' side of the amendment?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The proponents have 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am honored that the President pro 
tempore is in the chair. It is great to see him there.
  I also am pleased that I have this opportunity to stand in support of 
the Dodd-Biden amendment, which is designed to make sure that every 
child in America has access and the equal promise of a quality 
education. The Dodd-Biden amendment on school service comparability is 
a terrific initiative. This amendment is structured so all children 
have access to comparable quality education--not identical, but quality 
comparable education.
  It is a goal that all of us surely have to believe is as important as 
equal test results. Equal opportunity is just as important as equal 
outcomes as measured by standardized tests.
  This amendment is more than common sense, too. It actually fulfills 
the promise that we as a nation make to all of our children--that we 
will provide every child in America with access to a quality education 
and the American promise that flows from that, regardless of race, the 
family's income, or where they live.
  Title I kids should have access to every opportunity every other 
child in America has. It should not be a function of where they are 
born or where they live. As my colleagues have already described, this 
amendment would encourage States to ensure that all students receive a 
comparable education in several critical areas: class size, teacher 
qualifications, curriculum, access to technology, and school safety. 
These are just commonsense areas where we ought to be providing for 
every child a similar educational experience.
  They allow for the full potential of all of our children. Every child 
has a right to a qualified teacher. All of us believe that. Every child 
has a right to a challenging curriculum. Every child has a right to go 
to school in a safe and quality school building. In my State of New 
Jersey, there are many schools 100 years old, with an average age of 57 
years. In our urban areas, it is a serious problem.
  A ZIP Code should not determine the quality of a child's education. I 
hope this is a basic premise on which we can all agree. Unfortunately, 
in my State and around the country ZIP Codes often do determine the 
quality of education a child receives. Children in one town where there 
is a serious tax base for them to operate under receive a high-quality 
education. In other towns, adjacent to those very same communities, 
they receive a dramatically lower quality education because they don't 
have the resources to provide for those quality teachers, the quality 
schools, the kinds of curricula that will make a difference.
  The reality is that property taxes in this country often determine 
who gets a quality education and the resources available to provide 
those services. This amendment strikes at the heart of

[[Page 10145]]

that to try to bring equality, comparability, not identical results and 
services, but comparable ones.
  Inequality by geography, race, and class is close to a national 
disgrace. If you see the difference from one place to another in 
schools across the country, it is hard to understand how we can 
tolerate it. It robs children of equal access to the American promise. 
Unless we address this problem, as the Dodd amendment would begin to 
do, that inequality in our educational system will grow wider and wider 
through time, perpetuating a sense of unfairness in our society. We 
need to address it up front. This amendment does that.
  Title I was designed to be the engine of change for low-income school 
districts. This amendment would add fuel to that engine, requiring 
States to ensure that all students receive a comparable education--
again, not identical, comparable--regardless of where they live or 
their family's income, race, or nationality.
  In my State of New Jersey, we have been struggling with this promise 
for the better part of 30 years, providing equal access to a quality 
education. Thirty years ago we had a case before our State supreme 
court, Abbott v. Burke, that found the education offered to urban 
students to be ``tragically inadequate'' and ``severely inferior.'' 
This was a landmark case. The court ordered the most comprehensive set 
of educational rights for urban schoolchildren in the Nation.
  In New Jersey, we are proud of this ruling. Under Abbott, urban 
students have a right to school funding at spending levels of 
successful suburban school districts what they call ``parity 
funding''--this is what the Dodd-Biden amendment is working towards; 
educationally adequate school facilities; and intensive preschool and 
other supplemental programs to wipe out the disadvantages. These are 
the basic educational services that every child should expect to have 
access to and that every child needs to succeed in our society.
  Fortunately, Abbott has been a success. It is not perfect. We haven't 
made all of those transitions to comparable outcomes, but New Jersey 
has made real progress in equalizing the education provided to students 
in our communities. The Federal Government must also play an active 
role in ensuring that the children who need the most, get the most. 
Title I has gone a long way. What this amendment is doing is asking 
States on a national basis to do what New Jersey has already done.
  A substantial portion of the debate on this education bill has been 
about accountability. We demand accountability from students, teachers, 
schools, everybody under the sun, but we also need to demand 
accountability from the States with regard to providing comparable 
funding, comparable services for our kids so they can get to those 
equal outcomes. For example, starting in third grade, we will begin 
testing all students, with drastic measures for failing scores. We 
require equal outcomes on test scores, but we will not provide equal 
resources. I find that hard to believe. That is not consistent with 
America's sense of fairness. We demand accountability of students, 
teachers, and schools, but we do not address the glaring disparity 
built into the system of how we provide resources to those schools.
  I support high standards. I support accountability, but 
accountability measures alone are not sufficient to provide an adequate 
education. We must ensure that every school and every child has the 
level of resources necessary for a rigorous education and necessary to 
meet those standards.
  It is in this light that I strongly support the Dodd-Biden amendment, 
because it goes right at that equality of opportunity, through 
resources, that is critical to ensuring equality of outcomes.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his very eloquent 
statement. In my State of Connecticut a real effort has been made to 
address this issue, as in New Jersey. In Minnesota as well. Many of our 
States are working hard at this but, as the Senator from New Jersey 
said, there is still a huge gap in terms of educational opportunity.
  Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Let me just in 3 minutes lend my support to this very important 
amendment. I will try to do this a little differently. I think this 
amendment that is offered by Senator Dodd, joined by Senator Biden, is, 
at least to me, obvious. This is an amendment offered by a Senator who 
spends a lot of time in schools. Not every Senator does. Senator Dodd 
is in schools all the time in Connecticut and probably around the 
country.
  What Senator Dodd is saying is this comparability amendment has to do 
with making sure we deal with--and I am sure that the most noted author 
of children's education, Jonathan Kozol, is smiling. This is all about 
his book ``Savage Inequality.'' What the Senator is saying is let us 
have some comparability when it comes to class size, access to 
technology, safe schools, curriculum, and teachers.
  I would just say to Senator Dodd that as we have gone forward with 
this bill, I have had all of these e-mails from around the country from 
all of these teachers, sometimes parents, sometimes students, but these 
teachers are the ones who know, these are the teachers who are--I think 
the Senator's sister is a teacher in fact--in the inner-city schools. 
They are in the trenches. They have stayed with it. They are totally 
committed. They are saying: For God's sake, please, also in the Senate, 
above and beyond talking about annual testing, give us the tools to 
make sure the children can achieve. Please talk about the importance of 
good teachers, qualified teachers. Please talk about the importance of 
access to technology. Please talk about the importance of good 
curriculum, of small class size. Please talk about the importance of 
dividing school buildings. Please talk about the importance that 
schools should be safe. Please talk about all of the resources that 
will make it possible for all the children in America to have the same 
opportunity to learn.
  That is what this amendment is about. That is why this amendment is 
so important.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if I 
may.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we discussed this amendment a little bit 
yesterday--in fact, considerably yesterday--and I presented most of my 
thoughts. I know some other Members on my side are going to come down 
and talk about it. This amendment is an incredibly pervasive amendment 
and will have a fundamental effect on the Federal role in education. It 
will, in my opinion, create an atmosphere where the Federal Government 
is essentially nationalizing the standards throughout the country for 
what education will be.
  The way it does this is as follows: It says that every school 
district in a State must be comparable, and it is up to the State to 
decide that comparability. But if the State doesn't decide the 
comparability, then the Federal Government starts to withdraw the 
funds. And it also sets up the standards for what must be comparable. 
It is a Federal standard--what must be comparable under this amendment. 
The standard includes class size, qualifications of teachers by 
category of assignments, curriculum, range of courses offered, 
instructional material, instructional resources.
  You essentially are saying the Federal Government is going to require 
comparability--comparability meaning that everybody does it essentially 
the same way--throughout the country, or at least throughout every 
State, within every State. Logically, the next step is to do it across 
the country from State to State.
  As I mentioned last night, why should the State of Connecticut be 
allowed to spend more on its children than the State of Mississippi? 
Should it

[[Page 10146]]

not all be comparable? Under the logic of this amendment, that is the 
next step. Connecticut should send money to Mississippi. The same 
amount you spend per child in Connecticut should be spent on the child 
in Mississippi.
  But more importantly than that, or equally important to that, this 
goes to the heart of what I think is the essential of quality education 
which is the uniqueness and creativity of the local community to 
control how their children are educated. One town in a State is going 
to have a certain set of ideas on how education should be provided 
versus another town in that State.
  Granted, they are all going to have to get their children to a 
certain level of ability in the core subject matter--English, math, 
science--in order that the children be competitive. But how they get 
their children up to that level of competency is left up to the school 
district under our bill. The local school district has the flexibility. 
And then the ancillary aspects of the school system are left up to the 
school districts--ancillary being integral in the sense of foreign 
languages, for example, computer science teaching, sports programs, 
community outreach programs.
  But under this amendment, that would no longer be the case. There 
would have to be comparability. Every town and community within the 
State would have to do it the same way in all these different areas of 
discipline.
  So in one part of the State you might have a community that believes, 
because of the ethnic makeup of the city or the community, they need 
special reading instruction in one language --say, Spanish or Greek--
because they have a large community of immigrants, of people who have 
immigrated to our country, and in another part of the State they may 
not have that issue but they may have an issue of wanting to get their 
children up to speed in the area of the industry which dominates that 
region--say, forestry. For example, they might want to have a special 
program in how to do proper silviculture. You could not do that 
anymore. You could not have those different approaches to education 
within the school system. They would all have to be comparable under 
this amendment.
  It makes absolutely no sense that we as the Federal Government should 
set that sort of standard on the States and on the local communities.
  Then there are a couple of very specific issues where this amendment 
clearly creates a huge threat. The first is charter schools. This 
amendment essentially eliminates the capacity to have charter schools 
because charter schools, by definition, differ. That is why charter 
schools are created. They are different. That is what you have with a 
charter school. You get together a group of parents, teachers, and kids 
and say: We are going to teach differently than local schools. We are 
going to do it with public money. We are talking about public charter 
schools here. But we are going to do it differently. Those schools 
would be wiped out because you could not be different. You would have 
to be comparable. And the magnet schools would be wiped out, schools 
that are designed specifically to educate in special subject matters 
such as science.
  You have these famous science high schools across this country. I 
think they have one in New York City called Stuyvesant. They have one 
in North Carolina which has been hugely successful. And they have one 
right here in the Washington region called Thomas Jefferson. Magnet 
schools would be wiped out because they are different. You are not 
allowed to be different under the amendment. That is the theme of this 
amendment. If you do not have sameness, you do not have fairness.
  I have to say I do not believe that is true at all. I think you get 
fairness by producing results. You get fairness by producing results, 
not by controlling the input but by controlling the output.
  If a child goes through the system and learns effectively, then you 
have fairness. If a child does not go through the system and learn 
effectively, then you do not have fairness.
  What this underlying bill does and what the President proposes is to 
require that children learn effectively, not require that all children 
be taught exactly the same way, because one does not necessarily learn 
that way. There are a lot of school systems that feel that way.
  Then we have another major issue which is called the collective 
bargaining system. In one part of a State, for example, they might have 
an agreement with their local teachers union that says: We are going to 
have 20 kids in a classroom, but we are going to pay our teachers a lot 
more because we think our teachers are able to handle 20 kids and are 
good teachers.
  In another part of the State, they might have 15 kids in the 
classroom and pay their teachers less, or they might work on a 
different day schedule, might work on a different structure of their 
day, or might work on a different responsibility from area to area 
within a State as to what teachers do.
  They may have a program where teachers are required to, under their 
contract, be involved in extracurricular activities, and in other parts 
of the State that might not be the case.
  There are different retirement standards from community to community. 
Some communities may want their teachers to retire at an earlier age, 
and some communities may not. It all depends on the collective 
bargaining agreement.
  Collective bargaining agreements would be inconsistent with this 
amendment. In fact, it would be a Catch-22 for a State that does not 
collectively bargain its teachers statewide. I do not know too many 
States that do collectively bargain their teachers statewide. Most 
States bargain community by community, not State by State. So this 
becomes a totally--I do not know if it becomes unenforceable; maybe it 
overrides the collective bargaining agreement.
  I do not know how the sponsor of the amendment intends to handle that 
very significant problem, but it is a big problem because comparability 
clearly cannot work if there is a collective bargaining agreement in 
one part of the State which presents one significantly different 
approach than another part of the State. They then cannot be comparable 
and consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.
  This amendment is first, obviously, a philosophical anathema to my 
view of how to educate in this country, which is we should maintain and 
promote local control; we should not undermine local control by 
requiring everybody to do everything the same.
  That is the key problem with the amendment, but it also has huge 
technical implications for the creativity of local communities in the 
area of charter schools, magnet schools, different curricular activity 
that might be appropriate to one region over another region or 
different fiscal activity, structure.
  For example, I suspect a school in southern California does not need 
the same heating system as a school in northern California, and yet 
under this amendment they have to have the same heating system. They 
would have to actually have the same heating system because they would 
have to have the same resources, the same buildings.
  That is the way it is written. It says it has to be comparable. It 
says the physical facilities have to be comparable. Institutional 
resources have to be comparable.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on this point?
  Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. This is an important point. Again, I 
have great affection for my friend from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I am yielding for a question.
  Mr. DODD. Yielding for a question. As my colleague must be aware--and 
this is in the form of a question, Mr. President--we have had the word 
``comparable'' on the books regarding school districts for 36 years. 
The law has said that within school districts, educational opportunity 
must be comparable.
  Is it not true, I ask my friend from New Hampshire, that magnet 
schools, charter schools, and science schools

[[Page 10147]]

have all functioned within school districts with a Federal law that has 
required or mandated comparable educational opportunity?
  I am not changing that. I am just extending the geography from school 
districts to States. I am not applying any new standards from those 
that have existed in the law for more than three decades.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut 
raising that issue because the fact is he has taken the term 
``comparability,'' which is today used in an extremely narrow 
application and in a very loose enforcement application--in other 
words, it applies simply to communities and it applies to teachers 
essentially and to curriculum within the teaching community--it has 
been extremely loosely applied to communities, and the Senator from 
Connecticut has taken that word and has expanded it radically to 
essentially the whole State.
  The Senator from Connecticut uses as an example, for example, the New 
Hampshire Supreme Court decision in this area which did exactly that. 
It expanded the issue of funding and equality of funding radically 
throughout the whole State so everybody had to do it the same way, 
changing the whole system of education within the State of New 
Hampshire.
  Senator Dodd is suggesting doing the same thing with the word 
``comparable'' on a statewide basis and having the Federal Government 
come in and set what the term ``comparability'' means now in a much 
more precise and mandatory way.
  When he uses terms in his amendment such as ``comparability,'' among 
other things, shall include:

       (i) class size and qualifications of teachers (by category 
     of assignment, such as regular education, special education, 
     and bilingual education) and professional staff;
       (ii) curriculum, the range of courses offered (including 
     the opportunity to participate in rigorous courses such as 
     advanced placement courses), and instructional materials and 
     instructional resources to ensure that participating children 
     have the opportunity to achieve to the highest student 
     performance levels under the State's challenging content and 
     student performance standards;
       (iii) accessibility to technology; and
       (iv) the safety of school facilities. . . .

  That is getting pretty specific and inclusive and much different from 
the way comparability is used in present law. That is a fact.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield further, he has 
just recited very accurately the provision on page 2 of the amendment 
of things under ``Written Assurances'':

       A State shall be considered to have met the requirements 
     [of this amendment] if such State has filed with the 
     Secretary a written assurance that such State has established 
     and implemented policies to ensure comparability of services 
     in certain areas.

  If my colleague reads further down to ``class size,'' we do not say 
what class size, what qualifications. We all know, and I ask my 
colleague this in the form of a question, is there anywhere in this 
language where it sets class size, where it sets the standard by the 
Federal Government, other than saying the State should have 
comparability of those standards without setting the standard?
  Mr. GREGG. Absolutely. That is the whole point. If I may reclaim my 
time. That is exactly what this does. It says that a State must have a 
comparable class size across that State, which means a State such as 
California, which is a huge State and which may have variations in 
class size depending on what communities have decided is best, both by 
negotiating with their teachers union and working with their students, 
their parents, and their teachers those States now are not going to be 
able to do that any longer, those communities are not going to be able 
to do that any longer. They are going to have to set one class size for 
the entire State, comparable across the State.
  Curriculum: For example, I cannot imagine anything more intrusive 
than having the States say unilaterally you have to have a comparable 
curriculum on all the different categories of curriculum. There may be 
some communities that do not believe they need a curriculum that deals 
with some of these core issues. Obviously, on core issues such as math, 
science, and English, they are going to have comparable curriculums. 
Hopefully, you will not. Maybe they will not. Maybe some States will 
let some type of American history be taught in one section and another 
type of American history be taught in a different section. American 
history should be consistent.
  There are other issues. What about languages? They might want to 
teach Japanese in San Francisco, but maybe in San Diego they want to 
teach Chinese or Spanish.
  The comparability language is so pervasive that it basically takes 
everything and makes oneness, which was the point of the argument of 
the Senator from Connecticut to begin with. I do not see how he can 
argue against his own position, which is he believes that in order for 
people to be tested and to be held to a standard, then everybody has to 
have equal access to the same opportunities of curriculum, class size, 
and structure--everything has to be essentially at the same level. That 
was his argument, was it not?
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague let me respond without asking a question?
  Mr. GREGG. On the Senator's time I will be happy to.
  Mr. DODD. I think I am out of time.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving my time, Mr. President, what is the time 
situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 14 minutes, 
and the Senator from Connecticut has 3 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on my time, the point I am making --in fact, 
we debated this yesterday--Is that the words ``comparable'' and 
``identical'' are not synonymous. ``Comparable'' allows for great 
latitude. We have mandated comparability within school districts.
  If you take the school districts of Los Angeles and New York, there 
are more students in each of those school districts than in 27 
different States. They have found it very workable to have reached 
comparable levels of educational opportunity within a very diverse 
student population, in the city of New York and the city of Los 
Angeles, to cite two examples.
  There are plenty of other school districts that have student 
populations vastly in excess of the entire student populations of 
States that have dealt with this requirement for years.
  My point is, States bear a responsibility in educating children. This 
bill, and legislation preceding it over the years, has mandated that 
teachers, parents, students, school boards, and school superintendents 
be accountable and responsible. We are asking it of ourselves at the 
Federal Government. My amendment merely says, should we not also ask 
our States to be accountable for the equal educational opportunity of 
all children? That is all.
  We have laid out some basic commonsense standards without mandating 
what the standard should specifically. For example, individual science 
schools exist in Los Angeles and New York. My colleague mentioned 
Stuyvesant High School. When the Federal Government said ``comparable'' 
in the school district of New York, it did not wipe out Bedford 
Stuyvesant High School. That school has done well under a Federal 
mandate of comparability.
  We are mandating there be better performance, but if we don't say to 
States, as much as we are saying to school districts, that there has to 
be a comparable educational opportunity, we are setting a standard that 
poor communities, rural and urban, will not meet.
  In New Hampshire, the supreme court decision was most eloquent in 
pointing out it was wrong to mandate that a small, poor community be 
required to increase its property tax fourfold to meet those 
responsibilities without the State stepping forward.
  The court said that ``[T]o hold otherwise would be to . . . conclude 
that it is reasonable, in discharging a State obligation, to tax 
property owners in one town or city as much as four times the amount 
taxed to others similarly situated in other towns or cities.''
  It is an eloquent statement.
  In closing, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey and Minnesota for

[[Page 10148]]

their support and ask all my colleagues to join me, Senator Biden, and 
Senator Reed, in supporting this amendment to provide equal educational 
opportunity for all children in a State. This amendment is supported by 
the National PTA, the National Education Association, the Council of 
the Great City Schools, which represents the largest 50 school 
districts in the country, and the Leadership Conference for Civil 
Rights, which includes 180 prominent organizations, such as the AARP, 
the American Association of University Women, the AFL-CIO, the American 
Federation of Teachers, the American Veterans Committee, Catholic 
Charities USA, the NAACP, the National Council of Jewish Women, the 
National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the YMCA, the 
YWCA, and others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I am hopeful we can vote on this amendment. We debated 
yesterday afternoon, we debated yesterday evening, and this morning. I 
am fully prepared to have a vote and go to the next amendment and get 
the education bill done. The President wants the education bill to be 
passed.
  I know my colleague, the chairman of the committee, is anxious to 
move this along. I am confident the Republican leader is as well. I am 
hopeful this amendment can be considered and voted up or down and that 
we move to the next order of business.
  I ask the question, Can we vote? We have debated the issue. I am 
prepared to debate longer, but I made my case on why I think 
accountability and responsibility belong to everyone, including the 
State.
  I ask my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, is there any chance 
we might have a vote on this amendment some time soon?
  Mr. GREGG. No.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate the candor of that answer. People from New 
Hampshire are noted for their brevity in coming right to the point. He 
does not gussy it up with trappings and garnishes.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his description.
  This amendment goes to the heart of this bill. I don't think the 
impact this amendment will have on changing the focus of the 
President's proposals on education as negotiated between a variety of 
parties involved in the negotiation can be understated.
  There was an agreed to set of principles laid down. The basic 
philosophy of those principles was that we were going to look at how 
the child did, whether the child actually learned more, whether the 
low-income child was in a better competitive position relative to peers 
and educational success. We were going to allow flexibility of the 
local school systems, subject to assuring through assessment standards 
and accountability standards that the children were improving.
  That was the flow: Focus on the child, flexibility, expect academic 
achievement, and subject it to accountability so we knew it was 
working. A lot of work went into this concept. The President's ideas 
are aggressive and creative and they will take the Federal Government 
in a different direction. We will go away from command and control and 
go toward output. We will go away from trying to find out how many 
books are in a classroom, how big the classroom should be, and how many 
teachers are in the classroom to seeing how much a child is learning 
and making sure when that child learns they are learning something 
relative to them and that they are staying with their peers. We will 
give parents more authority and flexibility and capacity to participate 
in the education of their children and to have some say when their 
children are stuck in schools that are failing.
  These are themes that are critical to improving Federal education. 
This amendment goes in the exact opposite direction. I used the term 
``nationalization'' yesterday. I don't think that is too strong. This 
is an attempt to assert a national policy essentially on all school 
districts in this country. That is extremely pervasive and requires a 
cookie-cutter approach to education and takes away local control. 
Therefore, the amendment essentially does fundamental harm which is 
irreparable to this bill, in my opinion. That is why we have such 
severe reservations.
  I yield such time remaining to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRIST. I will speak and give the floor to the Senator from Maine 
when she arrives.
  I believe this amendment is one that we absolutely must defeat if we 
stick with the principles of flexibility of local control, of shifting 
the power of review locally instead of federally. The underlying 
principle that is critically important to the BEST bill which the 
President has set out in his agenda, discussed often in this bill, is 
leaving no child behind.
  There are basically two issues that bother me most about this 
amendment. No. 1, as I mentioned, the power of review has shifted to 
the Federal Government, the Department of Education, to Washington, DC, 
and, No. 2, this amendment would broaden the intrusiveness of local 
control. Those principles are exactly opposite of what President Bush 
has put forward, what most Americans believe, and that is local 
control, less Government intrusiveness, and more accountability.
  In terms of intent, the amendment is clearly positive. It is 
honorable. The intent is that every student receives an equal 
education. The problem is the specifics of how that intent is 
accomplished--again, more Federal oversight instead of local, and more 
intrusiveness.
  What does it mean? It means in a State such as Tennessee, if there is 
a rural school that has no limited-English-proficient students, they 
will still have to have as many bilingual education teachers as a 
school, say, in Nashville, TN. That sort of vagueness about what 
comparability means ultimately is translated down into something very 
specific which simply does not make sense to me when you look within a 
State--for example, Tennessee.
  How will a State measure comparability of teacher qualifications, of 
seniority, of level of education? I ask, regarding the services 
identified--teachers, instruction materials, technology service, the 
school safety services, the bilingual education services--how do we 
know those are the absolute answers to all students? We simply do not. 
I believe the only strings attached to Federal dollars should be those 
that insist on demonstrable results.
  I see the Senator from Maine has arrived. We only have about 4 
minutes left, so I will yield to her. But let me just close and say 
instead of funding institutions, instead of concentrating on services 
and inputs, instead of monitoring progress versus regulations, we 
absolutely must focus on student achievement--something which this 
amendment does not do. It aggravates the situation and moves in the 
opposite direction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am happy to ask consent for 10 minutes 
evenly divided, if that is agreeable. This is a very important 
amendment. Would that be sufficient time? I ask for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is such a 
strong advocate for our Nation's children. I have enjoyed working with 
him on so many issues. But as much as I admire him and share his 
commitment, I do rise in opposition to the amendment of Senator Dodd.
  This amendment, although it is very well intentioned, is contrary to 
the goal of this education reform bill which is to give more 
flexibility to local schools and to States while holding them 
accountable for what really counts, and that is student achievement, 
ensuring that every child is learning, that no child is left behind.
  Comparability of services is a concept that was created to make sure 
that title I schools get services comparable to those received in 
nontitle I

[[Page 10149]]

schools. But the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut simply goes 
too far. It would, for example, require States to ensure comparability 
among schools in class size, in qualifications of teachers by category 
of assignments such as regular education, special education, bilingual 
education. It would mandate the same courses be offered, the range of 
courses, and how rigorous they are. It is extraordinarily prescriptive. 
It really turns on its head the whole idea of leaving to States and 
local communities the issues of curriculum design and teacher 
qualifications.
  For example, we know very well the needs of schools vary from 
community to community. My brother, Sam Collins, is chair of the school 
board in Caribou, ME, my hometown. Through his efforts and efforts of 
other local leaders, the school system has established a bilingual 
education program in the elementary schools. It is a wonderful program. 
But under the Dodd amendment, that program would have to exist in every 
school in Maine. That is just not practical.
  Similarly, in Portland, ME, we have a large number of students with 
limited English proficiency. That means there is a great need for ESL 
teachers and bilingual teachers in that school system. But in other 
more rural parts of Maine that need simply doesn't exist.
  This amendment simply is impractical. It is just not workable, in 
addition to being contrary to the concept of allowing those who know 
our students best--our local school boards, our teachers, our parents, 
our principals, our superintendents of schools--to design the 
curriculum and provide the courses and other needs for a local school.
  Schools differ. One school may need a gifted and talented program; 
another may need to improve its library; still another may need to 
establish an ESL program. In short, one size does not fit all. Yet that 
is the implication and the premise of the amendment of the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  This amendment would shift the power away from local communities and 
local school boards to Washington. We want to, instead, empower local 
communities to make the right decisions and then, very importantly, 
hold them accountable for results. We want to change the focus from 
paperwork and process and regulation and, instead, focus on what really 
matters, and that is ensuring that every child in America gets the very 
best education possible.
  We want to do that by holding schools and States accountable, not by 
telling them what courses they need to have, not by prescribing every 
rule, every regulation. Let's trust our teachers and our local school 
board members. Let's trust the local teachers and superintendents. They 
know best what is needed.
  I urge opposition to the amendment of my colleague, Senator Dodd. 
Again, he is a strong advocate for our Nation's schools, and I have 
enjoyed working with him, but I believe his amendment goes too far and 
is misguided.
  I retain the remainder of our time for our side, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we return to debate on the Dodd-Biden 
amendment, I want to clarify for Members just what the amendment does 
and add two points that were not made yesterday.
  The amendment conditions title I state administration funds--1 
percent of total state funds--on a written assurance that 
``comparable,'' not identical, essential education services, such as 
teacher quality and access to technology, are provided across 
districts. States have up to four years to comply. If a state fails to 
send a simple written assurance to the Secretary, their administrative 
funds are withheld. Once a state sends a written assurance, any 
previously withheld funds are returned. All a state has to do is file a 
piece of paper. I think the amendment is too modest frankly in not 
allowing the Secretary to engage in a more searching inquiry into 
whether the written assurance actually reflects a comparable education 
being offered.
  This amendment is still groundbreaking, however. Since 1965, we have 
required individual school districts to provide a written assurance 
that they are offering a comparable regular education in title I and 
non-title I schools. We have never asked states to assure that 
comparable services are provided among schools in different school 
districts. This amendment does. Whereas all title I program funds are 
conditioned on local compliance currently, only title I state 
administration are conditioned under the Dodd-Biden amendment.
  There are two additional points, which were not raised yesterday, 
that I would like to add. First, state after state repeatedly has found 
itself back in state court because of its failure to provide a 
comparable educational opportunity across districts. A State Supreme 
Court orders improvement. Some improvement is made. But then progress 
quickly erodes. And the parents of poor children have to go back to 
court. Since 1968, there have been five iterations of the Serrano case 
in California, six of the Abbott case in New Jersey, and five of the 
Edgewood case in Texas.
  This amendment is significant in not just requiring states to provide 
a comparable opportunity, but in actually reaching into the state's 
federal pocketbook if it resists. Maybe when there are federal 
financial consequences for state resistance to State supreme courts, 
states will do a better job of complying with judicial orders.
  Second, the Senator from New Hampshire yesterday repeated an old and 
outdated argument that ``education is not a formula where more dollars 
equal better results.'' We have known for a long time though that money 
well spend does make a difference. In fact, the last time we 
reauthorized ESEA, we had a series of hearings on this issue.
  We heard as far back as 1993, that increased education spending 
targeted to critical areas like teacher quality have a profound effect 
on student achievement. This is what we heard from Dr. Ronald Ferguson 
of Harvard University after studying teacher quality and student 
assessment results in every Texas school district.

       A measure of teachers' literacy skills explains roughly 25 
     percent of the variation among Texas school districts in 
     students' average reading and math scores on statewide 
     standardized exams. . . . Better literacy skills among 
     teachers, fewer large classes, and more teachers with five or 
     more years experience all predict better [test] scores.

  Deep down every United States Senator knows what every parent and 
teacher knows--that resources matter in education. If resources didn't 
matter, we wouldn't mind sending our children and grandchildren to the 
poorest schools. If resources didn't matter, people wouldn't fight 
``Robin Hood'' plans that equalize spending by taking from the wealthy 
districts to give to the poor. Now I don't think we should equalize 
spending down by taking money from some communities and giving it to 
others. I think we should equalize up by sending more targeted 
education resources to the communities that are deprived. I hope the 
President and the other side will join us in that effort to boost 
education spending overall.
  Every child deserves a fair chance.
  I am rather amazed at these statements that are made on the floor 
about how this undermines the President's initiatives, because to the 
contrary, this does not interfere with any of the President's 
initiatives. I think it gives much more life to the President's 
initiative, because Senator Dodd's amendment is going to encourage 
States to provide additional focus and attention to the most needy 
students in the State. That is completely consistent with what the 
President has stated.
  I am rather surprised, frankly, by the reaction of our Republican 
friends because this has been on a list of amendments to be considered 
for 3 weeks. This is the first amendment about which I have heard our 
Republican friends indicate we will not get a vote on it. I do not know 
what kind of signal that sends. It has been on the list for 3 weeks, 
and 5 minutes ago I heard for the first time the spokesperson for the

[[Page 10150]]

Republican Party say we are not going to vote on it.
  I do not know what kind of message that sends in our attempt to try 
to move this legislation, but it certainly is not a useful one or a 
constructive one.
  I ask my friends on the other side to reread the language of the 
amendment. It says:

       A State shall be considered to have met the requirements . 
     . . if such State has filed with the Secretary a written 
     assurance that such State has established and implemented 
     policies to ensure comparability among schools . . . .

  All they have to do is file the statement. This is not like the 
existing legislation that requires the Secretary to have approval on 
State tests. That is real power. Or that the Secretary has to approve 
the State's findings in terms of standards. That is real power. Or the 
fact the Secretary will make a judgment on a State's application for 
Straight A's authority. That is real power. Those are decisions that 
will be made here in Washington.
  But to confuse that kind of authority and power with the language 
here is most unfortunate. Why are they so excited about this? I can't 
understand why they are so excited so early in the morning about this 
language? All this amendment says is that States have to file a written 
assurance. That's it. That's compliance.
  I reiterate that we have had hearings on this issue in the past. We 
had days of hearings on school finance. The record of those hearings is 
printed in Senate 103-254. This is not a new concept. This is not a new 
idea. We have accepted the concept of comparability at the local 
levels. All this is doing is saying what I think the President wants to 
do; that is, he wants accountability statewide.
  We want accountability for the children so they are going to work 
hard and study hard. We want accountability for the teachers to make 
sure we are going to have teachers who are going to get professional 
development. We want accountability for States in developing standards, 
and accountability that the States are going to develop tests that are 
going to be high-quality tests.
  We have accountability here in the Congress to try to afford the 
resources to be able to help these children.
  All the Senator from Connecticut is saying is let's have 
accountability. Let's have accountability for the States as well to be 
a part of a team. Most parents would want their children to learn. 
Learning should be a partnership with the local, State, and the Federal 
response in areas of the neediest children in this country.
  I think this enhances the President's initiative. This carries it to 
an additional level. I hope he would be on the phone calling our 
friends and saying let's have a unanimous, favorable vote for this 
particular provision.
  I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Connecticut.


                 Amendment No. 459, As Further Modified

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I send a modification of my 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 459), as further modified, is as follows:
       On page 135, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       (d) Section 1120A (20 U.S.C. 6322) is amended by inserting 
     the following after subsection (d):
       ``(e) Comparability of Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--(A) A State that receives funds under 
     this part shall provide services in schools receiving funds 
     under this part that, taken as a whole, are at least 
     comparable to services in schools that are not receiving 
     funds under this part.
       ``(B) A State shall meet the requirements of subparagraph 
     (A) on a school-by-school basis.
       ``(2) Written assurance.--(A) A State shall be considered 
     to have met the requirements of paragraph (1) if such State 
     has filed with the Secretary a written assurance that such 
     State has established and implemented policies to ensure 
     comparability among schools.
       ``(B) A State need not include unpredictable changes in 
     student enrollment or personnel assignments that occur after 
     the beginning of a school year in determining comparability 
     of services under this subsection.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to require a jurisdiction to increase its property 
     tax or other tax rates.
       ``(4) Effective date.--A State shall comply with the 
     requirements of this subsection by not later than the 
     beginning of the 2005-2006 school year.
       ``(5) Waivers.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State may request, and the Secretary 
     may grant, a waiver of the requirements of this subsection 
     for a period of up to 2 years for exceptional circumstances, 
     such as a precipitous decrease in State revenues or other 
     circumstances that the Secretary deems exceptional that 
     prevent a State from complying with the requirements of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(B) Contents of waiver request.--A State that requests a 
     waiver under subparagraph (A) shall include in the request--
       ``(i) a description of the exceptional circumstances that 
     prevent the State from complying with the requirements of 
     this subsection; and
       ``(ii) a plan that details the manner in which the State 
     will comply with such requirements by the end of the waiver 
     period.
       ``(6) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall, upon the 
     request of a State and regardless of whether the State has 
     requested a waiver under paragraph (5), provide technical 
     assistance to the State concerning compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection.
       ``(7) Sanctions.--If a State fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this subsection, the Secretary shall withhold 
     funds for State administration until such time as the 
     Secretary determines that the State is in compliance with 
     this subsection.''

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I discussed the amendment with my good 
friend from New Hampshire. The way I have dealt with the modification 
is to take out the section that speaks to the specific kinds of 
comparability issues such as class size, teachers, and the like. My 
intention was not to suggest we ought to have identical class size 
standards set by the Federal Government or to mandate how States should 
provide equal educational opportunity, but rather to ensure that they 
do provide it. Therefore, I have left the language basically as it has 
been for 36 years when dealing with school districts; that is, achieve 
comparability of educational opportunities, except to apply it to 
States, as well.
  As I pointed out, we have school districts in this country that have 
student populations in excess of the population of 27 States, and they 
have been able to deal with comparability, without, to use the example 
that concerned my friend from New Hampshire, infringing upon charter 
schools or magnet schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the request be 
modified to add 1 additional minute on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and 
colleague from Massachusetts on this issue. He makes the point very 
clearly. This is not radical. We are asking for accountability and 
responsibility by everybody when it comes to education. We are assuming 
it here at the Federal level with the underlying bill. We are requiring 
it of young children in the third grade and on, their parents, 
teachers, schools, and school boards. I am only saying that States must 
be part of this equation. That is all this is--to provide for 
comparable educational opportunity at the State level as we have 
required for 36 years at a district level. We leave to the Secretary 
the discretion about how much to withhold administrative funds--not 
funds to children--if necessary. For States to provide assurances that 
they are moving to achieve comparability is not radical. That is common 
sense. We are asking to test everybody in America. We ought to ask the 
States to take a little test as well.
  I thank my colleagues.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 10151]]

  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the nays and yeas.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me summarize the problem. I appreciate 
the fact that the Senator from Connecticut has modified his amendment. 
I appreciate him doing that and taking out some of the language that is 
most onerous in the amendment. But the amendment still accomplishes 
essentially the same thing, which is creating a Federal standard 
requiring every State to set up comparability standards. There are a 
lot of States in this country and a lot of communities in this country 
which do not agree that comparability is appropriate; that believe the 
States should have flexibility from community to community to decide 
how they operate their school system. Local control is the essence of 
education. If a State decides it wants comparability, or its supreme 
court decides that, or the State legislature decides that, fine. That 
is certainly their responsibility and their right. They operate school 
systems. They pay for 97 percent of the school systems, and they should 
be able to do that. They do that. The Supreme Court did that in the 
area of funding. But it is not the role of the Federal Government to 
come in after paying 6 percent of the cost of the school system and say 
to States that every State has to have comparability within their 
State. It is a huge intrusion of the Federal role in the role of 
education.
  For that reason, it goes, as I mentioned earlier, directly in the 
opposite direction from what the theme of this bill is. I am not going 
to reiterate that because I just said it 10 or 15 minutes ago. But that 
is the problem of the amendment. It is incredibly intrusive, and it 
goes in the direct opposite direction from where this bill is going.
  That is why we on our side strongly oppose it and believe it is 
inconsistent with the agreement that was reached. We need to think 
about it a little bit longer before we decide how we are going to 
dispose of it.
  I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut withdrawing his request for 
the yeas and nays. Maybe as we move down the road, we can figure out a 
way to more appropriately handle this amendment.
  I yield the remainder of our time on this amendment.


 Amendment Nos. 356, 401, 434, 513 as modified, 642, 643 as modified, 
363 as modified, 638 as modified, 354 as modified, 418 as modified, and 
             633 as modified En Bloc, to Amendment no. 358

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are now going to go to the Nelson-
Carnahan amendment. But today I am happy to report that we have another 
package of cleared amendments. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that 
it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, and any 
modification, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed 
to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 356, 401, 434, 513 as modified, 642, 643 as 
modified, 363 as modified, 638 as modified, 354 as modified, 418 as 
modified, and 633 as modified) were agreed to en bloc as follows:


                           amendment no. 356

               (Purpose: To promote financial education)

       On page 619, line 6, strike ``and''.
       On page 619, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 619, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       ``(O) activities to promote consumer, economic, and 
     personal finance education, such as disseminating and 
     encouraging the use of the best practices for teaching the 
     basic principles of economics and promoting the concept of 
     achieving financial literacy through the teaching of personal 
     financial management skills (including the basic principles 
     involved in earning, spending, saving, and investing).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 401

  (Purpose: To assist parents in becoming active participants in the 
                      education of their children)

       On page 479, strike line 8 and insert the following:
     for limited English proficient students, and to assist 
     parents to become active participants in the education of 
     their children.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 513, as modified

           (Purpose: To expand the permissible uses of funds)

       On page 318, strike lines 22 through 25, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(5) Developing and implementing effective mechanisms to 
     assist local education agencies and schools in effectively 
     recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and 
     principals, and in cases in which a State deems appropriate, 
     pupil services personnel.
       On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(12) Providing professional development for teachers and 
     pupil services personnel.
       On page 326, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Providing teachers, principals, and, in cases in 
     which a local education agency deems appropriate, pupil 
     services personnel with opportunities for professional 
     development through institutions of higher education.
       On page 327, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(7) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist 
     schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly 
     qualified teachers and principals, and, in cases in which a 
     local education agency deems appropriate, pupil services 
     personnel.
       On page 370, strike lines 12 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and 
     services, including the acquisition of hardware and software, 
     for use by teachers, students, academic counselors, and 
     school library media personnel in the classroom, in academic 
     and college counseling centers, or in school library media 
     centers, in order to improve student academic achievement and 
     student performance;''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 642

               (Purpose: To provide for Indian education)

       On page 178, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(4) Reservation from appropriations.--From the amounts 
     appropriated under section 1002(b)(2) to carry out this 
     subpart for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) reserve \1/2\ of 1 percent for allotments for the 
     Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, to be distributed among these 
     outlying areas on the basis of their relative need, as 
     determined by the Secretary in accordance with the purposes 
     of this subpart; and
       ``(B) reserve \1/2\ of 1 percent for allotments for the 
     Secretary of the Interior for programs under this subpart in 
     schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       On page 272, line 10, strike ``and the Republic of Palau'' 
     and insert ``Republic of Palau, and Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     for purposes of serving schools funded by the Bureau''.
       On page 776, line 10, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``or, in the case of a Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     funded school, by the Secretary of the Interior''
       On page 807, strike lines 1 through 18.
       On page 808, strike lines 15 and 16.
                                  ____



                 amendment no. 434 to amendment no. 358

      (Purpose: To revise the definition of parental involvement)

       On page 12, strike lines 23 through 24.
       On page 13 strike lines 1 through 2, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(23) Parental involvement.--The term `parental 
     involvement' means the participation of parents in regular, 
     two-way, and meaningful communication, including ensuring--
       ``(A) that parenting skills are promoted and supported:
       ``(B) that parents play an integral role in assisting 
     student learning;
       ``(C) that parents are welcome in the schools;
       ``(D) that parents are included in decision-making and 
     advisory committees; and
       ``(E) the carrying out of other activities described in 
     section 1118.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 643, As Modified

      (Purpose: To provide rural schools with options during the 
                        reconstitution process)

       On page 99, between line 22 and 23, Title I, Sec. 1116 
     (8)(B), is amended by inserting:
       (1) Special Rule.--Rural local educational agencies, as 
     described in Sec. 5231(b) may apply to the Secretary for a 
     waiver of the requirements under this sub-paragraph provided 
     that they submit to the Secretary an alternative plan for 
     making significant changes to improve student performance in 
     the school, such as an academically-focused after school 
     programs for all students, changing school administration or 
     implementing a research-based, proven-effective, whole-school 
     reform program. The Secretary shall approve or reject an 
     application for a waiver submitted under this rule within 30 
     days of the submission of information required by the 
     Secretary to apply for the waiver. If the Secretary fails to 
     make a determination with respect to the waiver application 
     within 30 days, the application shall

[[Page 10152]]

     be treated as having been accepted by the Secretary.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 363, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To enable local educational agencies to extend the amount of 
 educational time spent in schools, including enabling the agencies to 
           extend the length of the school year to 210 days)

       On page 67, line 18, strike ``and''.
       On page 67, line 21, strike all after ``1118'' and insert 
     ``; and''.
       On page 67, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(11) where appropriate, a description of how the local 
     educational agency will use funds under this part to support 
     school year extension programs under section 1120C for low-
     performing schools.'';
       On page 161, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 120D. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use funds 
     received under this part to--
       ``(A) to extend the length of the school year to 210 days;
       ``(C) conduct outreach to and consult with community 
     members, including parents, students, and other stakeholders 
     to develop a plan to extend learning time within or beyond 
     the school day or year; and
       ``(D) research, develop, and implement strategies, 
     including changes in curriculum and instruction.
       ``(c) Application.--A local educational agency desiring to 
     use funds under this section shall submit an application to 
     the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the agency may 
     require. Each application shall describe--
       ``(1) the activities to be carried out under this section;
       ``(2) any study or other information-gathering project for 
     which funds will be used;
       ``(3) the strategies and methods the applicant will use to 
     enrich and extend learning time for all students and to 
     maximize high quality instruction in the core academic areas 
     during the school day, such as block scheduling, team 
     teaching, longer school days or years, and extending learning 
     time through new distance-learning technologies;
       ``(4) the strategies and methods the applicant will use, 
     including changes in curriculum and instruction, to challenge 
     and engage students and to maximize the productiveness of 
     common core learning time, as well as the total time students 
     spend in school and in school-related enrichment activities;
       ``(5) the strategies and methods the applicant intends to 
     employ to provide continuing financial support for the 
     implementation of any extended school day or school year;
       ``(6) with respect to any application to carry out 
     activities described in subsection (b)(1)(A), a description 
     of any feasibility or other studies demonstrating the 
     sustainability of a longer school year;
       ``(7) the extent of involvement of teachers and other 
     school personnel in investigating, designing, implementing 
     and sustaining the activities assisted under this section;
       ``(8) the process to be used for involving parents and 
     other stakeholders in the development and implementation of 
     the activities assistance under this section;
       ``(9) any cooperation or collaboration among public housing 
     authorities, libraries, businesses, museums, community-based 
     organizations, and other community groups and organizations 
     to extend engaging, high-quality, standards-based learning 
     time outside of the school day or year, at the school or at 
     some other site;
       ``(10) the training and professional development activities 
     that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the 
     activities assisted under this section;
       ``(11) the goals and objectives of the activities assisted 
     under this section, including a description of how such 
     activities will assist all students to reach State standards;
       ``(12) the methods by which the applicant will assess 
     progress in meeting such goals and objectives; and
       ``(13) how the applicant will use funds provided under this 
     section in coordination with funds provided under other 
     Federal laws.''
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 638, AS MODIFIED

         (Purpose: To provide for an annual report to Congress)

       On page 69, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(6) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall report 
     annually to Congress--
       ``(A) beginning with school year 2001-2002, information on 
     the State's progress in developing and implementing the 
     assessments described in subsection (b)(3);
       ``(B) beginning not later than school year 2004-2005, 
     information on the achievement of students on the assessments 
     described in subsection (b)(3), including the disaggregated 
     results for the categories of students described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(B)(v)(II); and
       ``(D) in any year before the States begin to provide the 
     information described in paragraph (B) to the Secretary, 
     information on the results of student assessments (including 
     disaggregated results) required under this section.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 354 AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To establish a study on finance disparities and the effects 
                of equalization on student performance)

       On page 173, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       (f) Study, Evaluation and Report of School Finance 
     Equalization.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     evaluate and report to the Congress on the degree of 
     disparity in expenditures per pupil among LEAs within and 
     across each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. 
     The Secretary shall also analyze the trends in State school 
     finance legislation and judicial action requiring that states 
     equalize resources. The Secretary shall evaluate and report 
     to the Congress whether or not it can be determined if these 
     actions have resulted in an improvement in student 
     performance.
       In preparing this report, the Secretary may also consider 
     the following: various measures of determining disparity; the 
     relationship between education expenditures and student 
     performance; the effect of Federal education assistance 
     programs on the equalization of school finance resources; and 
     the effects of school finance equalization on local and state 
     tax burdens.
       Such report shall be submitted to the Congress not later 
     than one year after the date of enactment of the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 418 as modified

                 (Purpose: Protection of Pupil Rights)

       On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(F) Protection of pupil rights.--In meeting the 
     requirements of this section, States, local educational 
     agencies, and schools shall comply with the provisions of 
     Section 445 of the General Education Provisions Act.''
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 633 AS modified

 (Purpose: To ensure that grant funds are available for use to enhance 
   educators' knowledge in the use of computer related technology to 
                       enhance student learning)

       On page 328, line 21, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, including the use of computer related 
     technology to enhance student learning''.

                           Amendment No. 513

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would first like to express my 
appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate's 
Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee for accepting this 
important amendment to S. 1, the Better Education for Students and 
Teachers Act.
  Simply put, the amendment that I have offered will help protect the 
ability of school counselors, social workers, psychologists and others 
to receive professional development and training as determined by local 
school districts.
  Each of us in this body wants what's best for our Nation's children, 
and when it comes to their education, we want our schools and our 
educators to find ways to provide a first-class education for our 
children, to ensure their safety, and to help them develop their God-
given talents so they may become upstanding, contributing members of 
our society.
  Nearly everyone agrees our schools need help, but not everyone agrees 
on which way is best. That is why we in the Senate have tried to put 
together this Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization 
bill that gives our states and localities the flexibility to do what is 
necessary to improve their schools.
  Part of educating, protecting, and preparing our students is seeing 
to it that they get the help they need to succeed in the classroom. 
That is why I offered this amendment to make pupil services personnel 
eligible to be recipients of title II professional development funds.
  Pupil services personnel, the men and women who are our school 
counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, and other 
school-based personnel, are essential components in our effort to 
guarantee that no child is left behind. These educators help ensure 
student achievement by securing a safe learning environment, helping to 
solve problems students experience that extend far beyond the 
schoolyard, and crafting a challenging, personalized, college-oriented 
curriculum so that all students have a chance to succeed.

[[Page 10153]]

  To maximize State and local flexibility, it is important that pupil 
services personnel be included under title II programs. For example, if 
a school district wants to engage a team of teachers, principals, and 
pupil services personnel in a comprehensive curriculum reform planning 
program, Federal law should not exclude part of that team from taking 
part in those activities if they use title II funds. Nothing in my 
amendment would mandate that title II funds have to be spent on these 
educators, only that we not rule out their participation, which I 
believe would limit state and local flexibility. Further, adding pupil 
services personnel under title II ``allowable uses'' does not add any 
additional funds on top of those already authorized in this ESEA 
reauthorization legislation.
  Pupil service organizations represent more than one million people 
who work and teach in our schools. Allowing these educators access to 
title II professional development opportunities could unlock innovative 
approaches to reduce barriers to classroom learning and integrate 
future planning-like professional or college preparation-into classroom 
practice. In Ohio, it leaves options open to include an estimated 
40,000 school-based educators in professional development activities. 
For the students and parents served by these educators, the benefits of 
having highly-trained, integrated pupil services staff are potentially 
shared by tens of thousands of additional stakeholders each year.
  Achieving school reform and improving student achievement requires 
the support and active participation of all educators in each school. I 
hope my colleagues will agree that, using our limited role in educating 
our children, we will provide the flexibility to promote innovative, 
coordinated professional development opportunities that may help 
generate solutions to the problems that face our schools.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, these 
amendments are as follows: Corzine No. 356; Reed, 401; Reed, 434; 
Voinovich, 513; Enzi, 642; Enzi/Collings/Murray, 643; Torricelli, 363; 
Nelson of Florida, 638; Hatch, 354; Hatch, 418; and Levin, 633.
  We are continuing to process these amendments. I am thankful and 
grateful to our friends and colleagues on the other side for their help 
and their good work in making all of this possible.
  I yield the floor.


                 Amendment No. 385 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 385, on which there will 
be 60 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan], for herself and 
     Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, proposes an amendment numbered 385.

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 385

(Purpose: To limit the application of assessment requirements based on 
       the costs to the State in administering such assessments)

       On page 51, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(4) Assessments not required.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State shall not be required to conduct 
     any assessments under paragraph (3) in any school year if--
       ``(i) the assessments are not otherwise required under 
     Federal law on the day preceding the date of enactment of the 
     Better Education for Students and Teachers Act; and
       ``(ii) the amount made available to the State under section 
     6403(a) for use in the school year involved for such 
     assessments is less than 100 percent of the costs to the 
     State of administering such assessments in the previous 
     school year, or if such assessments were not administered in 
     the previous school year (in accordance with this 
     subparagraph), in the most recent school year in which such 
     assessments were administered.
       ``(B) Determination of total costs.--For purposes of making 
     the determination required under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     Secretary shall, not later than March 15 of each year, 
     publish in the Federal Register a description of the total 
     costs of developing and implementing the assessments required 
     under the amendments made by the Better Education for 
     Students and Teachers Act for the school year involved based 
     on information submitted by the States, as required by the 
     Secretary. Such total costs may include costs related to 
     field testing, administration (including the printing of 
     testing materials and reporting processes), and staff time. 
     The Secretary shall include in any such publication a 
     justification with respect to any category of costs submitted 
     by a State that is excluded by the Secretary from the 
     estimated total cost.
       ``(C) 2005-2006 school year.--Not later than March 15, 
     2005, the Secretary shall make the publication required under 
     subparagraph (B) with respect to the 2005-2006 school year.
       ``(D) Report.--The Secretary annually report the 
     information published under subparagraph (B) to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce and Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives.
       On page 59, line 21, after the period add the following: 
     ``No funds shall be withheld under this subsection for any 
     school year in which the Secretary determines that a State 
     has received, under section 6403(a), less than 100 percent of 
     the costs to the State of designing standards and developing 
     and administering assessments for measuring and monitoring 
     adequate yearly progress under this section. The Secretary 
     shall determine the reasonable costs of designing, 
     developing, and administering standards and assessments based 
     on information submitted by the States, as required by the 
     Secretary, except that the Secretary shall provide a written 
     explanation of any category of costs that excluded from the 
     Secretary's calculations.''.
       On page 778, after line 21, add the following:
       ``(d) Miscellaneous Provision.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (a)(3), there is authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     subsection (a)(1), such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2002 and for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.''.

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, we must never let any of our children 
slip through the cracks of the education system. That's why a yardstick 
of performance is needed. It's why rigorous accountability and 
increased testing have become cornerstones of the education debate. I 
strongly support testing to help us measure the progress of our 
Nation's students.
  Missouri is at the forefront of using testing to drive education 
reform. Since 1993, Missouri educators have worked hard to shape a 
testing structure called the Missouri Assessment Program.
  These tests measure progress in math, communication arts, science, 
and social studies as well as a variety of skills. Each of the four 
core subject areas is tested in three grade levels. In each of these 
grade levels, every child is tested.
  I commend Missouri educators on creating a superb testing instrument.
  Each child's development is gauged on an individual, case-by-case 
basis as well as in relation to other students across the Nation.
  By contrast, under President Bush's plan, States would be required to 
test every child annually in grades 3-8.
  In Missouri, this would require tremendous cost.
  In communication arts, for example--which tests reading, as well as 
writing ability, punctuation, spelling, and thought organization--
Missouri currently tests kids in grades 3, 7, and 11. Under the new 
requirement, the State would have to develop new tests for grades 4, 5, 
6, and 8. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 
estimates that initial development costs would be approximately $3.5 
million and ongoing development costs would be an additional $1.2 
million per year.
  About another $5 million would be required to develop new math tests, 
and a new science test would be even more expensive. These estimates do 
not even include the costs of implementing, scoring, and analyzing 
these tests. In the end, the annual costs for Missouri may exceed $15 
million per year.
  The ESEA legislation that we are now debating, however, would provide 
for the entire Nation $400 million per year for developing and 
implementing the new tests. But the truth is that we don't know exactly 
how much the new tests will cost.
  The National Association of State Boards of Education has estimated 
the total national costs to be between $2.7 billion and $7 billion over 
7 years.
  The reality is that when it comes to the cost of these new tests, we 
are

[[Page 10154]]

looking at a huge question mark. And we face the possibility that there 
could be a tremendous gap between funding available for these new tests 
and funding needed. This uncertainty places an unfair burden on our 
local districts and schools.
  Last month, I joined my Senate colleagues in supporting full funding 
for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
  As did my colleagues, I heeded the cry of local educators and parents 
who told us that Congress had not fulfilled its promise to fund 420 
percent of IDEA. They told us that this failure had drained local 
districts of already scarce funds. They told us that these 
circumstances hurt the students in our schools. After years of delay, 
we raised our collective voice to recognize that Congress cannot place 
unfunded mandates on our schools.
  Now, numerous letters have been pouring into my office from 
superintendents across Missouri, voicing concern about the cost of the 
new tests. Let me share some of them with you.
  One is from David Legaard, the superintendent in Smithville, who 
wrote:

       The Smithville R-II School District supports your efforts. 
     Our school district cannot afford to pay for mandated federal 
     testing programs.

  Don Lawrence, the superintendent in Savannah, MO, wrote:

       Rest assured the local school districts in the state of 
     Missouri do not have access to additional funds to pay for 
     national school testing.

  We should not make the same mistake with testing as we did with IDEA. 
We simply cannot put our State and local governments in the position of 
draining local resources to pay for new, unfunded Federal requirements.
  The amendment I am offering today with my colleague, Senator Ben 
Nelson, will ensure that our schools don't bear an unfair burden. The 
idea behind this amendment is straightforward: if new tests are 
required by the Federal Government, they should be paid for by the 
Federal Government. States would not be obligated to give the tests in 
any year that the Federal Government fails to provide 100 percent of 
the funding.
  The Carnahan-Nelson amendment builds on the Jeffords amendment, which 
passed by a 93-7 margin. I was pleased to support that amendment, but 
in our view it did not provide sufficient protection to State 
governments and local educators.
  The Jeffords amendment provides that States must conduct the new 
tests so long as the Federal Government provides $400 million for 
design and implementation costs. The problem is, what happens if the 
cost is twice that amount, or ten times that amount, as some groups are 
estimating? Who will pick up the additional costs?
  The answer is that our local schools, supported by local tax dollars, 
will have to pick up the tab for the federally mandated tests. We think 
that is the wrong policy.
  Some have argued that this is an ``antitesting'' amendment because it 
links a State's obligation to conduct the new tests with full Federal 
funding.
  The bill before the Senate already links a State's obligation to test 
to Federal funding. Our amendment merely changes the amount of Federal 
funding required from the arbitrary figure of $400 million to 100 
percent of the true cost of testing.
  Our schools should not have to forego the purchase of textbooks, or 
increases in teachers' salaries, or the renovation of classrooms so 
that they can put in place the new tests. If the Federal Government is 
going to impose this new requirement, the Federal Government should 
provide the resources to do it.
  In addition, our amendment covers science tests, which the current 
bill does not.
  And, our amendment requires the Secretary of Education to calculate 
the total costs of complying with the testing mandate so legislators 
know whether the Federal Government is meeting its obligation to our 
local schools.
  The Governor of Missouri, Bob Holden, has strongly endorsed the 
Eliminate Unfunded Mandates amendment. He comments:

       I feel strongly that implementing new testing requirements 
     without the adequate funds in place would be a disservice to 
     the children in Missouri and across the nation . . . If the 
     Federal Government is going to require new testing measures, 
     then the Federal Government should pay 100 percent of all 
     costs.

  Governor Holden's sentiment is echoed in an endorsement letter from 
the Democratic Governors' Association, which notes that the Carnahan-
Nelson amendment would help ``fulfill [a] historic commitment to 
America's children.''
  Many Senators have extolled the virtues of testing during this 
debate. Many have spoken in favor of local control over education 
funds. If you want to ensure that testing will take place and that our 
local schools can spend their own dollars on their own priorities, then 
you should vote for the Carnahan-Nelson amendment.
  I am pleased that Senator Baucus and Senator Hollings support this 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be added as cosponsors.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                            State of Missouri,

                                 Jefferson City, MO, May 20, 2001.
       Dear Members of the Senate: I write in strong support of 
     the Carnahan-Nelson amendment to the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (ESEA).
       This amendment would ensure that the federal government 
     meets its commitment to states by fully funding the cost of 
     the new ESEA testing requirements. If the federal government 
     did not meet this commitment, states would be released from 
     the obligation to implement the new requirements. The 
     amendment also would require the Secretary of Education to 
     commission and annual report on testing costs.
       I feel strongly that implementing new testing requirements 
     without the adequate funds in place would be a disservice to 
     the children in Missouri and across the nation. Under these 
     circumstances, state and local governments would be forced to 
     choose between implementing the new testing requirements and 
     cutting costs in other vital education programs. We simply 
     cannot place our schools in the position of choosing between 
     hiring new teachers, purchasing new textbooks, renovating 
     schools and implementing the new tests. If the federal 
     government is going to require new testing measures, then the 
     federal government should pay 100% of all additional costs.
       This point is especially germane in states that have 
     already implemented strong testing programs. I am proud to 
     note that Missouri has already made great strides in relation 
     to testing and accountability. The Missouri Assessment 
     Program, which assesses students in six subject areas, is the 
     result of painstaking efforts on the part of Missouri 
     educators. I believe that this testing program makes Missouri 
     a leader in the nation in terms of effective testing.
       Thank you for your attention to this critical matter, and I 
     encourage you to vote in favor of the Carnahan-Nelson 
     amendment. I look forward to working hand-in-hand with 
     Congress and the Administration to ensure that our state 
     testing systems are as effective as possible and that we do 
     our utmost to support the education of our nation's children.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bob Holden,
     Governor.
                                  ____



                            Democratic Governor's Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2001.
     Hon. Jean Carnahan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the nation's Democratic 
     Governors, I am writing in support of the amendment being 
     offered by Senators Carnahan and Nelson to S. 1, the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST). This 
     amendment would ensure that the federal government meets its 
     commitment to states by fully funding the cost of the new 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) testing 
     requirements.
       The amendment would replace the $400 million cap authorized 
     for FY 2002 for developing and implementing tests, in the 
     underlying bill, instead requiring the federal government to 
     pay 100% of all state testing costs not currently required 
     under federal law. If the federal government does not meet 
     this commitment, states would be released from the obligation 
     to implement the new testing requirements. The amendment 
     would also require the Secretary of Education to annually 
     calculate the total costs of testing.
       In addition, the amendment would add a protection that 
     would prohibit the federal government from sanctioning a 
     state for falling behind schedule in designing and 
     implementing tests if the federal government has not provided 
     full funding.
       While we are pleased to support the Carnahan/Nelson 
     amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of 
     legislation to reauthorize the ESEA will apply a funding 
     trigger more broadly, specifically to include

[[Page 10155]]

     Title I. This is the main source of federal assistance for 
     disadvantaged students and the federal government needs to 
     back its efforts to strengthen accountability with adequate 
     new investment.
       We would also prefer that final legislation link federal 
     funding accountability to consequences imposed on states and 
     local schools unable to meet proposed annual performance 
     measures, such as fiscal sanctions and school reorganization. 
     Relieving states from the cost of implementing new tests does 
     not alter the mandated levels of improvement in student 
     performance.
       Democratic Governors urge Congress to fulfill the historic 
     commitment to America's children that the BEST Act represents 
     by fully funding authorized levels of IDEA, Title I, and 
     teacher quality, as well as for testing. We believe that the 
     Carnahan-Nelson amendment helps to ensure this, and we urge 
     that the Senate adopt the amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Gov. Tom Vilsack,

                                                    State of Iowa,
                                         DGA Vice-Chair of Policy.

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. I am happy to yield the floor for the Senator from 
Nebraska to make further comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the 
Senate's support for the Carnahan-Nelson amendment. As my colleague has 
stated, it is a simple, straightforward measure that would require the 
Federal Government to pay 100 percent of the costs of all new federally 
mandated tests that would be required by the pending bill.
  In any year that the Government fails to provide funding to the 
States, the States simply would not have to administer the tests, and 
the States could not be sanctioned for falling behind schedule in 
developing their systems of assessment.
  Six years ago, Congress passed, and the President signed, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 
98-1. This was cause for celebration among the Nation's Governors. We 
had been urging Congress for a long time to enact this kind of 
legislation. I took a great deal of personal satisfaction when the law 
was signed because as the Governor of Nebraska, I had invested years 
urging its passage.
  As Governor, I testified before committees in both the House and the 
Senate on the problems that were caused by unfunded Federal mandates.
  I became interested in curbing unfunded Federal mandates the very 
first year I sat down to work on my new State budget. As the years went 
by, I often wondered if I had actually been elected Governor of 
Nebraska or simply branch manager for the Federal Government. I cannot 
count the number of times that I had to cut my part of the budget, say 
no to a good project or turn down a group of Nebraskans with good ideas 
because all my available revenue was tied up complying with yet one 
more unfunded Federal mandate handed down by Washington.
  When the bill passed, I breathed a sigh of relief. In the Senate--
also at that time under new leadership--the unfunded Federal mandates 
bill was designated as S. 1, signifying the priority placed on the 
legislation. Coincidentally, S. 1 is the designation placed on the bill 
we are currently considering. Senators from both sides of the aisle at 
that time praised the unfunded mandates bill. One Senator said:

       The result of these mandates is that local governments are 
     forced to abandon their own priorities, to offer fewer 
     services to the public, and to ultimately charge higher taxes 
     and utility rates . . . The solution to the problem of 
     unfunded mandates is to require Congress to pay for any 
     mandate it places on State and local governments.

  Another Senator said:

       This legislation will increase accountability.

  There has been a lot of talk about accountability during the current 
debate on this bill. We are asking teachers, parents, and schools for 
accountability. We are going to hold States accountable for the money 
the Federal Government will be spending. But where is the 
accountability from Congress and the White House for the dollars that 
States are going to have to spend for the testing requirements of this 
bill?
  I commend Senator Jeffords for his efforts to provide at least 
partial funding for the testing that this bill will require, but I do 
not believe it will be enough.
  This bill will require the States to administer 12 different tests 
for students in grades 3 through 8. It will also require each State to 
participate in the NAEP test annually in grades 4 and 8, which accounts 
for 4 more tests. That is a total of 16 tests per year. As we can see 
from this chart, not all States currently administer tests with that 
kind of frequency. Fewer than a third of the States administer reading 
and math tests at all six grade levels each year. Another four States 
conduct reading and math tests at five of those grade levels, three 
States at four levels, and nine States at three levels. The remaining 
19 States test students annually in reading and math at two or fewer 
grade levels. If we don't count participation in NAEP, we are requiring 
States to develop and administer another 216 tests. If we add in NAEP, 
we are requiring the States to administer 316 tests per year. You get 
the idea of the magnitude of testing involved in this bill.
  As the other Senator from Minnesota explained several days ago, if 
the goal of these tests is to improve education, then you can't give 
cut-rate tests. An inexpensive, off-the-shelf test will not be able to 
accurately tell us how well or how poorly our students are doing. Given 
the stakes involved, States are not going to be able to administer 
their testing on the cheap. These tests are going to cost the States a 
great deal of money, and they should.
  In Nebraska, early in my tenure as Governor, we explored the costs of 
testing students in four core curriculum subjects. We received an 
estimate that ranged from $305 million for a basic test, and up to $13 
million for one that would meet the standards for a good assessment in 
a single test. That was almost 10 years ago.
  Our own experts in Congress, the Congressional Research Service, have 
said that complete information on the costs associated with student 
testing is impossible to obtain. The National Governors' Association 
estimated that these testing requirements could cost States at least 
$900 million. The National Association of State Boards of Education has 
estimated that they could cost between, as my colleague from Missouri 
said, $2.7 and $7 billion, well above the $400 million provided for in 
the bill.
  The chart behind me shows the estimated cost to each State. No one 
can for sure say how much this will cost the States, as the Senator 
from Maine acknowledged yesterday with her amendment. I am willing to 
wager that the roughly $400 million per year that is in the bill, 
despite the best efforts of the Senator from Vermont, simply will not 
be enough.
  I understand that the administration has also circulated some numbers 
that show that the costs might be less than what is contained in the 
bill. If that is the case, I will be pleased. But if it isn't the case, 
I hope the Senate will in fact adopt the amendment Senator Carnahan and 
I have proposed.
  Our amendment simply requires the Federal Government to pay 100 
percent of the cost of all new federally mandated tests. If 100 percent 
of the cost is less than what is currently in the bill, then perhaps we 
can use the leftovers to hire and train more teachers, which many think 
might be a good answer to the problem in any event. If 100 percent of 
the cost is more than the $400 million in the bill, then we have a real 
dilemma.
  As the bill now stands, States will be responsible for every 
additional penny that these tests cost. As we have seen, potential 
costs can be very high.
  In my State of Nebraska right now, there is not a lot of extra money 
available. I am sure there is not a lot of money available in the State 
of Missouri or the State of Florida, but there is no shortage of 
critical needs in the education field in every State. We are facing a 
teacher shortage in Nebraska that is of crisis proportions. Forty 
percent of our teachers, more than 8,000 of them, are going to be 
eligible to retire in the next 10 years. Our State won't be able to 
replace the excellent teachers who are retiring if too much of our 
State's money for education will be used to give tests instead of 
raising teacher's pay and other educational priorities.

[[Page 10156]]

  Nebraska won't be able to meet these critical needs because the extra 
money simply isn't there and won't be there. The only alternative in my 
State may be to shift the cost to the taxpayers through higher property 
taxes. I am here to tell my colleagues that isn't acceptable in 
Nebraska.
  In talking with some of my colleagues about this amendment, I have 
heard some additional concerns that I will address. I would like to be 
clear that neither I nor the Senator from Missouri oppose testing or 
setting high standards for students. While I was Governor, I severed as 
chairman of the National Education Goals Panel, which is part of the 
Goals 2000 effort, which called for setting high and measurable 
standards for students. I led in the State, despite some determined 
opposition, for developing strong educational standards in Nebraska.
  Nor do we have any desire to weaken the accountability provisions of 
this bill. Our amendment doesn't do that. If our schools aren't 
preparing every child to succeed in the 21st century, then we are 
obligated to fix them.
  I have no doubt that Nebraska's teachers, students, and schools can 
compete with any of those in any State in our Nation. This amendment 
would only prevent the Federal Government from sanctioning a State for 
falling behind schedule if it doesn't receive full funding for the cost 
of testing.
  I have also been told that some Senators are worried about writing a 
blank Federal check to the States. They are concerned about a race to 
the top in terms of cost.
  As the bill is now written, the Senate doesn't seem to be concerned 
about writing a blank check on each of the State's bank accounts 
without their permission. I see the irony of that, and I hope others 
do, too. But to address the concerns of my colleagues, we have added 
provisions that require the Secretary of Education, as my colleague has 
pointed out, to provide a report every year to both the authorizing and 
appropriating committees that details the costs of testing. If States 
are somehow gaming the system, we will know about it the first time it 
happens, and then we can correct it if it is necessary.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a simple, 
straightforward amendment. It requires the Federal Government to pay 
the full cost of the tests mandated by the bill. Unless we commit to do 
so, States will have to sacrifice funding for their own identified 
priorities or be forced to once again shift the cost to taxpayers in 
the form of higher property taxes.
  I opened my remarks with a quote from a Senator who was describing 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act that this body passed 6 years ago. I 
think it might be worth repeating, as I come to a close. The Senator 
said:

       The result of these mandates is that local governments are 
     forced to abandon their own priorities, to offer fewer 
     services to the public, and to ultimately charge higher taxes 
     and utility rates . . . The solution to the problem of 
     unfunded mandates is to require Congress to pay for any 
     mandate it places on State and local governments.

  I do not think I could say it better, and I may not have said it 
better today.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Is there a sufficient 
second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Carnahan and Senator 
Nelson for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Senate. What 
we are focusing on, which is enormously important, is the issue of 
testing and accountability.
  Their amendment brings to focus whether we are going to give 
assistance to the States and local communities to develop good quality 
tests. We have had a good debate on the issue of quality of tests. The 
Senate has gone on record in a bipartisan way to make sure we are going 
to have good quality tests. The Senators rightfully raise the question 
of whether our testing requirements are affordable and how are we going 
to make sure the States are not going to be in the situation where they 
will be left holding the bag, so to speak. It is a very important 
policy issue.
  Having said that, I do think we have made some progress on this 
issue. I know it is not sufficient for Senator Carnahan and Senator 
Nelson, but I want to briefly review how we reached the figures that 
are included in the legislation. We listened to the recommendation of 
the NASB, the National Association of School Boards.
  They made the recommendation that the development of these tests were 
going to amount to anywhere from $25 to $125 a student. The legislation 
provides some $69 per student. NASB said that development costs could 
be anywhere from $25 to $50. In this legislation, we provide only $20 
per student.
  What have we done? We accepted the Jeffords amendment that says, 
unless we are going to have the funding for the testing program at NASB 
recommended levels, we will not expect the States to have to comply 
with that program. That is currently included in the Jeffords 
amendment, and there was very broad support for the Jeffords amendment.
  Under the Wellstone amendment, we have also added additional 
resources of some $200 billion a year that will come to $2.8 billion to 
make sure we are going to get quality. It is a legitimate question of 
whether we are going to get the appropriations.
  The two Senators are making a very important point that if we are 
going to do this right, we have to get the resources to do it right. 
There is no guarantee we will get those additional funds, but there is 
a sufficient guarantee with the amendment of Senator Jeffords that we 
will get the figures which I referred to earlier.
  We have accepted the Collins amendment which requires a GAO report by 
May of 2002. That will provide an estimate of test development costs, 
as well as administration costs, and we will still have 3 years before 
the requirements for these tests are actually implemented to use that 
information if we are finding we are going to fall further behind. That 
is an additional protection.
  A final point I will make is in the development of this approach 
which puts us squarely in the middle of the NASB recommendations at 
$69, when they have estimated the range goes from $25 to $125--it is 
right in the middle--and it is at the low end of administrative costs, 
there is a recognition that there has to be involvement of the State 
because the evaluations are an important additional ingredient in the 
States interest in making sure the children learn and have productive 
results.
  Therefore, their recommendation understands there is a considerable 
amount of State staffing and teachers' time which would normally be 
used that the Federal Government does not necessarily require under the 
administration's proposal.
  I think we are addressing this issue. I commend the Senators because 
it is an enormously important issue, to make sure we are going to get 
this right. The last thing we want to do is discourage a lot of 
children and find out these tests are being used as punishment. There 
are instances currently where they are being used as punishment, rather 
than detecting what the children do not know and then using those tests 
to provide supplementary services and changes in the curriculum to help 
advance the children in education.
  I am satisfied we have sufficient protections for the development of 
these tests. We have the stopgap protection of the GAO report that will 
come in a reasonable period of time, so if we are falling further 
behind, we will be able to take action.
  I have in my hand the current annual spending on tests per student by 
the 50 States. Under this proposal, it is $69. There is not a single 
State that is even close to $20 today. There are some States as low as 
$1.37. I will not read the names of the States, but reading from the 
bottom of the page: $1.37, $2.93, $6.65, $17.16, $12, $14, $8.69, $2, 
$15, $12, $9, $15, $7, $5, and the list goes on. That reflects all 50 
States.

[[Page 10157]]

  We are at least quadrupling, maybe as much as quintupling financial 
support for quality testing with the guarantee under the Jeffords' 
amendment.
  No matter how this vote comes out, I give assurance of our strong 
interest in this. We will continue to work with my two colleagues on 
this issue because it is incredibly important and it reaches the heart 
of this whole issue of accountability.
  We want to get it right. We are going in a different direction, and 
we are going into uncharted waters. We do not want to have the children 
bear the burden of our mistakes. This is something we needed to 
address. I hope they feel we are addressing it. I know they prefer to 
have the absolute guarantee. I respect that position, but I hope our 
colleagues will feel that in the legislation, as we have developed it, 
we have responded to their concern.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
underlying amendment and to support and reinforce many of the comments 
the Senator from Massachusetts made on this particular amendment.
  I, too, applaud the authors for this amendment because it is clear 
that in our goal to leave no child behind, it is going to require more 
assessments, measurable standards. You have to examine to make the 
diagnosis, and to do that, and do it effectively, it is going to 
require a series of assessments that can be compared year to year in a 
longitudinal way to track. It can be used to compare whether it is 
school to school so we know what works and does not work, or State to 
State. Those tests are going to require something.
  The concern of both Senate sponsors of this amendment is that those 
resources be available because they are mandates, and they are new 
mandates. They are mandates that we in a bipartisan way agree with in 
assessment, expectation, and accountability of leaving no child behind. 
That being the case, and that being the goal, the questions are 
twofold: No. 1, is there adequate funding proposed? And that is the 
essence of this bill; there is a fear that there is not. No. 2, have we 
been able to improve the bill, through the amendment process in the 
underlying bill, to such a degree that such funds are available? We 
clearly believe so.
  The underlying amendment I speak in opposition to, says, ``a State 
shall not be required to conduct any assessments under paragraph 3 in 
any school year if''--and the provisions are listed after that. I will 
stop right there. ``A State shall not be required to conduct any 
assessment under paragraph 3 . . . if''--and I will stop there.
  That brings to heart two arguments: No. 1, is testing important, is 
measuring results important, is assessment important? I believe very 
strongly they are important.
  In a bipartisan way, we worked aggressively to underscore that these 
assessments are important and there should be no ``if'' after it.
  No. 2, is the funding adequate itself? It comes back to their 
provision that 100 percent of the cost of the assessments must be 
guaranteed or you do not do the assessments. That comes to the question 
to which Senator Kennedy spoke. We believe the bill has been improved 
and those funds are available.
  The first point, we should do nothing in the amendment process in the 
bill that will in any way say we are anti-achievement, anti-measurable 
standards, anti-accountable, anti-high expectation. I believe this 
amendment is just that. The Carnahan-Nelson amendment potentially 
nullifies any new testing requirements for a State. These testing 
requirements, the measurable results have been arrived at through the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, through much 
debate and a bipartisan working group, debated regarding establishing 
importance and how these would be carried out and what sort of 
standards would be met. By potentially stripping away those provisions 
we are tearing out the heart of this bill, tearing out the heart of 
what President Bush feels so strongly about, that we leave no child 
behind.
  Remember, the amendment says, a State shall not be required to 
conduct any assessments . . . if. That is enough for me to argue 
against this amendment.
  Annual measurements are important. In the underlying bill, we start 
in the third grade. It is third through the eighth grade, giving an 
opportunity to make sure the money we invest in this bill is spent 
properly. Over the last several weeks we have invested huge, huge 
amounts of money through the authorization process, and we will see a 
lot more in appropriations. The President of the United States is 
committed to spending more in education this year than any President in 
the past if it is coupled with reform. Those accountability provisions 
cannot be gutted, cannot be torn out of this bill. There should be no 
``if.''
  Second, is the question of funding. Again, we should never put 
dollars in front of children. The Senator from Massachusetts mentioned 
the Jeffords amendment which passed on the second day the bill was 
brought to the floor. He mentioned the Wellstone amendment. He 
mentioned the Collins amendment which looks at a GAO study to look at 
the specific issue of testing what should be required in terms of those 
tests and the evaluation of those tests. In the Jeffords amendment and 
the Wellstone amendment, again, over $2.8 billion will be made 
available for this testing.
  We have an amendment which addresses the fundamental concern, a 
legitimate concern, that this is a serious mandate, so serious that, 
first and foremost, there should be no ``if'' after the clause.
  Second, the hypothetical that if Congress does not end up with 
appropriate funding as required by what we passed in the way of reform 
in the bill itself--I share concern with my colleagues, in the bill as 
amended, the States may delay, already, implementation of the tests, 
are not required to conduct any assessments because assessments have to 
be in there, but delay implementation of the tests until the 
appropriate funding is available, and this is already in the bill.
  Every State is addressing this issue of funding and the requirement 
of having assessments in a different way. In my State of Tennessee, we 
already test students for math and reading in the third grade, the 
fourth grade, the fifth grade, the sixth grade, the seventh grade, and 
the eighth grade. At least $50 million will be coming to Tennessee for 
these assessments. Tennessee will have the flexibility today to use 
that $50 million. It could be more than that, but we can improve the 
test and make it longitudinal to compare a student and see how they 
progress over time. That flexibility is there.
  Last, and I will close, I think we all agree on the importance of 
measurable results and the assessments so we will know how our children 
are doing. This amendment is unnecessary to my mind. The $2.8 billion 
added in the amendment process already addresses this issue.
  Every State has the opportunity in the amendment to opt out of 
standards, measurable results, achievement, the high expectations that 
are the heart and soul of the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment when it comes to 
the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I associate myself with the Senator from Tennessee. It was an 
excellent statement summarizing the views I also hold. I associate 
myself with the statement of Senator Kennedy.
  We are ready to yield back our time and go to a vote if the other 
side is prepared. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Tennessee 
that he has already announced this was, in fact, a mandate. It is an 
inadequately funded mandate at that. I reiterate, what we have in cost 
is a best guess estimate. There is no certainty. The current bill 
provides protection only if $400 million is all that is needed. Beyond 
that, we have no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the Wellstone 
amendment or others will have money appropriated.
  This amendment, I might also suggest, is not an anti-testing 
amendment.

[[Page 10158]]

The only circumstances where States will be released from the testing 
requirement is if the Federal Government fails to provide full funding. 
Anyone who makes an anti-testing argument about this amendment is 
implicitly saying that the Federal Government is not going to pay the 
full cost of the tests. If you say the Federal Government is not going 
to pay the full costs of the tests, I ask in return, what part of local 
budgets do you plan to cut to make up the difference? Are you going to 
cut teachers' salaries or textbooks or other resources that are 
stretched too thin?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 385. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and 
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Crapo
     Hatch
       
  The amendment (No. 385) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have an amendment from the good Senator from New 
Hampshire, and then after we address that amendment and dispose of it, 
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, has a very important 
amendment where he intends to address the Senate for a period of time.
  So we are making some progress now. We have already included a number 
of amendments, about 15 amendments that were cleared earlier in the 
day. We are continuing to make progress. We are grateful for all the 
support we are receiving from all of our Members. We are going to 
continue to press ahead.
  I look forward to the consideration of the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire.


                 Amendment No. 487 To Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized to call up amendment No. 487, on which there 
shall be 40 minutes of debate to be equally divided and controlled.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 
487.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 487.

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

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate to urge that no less than 
   95 percent of Federal education dollars be spent in the classroom)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF SENATE ON THE PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL 
                   EDUCATION FUNDING THAT IS SPENT IN THE 
                   CLASSROOM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Effective and meaningful teaching begins by helping 
     children master basic academics, holding children to high 
     academic standards, using sound research based methods of 
     instruction in the classroom, engaging and involving parents, 
     establishing and maintaining safe and orderly classrooms, and 
     getting funds to the classroom.
       (2) America's children deserve an educational system that 
     provides them with numerous opportunities to excel.
       (3) States and localities spend a significant amount of 
     education tax dollars on bureaucratic red tape by applying 
     for and administering Federal education dollars.
       (4) Several States have reported that although they receive 
     less than 10 percent of their education funding from the 
     Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their education 
     paperwork and administration efforts are associated with 
     those Federal funds.
       (5) According to the Department of Education, in 1998, 84 
     percent of the funds allocated by the Department for 
     elementary and secondary education were allocated to local 
     educational agencies and used for instruction and 
     instructional support.
       (6) The remainder of the funds allocated by the Department 
     of Education for elementary and secondary education in 1998 
     was allocated to States, universities, national programs, and 
     other service providers.
       (7) The total spent by the Department of Education for 
     elementary and secondary education does not take into account 
     what States spend to receive Federal funds and comply with 
     Federal requirements for elementary and secondary education, 
     nor does it reflect the percentage of Federal funds allocated 
     to school districts that is spent on students in the 
     classroom.
       (8) American students are not performing up to their full 
     academic potential, despite significant Federal education 
     initiatives and funding from a variety of Federal agencies.
       (9) According to the Digest of Education Statistics, only 
     54 percent of $278,965,657,000 spent on elementary and 
     secondary education during the 1995-96 school year was spent 
     on ``instruction''.
       (10) According to the National Center for Education 
     Statistics, only 52 percent of staff employed in public 
     elementary and secondary school systems in 1996 were 
     teachers, and, according to the General Accounting Office, 
     Federal education dollars funded 13,397 full-time equivalent 
     positions in State educational agencies in fiscal year 1993.
       (11) In fiscal year 1998, the paperwork and data reporting 
     requirements of the Department of Education amounted to 
     40,000,000 so-called ``burden hours'', which is equivalent to 
     nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week for one full 
     year, time and energy which would be better spent teaching 
     children in the classroom.
       (12) Too large a percentage of Federal education funds is 
     spent on bureaucracy, special interests, and ineffective 
     programs, and too little is effectively and efficiently spent 
     on our America's youth.
       (13) Requiring an allocation of 95 percent of all Federal 
     elementary and secondary education funds to classrooms would 
     provide substantial additional funding per classroom across 
     the United States.
       (14) More education funding should be put in the hands of 
     someone in a classroom who knows the children personally and 
     frequently interacts with the children.
       (15) Burdensome regulations, requirements, and mandates 
     should be refined, consolidated or removed so that school 
     districts can devote more resources to educating children in 
     classrooms.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate to 
     urge the Department of Education, the States, and local 
     educational agencies to work together to ensure that not less 
     than 95 percent of all funds appropriated for carrying out 
     elementary and secondary education programs administered by 
     the Department be spent to improve the academic achievement 
     of our children in their classrooms.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to discuss 
my amendment, which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but it has a 
very important point to make. It states that not less than 95 percent 
of all funds that are appropriated for carrying out elementary and 
secondary

[[Page 10159]]

education, administered by the Department of Education, be spent to 
improve the academic achievement of our children in the classroom; in 
other words, 95 percent of the money in this bill should go to the 
classroom for our children, which is where it should go.
  As a former teacher, I think I would understand perhaps as well as 
anyone in this body how important it is to get those funds directly 
into the classroom where the kids can benefit.
  I thank Representative Sam Graves of Missouri for offering a similar 
amendment to the House education bill over there which ensures that 95 
percent of education money is spent locally.
  Congressman Graves' amendment was passed overwhelmingly in the House. 
I believe the Senate should go on record supporting local control of 
Federal education dollars as well.
  It might sound like an anomaly--local control of Federal education 
dollars--but if the Federal education dollars are going to be sent to 
the State, then give the State the flexibility to spend them. Let the 
local people make the decisions wherever possible.
  The other side of the aisle has been offering up amendment after 
amendment after amendment calling for more funding for numerous 
education programs. Many of these amendments have been adopted over the 
past several days and hours. But if we are going to allocate more money 
for education, then I think we need to make a statement, which I do in 
my amendment, that it is vital to ensure that the money be spent in the 
classroom for the children. That is the appropriate way to spend those 
dollars.
  After all, if the Federal Government is going to spend billions of 
dollars on education, then those dollars should go not to some 
bureaucracy, not to establish some mechanism to send those dollars into 
the local schools, but, rather, getting the money directly to the local 
schools.
  I think we all know the cost of getting dollars into the State from 
the Federal Government--what it costs you to send the money to the 
local community--is pretty high. In fact, in New Hampshire it is about 
47 cents on the dollar, which is not a good return.
  As a former New Hampshire teacher and school board chairman, I had 
the opportunity to see this on both sides, both as a board member and 
as a teacher--and also as a parent for 26-plus years. I am convinced 
that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local level 
and that we should not run our public schools from Washington, DC. We 
do not need a national school board.
  Some will say: With all these Federal dollars, how do you do it? We 
can provide Federal dollars, if we must, but let's do it with as few 
strings as possible to allow the local boards and the local parents to 
make the decisions, the local communities.
  Our public schools--and I say this as a former public school 
teacher--hold so much promise. I want to make sure the Senate goes on 
record today that a minimum of 95 cents of every education dollar 
should go directly to those classrooms.
  We need to give 95 cents of every dollar. It is a shame we can't give 
100 percent, a dollar for every dollar, to those teachers and students 
in New Hampshire and not to some bureaucrat or bureaucracy in 
Washington, DC.
  We need to support education, not regulation, if we are going to 
spend the money. My amendment simply directs the Department of 
Education to join our States and local school districts in an all-out 
effort to direct 95 percent of our Federal education dollars to the 
place in which it belongs--the classroom. I don't think that is 
unreasonable.
  It is important to understand that the Department of Education has 
not been entirely responsible with the billions of dollars in 
taxpayers' money we have been giving to them over the years. Some of it 
has been spent responsibly, but a lot of it has not. Let me give a few 
examples of some of the waste at the Department of Education.
  I hate to bring it up, but it is important to understand that if you 
just continue to throw good money after bad, you never correct the 
problem. There were 21 cases where grant checks were issued twice to 
the same recipients, for a total cost to the taxpayers of America of 
$250 million. Auditors were able to recover the money eventually, but 
how much time and how much cost was involved in recovering the $250 
million? That is the point. It should not have happened. We are 
careless.
  We can eliminate a lot of these kinds of mistakes--and maybe some of 
it is deliberate; I don't know--by simply stipulating that it is the 
sense of the Congress and the Senate that 95 cents on every dollar go 
to the classroom, so when these kinds of things happen, these people 
know they are going to be held accountable, that we mean business, that 
the Senate means business, that 95 cents of every dollar is going to go 
to the classroom, not for this kind of nonsense with the duplication of 
grant checks.
  Some will say that was just a mistake; 21 mistakes is not a big deal. 
Maybe it was a mistake, but it is a careless mistake. If the 
bureaucracy knows it can be held accountable, they will be a little 
more careful. What would happen if we hadn't found the mistakes? If we 
had not had an auditor finding that mistake, it would have cost the 
taxpayers $250 million.
  I say to every American who is listening to me now, think of any 
school district, yours in particular, wherever you live in America, and 
think about the classroom, perhaps the one where your child is. Could 
you use a little bit of that $250 million in your classroom, if you are 
a teacher, or your child's classroom, if you are a parent? I can think 
of a lot of things I could have done with a few million dollars in my 
classroom when I was teaching, whether it was more textbooks, perhaps 
raising teachers' pay. It is better than throwing it away in mistakes 
made by a bureaucracy that has run roughshod over the whole educational 
system.
  Let me cite another example of waste at the Department of Education. 
Twenty-one employees were allowed to write checks of up to $10,000 
without supervision--no accountability--from May 1998 to September 
2000; 19,000 checks totaling $23 million were written by these people. 
Who is checking on that? Who is making sure that those 21 employees who 
wrote checks of up to $10,000 without supervision--who is checking to 
find out whether that $23 million was the right amount of money?
  We also have the example of 141 unapproved purchases in the 
Department of Education totaling more than $1 million-- purchases that 
were made on Government credit cards for software, cell phones, 
Internet, computers. Even though DOD guidelines--Department of Defense 
guidelines--specifically say these things are not to be purchased on 
credit cards, you have $1 million worth of purchases, 141 purchases 
totaling $1 million.
  The point I make here is, the more rein and flexibility you give to 
the bureaucracy, the more dollars you throw away; without a firm 
accountability, the more it is going to be wasted. If we pass this 
amendment and we say the Senate has now spoken and has said that 95 
cents will go to the classroom, when we hear about such things, people 
will be a little bit concerned about it. They will be more self-
conscious. They will be more careful. It is going to be a win-win, a 
win for the kids in the classroom and a win for the taxpayers.
  This year tax freedom day was May 3, 2001, according to the tax 
foundation. Tax freedom day is the average day that Americans start 
working for themselves as opposed to the Government. President Bush's 
tax cut package will certainly help in that regard, but as it stands 
now, from January 1, 2001, to May 11, 2001, Americans work for their 
respective local and State governments and the Federal Government. That 
is, from January 1 to May 11, every dollar you earn went to one of 
those governments, local, State, or Federal. You didn't earn anything 
for yourself. You started earning money for yourself on May 12.
  I want every American to know that the money spent by the Federal 
Government should not be wasted, including the Department of Education. 
If we put this restriction on, we are making

[[Page 10160]]

a very strong statement that we expect you to be accountable. We don't 
want to hear any more stories about 141 purchases totaling more than $1 
million in unapproved credit card purchases or grant checks issued 
twice to the tune of $250 million. We don't want to hear about it. We 
are not going to tolerate it. That is what we are saying if we support 
this amendment.
  If you don't care, if you don't want the bureaucracy to be 
accountable and you couldn't care less whether we waste $250 million, 
even though taxpayers work hard until May 11 just to pay their bills, 
then you should vote against my amendment. I encourage you to vote 
against my amendment if that is what you believe. If you think it is OK 
that taxpayers can work until May 11 and not get a dime for themselves 
and you don't care about waste, fraud, or any other abuse in the 
bureaucracy, then vote against my amendment. But if you care about 
taxpayers saving their hard-earned money and putting it to use for 
themselves and you care about getting money directly to the classroom, 
to the kids, then you should vote for my amendment.
  That is exactly the way the amendment should be evaluated. You are 
either for kids getting the money and saving taxpayers money, or you 
are in favor of wasting taxpayer money and do not care whether the kids 
get the money in the classroom or not. It is pretty simple.
  The American people work very hard for that money. The Federal 
Government should not squander one cent of it. Actually, too many of 
our tax dollars are spent on bureaucracies at all levels of government, 
not just the Department of Education. That waste is not going to end 
tomorrow. We must pledge to do better. We must tell the Department of 
Education to give the money to the localities. Let them spend it as 
they see fit. Don't spend it here in Washington, DC, with some 
bureaucracy to funnel the money.
  Federal education dollars should not be spent to expand some bloated 
bureaucracy here in Washington. Lord knows, we have enough bloated 
bureaucracies here. Those precious dollars should go right to the 
educational opportunities of our kids. More education dollars should be 
spent directly in the classroom, and we need to shift the focus of our 
education system back to the students.
  This is a great way to do it. It is a simple statement. It is a sense 
of the Senate. It is not binding, but it is a sense of the Senate that 
says: We want you to do that. We expect you to do that. If you don't do 
it at the Department of Education, then we may just have to come after 
you. We expect you to save the money for the taxpayers and get the 
money to the students.
  My amendment supports the proposition that the best education is the 
education left to the local decisionmakers and that the best way to be 
accountable to our taxpayers is to eliminate the bureaucracy and the 
high cost of getting the money to the local community and getting it 
there quickly and cheaply.
  The Heritage Foundation issued a report recently titled ``U.S. 
Department of Education Financing of Elementary and Secondary 
Education, Where the Money Goes.'' It is a very interesting report. It 
found that as the United States prepares to enter the 21st century, its 
educational system is in crisis, the public education system. I agree 
with that. We talk about the crisis in energy and in other matters. 
There is a very interesting finding in this report. I will just give a 
brief quote from it:

       The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not 
     go to schools or school districts.
  Think about that.

       The vast majority of all Federal education funds does not 
     go to schools or school districts.

  That seems to be a dichotomy if I ever heard one. Why wouldn't it? 
Where is it going?

       In 1995, 33 percent of the total $100 billion the federal 
     government allocated for education was spent by the 
     Department of Education . . . 40 percent of Department of 
     Education funds went to local educational agencies, 13.1 
     percent of total federal education spending. Contrary to what 
     many Americans believe, the Department of Education funds 
     very few elementary and secondary education programs in their 
     local communities.

  That is an outrageous finding--they are funding very few elementary 
and secondary education programs. What is the purpose of the Federal 
Department of Education if it is not going to give money to local 
communities for elementary and secondary education?
  How do we get it to the classroom? What actually makes it to the 
classroom? What gets to the classroom? Let's find out.
  According to the Heritage Foundation:

       Audits around the country have found that as little as 26 
     percent of school district funds is being spent on classroom 
     expenditures.

  Classroom expenditures are defined as expenditures for teachers and 
materials for their students--26 percent.
  If that is acceptable to my colleagues, vote against my amendment. 
Please vote against it because I want to be honest; I want to be 
straightforward. If my colleagues think it is OK to take a dollar from 
the taxpayer for education and 26 percent of that dollar goes to the 
kids and the rest does not, if that is OK with them, then please vote 
against my amendment. But if my colleagues really believe we ought to 
get the money to the kids, then vote for my amendment.
  Do my colleagues want to increase the bureaucracy and have a lot of 
people sitting around making decisions they should not be making and 
wasting money and having all these findings we just discussed a few 
moments ago? Then vote against my amendment. If they want to eliminate 
that and get the money directly to the kids, then they should vote for 
it.
  My amendment makes several findings to support the conclusion that 95 
percent of all funds we are going to spend on the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act be spent to improve the academic achievement of 
our children in their classrooms.
  My amendment, in finding 4, states that:

       Several States have reported that although they receive 
     less than 10 percent of their education funding from the 
     Federal Government, more than 50 percent of their education 
     paperwork and administration efforts are associated with 
     those Federal funds.

  Fifty percent of the paperwork is associated with the Federal funds. 
We always hear this talk about we are going to eliminate the 
bureaucracy, we are going to clear up the paperwork. It never happens. 
We are going to reinvent Government.
  How many times have we heard all these phrases? It is very simple. 
Just accept this resolution that it is unacceptable for anything less 
than 95 percent to go to the classroom and then enforce it. When my 
colleagues see all those bureaucracies popping up, let's get rid of 
them and put the money into the classrooms.
  We need to make sure that education money is not wasted on paperwork 
and administrative personnel. There always has to be a commission or a 
board or a bunch of people sitting around juggling papers to determine 
this requirement or that requirement, how much money goes here and who 
has to administer it, and then another bureaucracy pops up to 
administer the previous bureaucracy.
  Take a look at this. The Department of Education started less than 30 
years ago at $2 billion, $3 billion. It is now in the tens of billions 
of dollars to run it. Unfortunately, only 26 cents on the dollar gets 
to the kids.
  My amendment, in finding 11, states:

       In fiscal year 1998 the paperwork and data reporting 
     requirements of the Department of Education amounted to 40 
     million so-called--

  Only in Government would we hear a phrase such as this--

     burden hours, which is the equivalent of nearly 20,000 people 
     working 40 hours a week for one full year. Time and energy 
     which would be better spent teaching children in the 
     classroom.

  Burden hours, only in Washington. It is like getting on an elevator 
in Washington. Only in Washington does one get on an elevator to go up 
to the basement. If you do not believe me, get on the elevator anywhere 
around here and you find that to be true. Only in Washington, only in 
Government, do we have these kinds of phrases. It is nonsense. Burden 
hours, the equivalent of

[[Page 10161]]

nearly 20,000 people working 40 hours a week for 1 full year.
  The Federal Government needs to decrease paperwork requirements and 
data reporting. We have to stop talking about it and start doing it. 
Those Federal requirements may make for nice Government reports. There 
is a report right here. Here is the report on the bill. I am sure every 
Senator has read this word for word, sitting back in their offices at 
night. They read it before they go to bed. They get up in the morning 
and read every word of it. Look at this stuff. There are tens of 
thousands of pages of background that go into this report.
  Here is another one. Here is the bill. That is the report. This is 
the bill. This is even bigger and larger. Look, page after page after 
page--more bureaucracy. The Department needs to look at reducing 
regulations and how Federal money is spent, reducing paperwork.
  Madam President, I ask that the Senate go on record that not less 
than 95 cents of every Federal education dollar be spent or used in the 
classroom, and I do not think that is an unreasonable request.
  Has my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays before I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. This side will be happy to yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has requested the yeas and nays.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. If I may be heard briefly. Madam President, we are willing 
to take a voice vote after listening to the Senator's statement to the 
Senate. However, it appears he wants to have a recorded vote. We have 
no objection to that if the Senator wants a recorded vote. We happen to 
second his request.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct; I request a 
recorded vote. I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 487. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) would each vote 
``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Enzi
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Burns
     Crapo
     Hatch
  The amendment (No. 487) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


 Amendment Nos. 791 as further modified, 363 as further modified, and 
                            356, As Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previously agreed to amendments, No. 791 by Mr. Bingaman, No. 363 by 
Mr. Torricelli, and No. 356 by Mr. Corzine, be further modified with 
the changes at the desk in order to conform to the underlying Jeffords 
substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 791 as further modified, 363 as further 
modified, and 356), as modified, are as follows:


                Amendment No. 791, as further modified.

       On page 7, line 21, insert ``after consultation with the 
     Governor'' after ``agency''.
       On page 8, line 1, insert ``after consultation with the 
     Governor'' after ``agency''.
       On page 35, line 10, strike the end quotation mark and the 
     second period.
       On page 35, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       ``(c) State Plan.--Each State educational agency, in 
     consultation with the Governor, shall prepare a plan to carry 
     out the responsibilities of the State under 1116 and 1117, 
     including carrying out the State educational agency's 
     statewide system of technical assistance and support for 
     local educational agencies.''.
       On page 35, line 20, insert the following: ``prepared by 
     the chief State school official, in consultation with the 
     Governor,'' after ``a plan''.
       On page 706, line 8, insert ``, after consultation with the 
     Governor,'' after ``which''.
       On page 706, line 16, insert ``fter consultation with the 
     Governor, a'' after ``A''.
       On page 707, line 2, insert ``fter consultation with the 
     Governor, a'' after ``A''.
                                  ____



                 AMENDMENT NO. 363, AS FURTHER MODIFIED

       On page 71, line 24, strike ``and''.
       On page 72, line 3, strike all after ``1118'' and insert 
     ``; and''.
       On page 72, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(11) where appropriate, a description of how the local 
     educational agency will use funds under this part to support 
     school year extension programs under section 1120C for low-
     performing schools.'';
       On page 175, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 120D. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. SCHOOL YEAR EXTENSION ACTIVITIES.

       ``(b) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use funds 
     received under this part to--
       ``(A) to extend the length of the school year to 210 days;
       ``(C) conduct outreach to and consult with community 
     members, including parents, students, and other stakeholders 
     to develop a plan to extend learning time within or beyond 
     the school day or year; and
       ``(D) research, develop, and implement strategies, 
     including changes in curriculum and instruction.
       ``(c) Application.--A local educational agency desiring to 
     use funds under this section shall submit an application to 
     the State educational agency at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the agency may 
     require. Each application shall describe--
       ``(1) the activities to be carried out under this section;
       ``(2) any study or other information-gathering project for 
     which funds will be used;
       ``(3) the strategies and methods the applicant will use to 
     enrich and extend learning time for all students and to 
     maximize high quality instruction in the core academic areas 
     during the school day, such as block scheduling, team 
     teaching, longer school days or years, and extending learning 
     time through new distance-learning technologies;
       ``(4) the strategies and methods the applicant will use, 
     including changes in curriculum and instruction, to challenge 
     and engage students and to maximize the productiveness of 
     common core learning time, as well as the total time students 
     spend in school and in school-related enrichment activities;
       ``(5) the strategies and methods the applicant intends to 
     employ to provide continuing financial support for the 
     implementation of any extended school day or school year;
       ``(6) with respect to any application to carry out 
     activities described in subsection (b)(1)(A), a description 
     of any feasibility or other studies demonstrating the 
     sustainability of a longer school year;
       ``(7) the extent of involvement of teachers and other 
     school personnel in investigating, designing, implementing 
     and sustaining the activities assisted under this section;

[[Page 10162]]

       ``(8) the process to be used for involving parents and 
     other stakeholders in the development and implementation of 
     the activities assistance under this section;
       ``(9) any cooperation or collaboration among public housing 
     authorities, libraries, businesses, museums, community-based 
     organizations, and other community groups and organizations 
     to extend engaging, high-quality, standards-based learning 
     time outside of the school day or year, at the school or at 
     some other site;
       ``(10) the training and professional development activities 
     that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the 
     activities assisted under this section;
       ``(11) the goals and objectives of the activities assisted 
     under this section, including a description of how such 
     activities will assist all students to reach State standards;
       ``(12) the methods by which the applicant will assess 
     progress in meeting such goals and objectives; and
       ``(13) how the applicant will use funds provided under this 
     section in coordination with funds provided under other 
     Federal laws.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 356, as modified

       On page 684, line 6, strike ``and''.
       On page 684, line 7, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 684, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       ``(O) activities to promote consumer, economic, and 
     personal finance education, such as disseminating and 
     encouraging the use of the best practices for teaching the 
     basic principles of economics and promoting the concept of 
     achieving financial literacy through the teaching of personal 
     financial management skills (including the basic principles 
     involved in earning, spending, saving, and investing).''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are moving along. I am very 
appreciative of the cooperation we are getting. We now have a very 
important amendment by Senator Wellstone which is one of the most 
important that we will have during this debate. We have some good time 
allocated for a very good discussion. Senator Wellstone will open and, 
obviously, respond to questions. It is our intention, following Senator 
Wellstone, to consider the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mrs. 
Clinton, dealing with dilapidated schools, and Senator Feinstein 
dealing with school construction. And Senator Kerry, my colleague, has 
two on principals and alternative placements. Those are listed in the 
list of amendments. I understand there may be amendments from the other 
side related to those. But we are trying to move this.
  Obviously, if there are amendments related to it, we will deal with 
them the way we have in the past, but I wanted to at least give our 
Members an idea about what is coming up this afternoon. We are hopeful 
to continue to make good progress through the course of the afternoon.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also believe Senator Hutchison has an 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that. Senator Hutchison has a very 
important amendment. A number of our colleagues have been interested in 
that subject matter. That has been going on for a number of days. They 
have been very constructive resolutions. I hope perhaps after Senator 
Clinton we might be able to consider that amendment. We will be in 
touch with the Republican leader, and we will give her as much notice 
as we can, but we will try to see if we can't dispose of it after the 
Clinton amendment.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Daschle last night in the closing 
minutes of the Senate indicated that one of the things he wanted to do 
was hold the votes as close to 20 minutes as possible. Today we have 
done fairly well in that regard. The votes have run over. The first one 
was 25 minutes and this one was 26 or 27 minutes. We are trying to make 
the 20-minute mark that the majority leader has given us. I say to all 
the staff listening and Senators who are watching, I hope they 
understand the 20-minute rule Senator Daschle is going to try to get us 
trained to respond to. We have wasted so much time waiting for people 
to come. It is going to be necessary for some people to miss votes. I 
hope everyone will understand that this is the only way we can be 
considerate of others. There shouldn't be hard feelings. This will be 
applied as we are trying to do everything here on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I know the Senator will be here 
momentarily. I will request the absence of a quorum until he is here to 
present his amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Amendment No. 466 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, is recognized to call up amendment No. 466, 
on which there shall be 4 hours to be equally divided and controlled.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to send the amendment to the 
desk on behalf of myself and Senator Dodd, along with Senators Dayton, 
Feingold, Clinton, Hollings, Murray, Reed, and Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is currently at the desk. Are 
you modifying this?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The amendment is at the desk. I am sorry. I ask 
unanimous consent that the additional Senators be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 466.

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

  (Purpose: To limit the conduct of certain assessments based on the 
 provision of sufficient funding to carry out part A of title I of the 
            Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
       ``(iii) no State shall be required to conduct any 
     assessments under this subparagraph in any school year if, by 
     July 1, 2005, the amount appropriated to carry out this part 
     for fiscal year 2005 does not equal or exceed 
     $24,720,000,000;''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment, I think in a lot of 
ways, is kind of a test case of whether or not we are passing a reform 
bill. I will have a lot to say about this, and other Senators will as 
well. I am certainly hoping that colleagues on the other side--whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats--who disagree will come to this 
Chamber to express their dissent so that I can know what possible 
arguments can be made against this amendment.
  There are many Senators who have said publicly in this Chamber, and 
back in their States, and in interviews with the media, that we have to 
have this testing for the accountability--we can talk more about that 
later--but that, in addition, we also have to have the resources to 
make sure that the children, the schools, and the teachers have the 
tools to do well.
  The testing is supposed to assess the reform. The testing is not 
supposed to be the reform. I remember at the very beginning, a long 
time ago, I said: You cannot realize the goal of leaving no child 
behind or you cannot talk about an education reform program if it is on 
a tin cup budget; you have to have the resources.
  I have heard many Senators say: We are for the testing for the 
accountability, but we are also going to invest in these children and 
make sure there are the resources. That is point 1.
  Point 2: Senator Dodd and Senator Collins came to this Chamber with a 
very important amendment which authorized a dramatic increase in 
resources for the title I program. It was a bipartisan amendment. There 
were, I believe, 79 Senators who voted for this amendment.
  This amendment was a Paul Simon amendment. It turns out the Senator 
from Illinois is in the Senate Chamber. This amendment was an education

[[Page 10163]]

amendment by Senator Dodd and Senator Collins. I say to the best friend 
I ever had in the Senate--Senator Paul Simon of Illinois--who is here, 
that what I am now saying to every Senator is: 79 Senators voted for an 
authorization, but that is not money. That is fiction.
  This amendment says that by 2005--we committed in that amendment that 
we would spend $24.72 billion for title I which would go to the benefit 
of children for extra reading help, for afterschool, for 
prekindergarten, all of which is critically important.
  So what this amendment says is that the tests we are authorizing need 
not be implemented unless we, in fact, appropriate the money at the 
level we said we would. This was the amount the Dodd amendment 
authorized. We have been saying to our States: We are going to get you 
the resources. So what we are saying in this amendment is that States 
do not have to do this unless we make the commitment to the resources.
  I have heard people talk about the need to walk our talk. I have 
heard Senator after Senator say that they are for accountability but 
they are for resources. I do not know how Senators can vote against 
this proposal. We said we were for authorizing this money. This 
amendment is a trigger amendment. It says that we make this commitment 
to $24.72 billion for title I. And this amendment says, if we do not do 
this, then the new tests need not be implemented.
  If the States or school districts want to say we do not want to do 
this because you have not lived up to your commitment, they do not have 
to do it.
  I look back because sometimes our staff do the best work. So I am 
looking back at Jill Morningstar to make sure I am right about this.
  Now just a little bit about what this really is all about. This is 
the heart of the debate. Right now, title I is a program for children 
from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is the major Federal commitment. We 
are funding it at a 30-percent level. The title I money is used for 
extra reading help. It can be used for prekindergarten. It can be used 
to help these children do better.
  What this amendment is saying is, it does not do a heck of a lot of 
good to test the children all across the country when we have not done 
anything to make sure they have the best teachers; that the classes are 
smaller; that the buildings are inviting; that they come to 
kindergarten ready to learn; that they get additional help for reading.
  The testing is a snapshot. It is one piece of the picture. It does 
not tell us anything about what happened before or what happens after. 
What good does it do to have so many children in America right now who 
are crowded into dilapidated buildings, into huge classes, who have 
four teachers a year, who do not have the same resources and benefits 
as a lot of other children, who come to kindergarten way behind, and we 
are going to test them and show that they are not doing well, which we 
already know, but we are not going to have the resources to do anything 
to help them after they don't do well on the tests. Or even more 
importantly, we are not going to have the resources to help them to 
make sure that when we hold them accountable, they have the same 
opportunity as every other child in America to do well.
  I am on fire about this amendment because this is the amendment that 
holds people accountable for the words they have been speaking. We must 
not separate the lives we live as legislators from the words we speak. 
We have been saying that we were going to have the resources, that we 
were going to get them to the teachers and the schools and the 
children. And that is what this amendment says. This amendment says: 
Don't fool people by just doing an authorization.
  This was so important what Senator Dodd did, so important what 
Senator Collins did, so important that 79 Senators voted for it, but 
really what makes a difference is if we go on record and make it 
crystal clear that unless we live up to what we already voted for and 
provide the money--this would be $24 billion plus in the year 2005--
then in Rhode Island or Minnesota or other States, schools can say: You 
didn't provide the money you said you were going to provide. You didn't 
provide the resources you said you were going to provide. We choose not 
to do the testing.
  They should have that option. Otherwise, this testing is an unfunded 
mandate. You are setting everybody up for failure.
  I will quote a recent study by the Center for Education Policy. Here 
is the conclusion:

       Policymakers are being irresponsible if they lead the 
     public into thinking that testing and accountability will 
     close the gap.

  They are right. Do you think by jamming a test down the throats of 
every school in every school district in every State in America--by the 
way, I am going to ask my conservative friends. I don't get this. Right 
now, I haven't made a final decision, but I lean pretty heavily in the 
direction that the Federal Government should not do this. I don't know 
where the Federal Government gets off telling school districts and 
schools they have to test every child age 8, age 9, age 10, age 11, age 
12, and age 13. What a reach on the part of the Federal Government.
  It is quite one thing to say all of us in America live in a national 
community and when it comes to discrimination, when it comes to human 
rights, when it comes to civil rights, when it comes to a basic diet 
that every child should have, no State, no community should be able to 
fall below that. That is one kind of argument. But now we are going to 
tell every school district they have to do this? It is absolutely 
amazing to me that we are doing so.
  The point is, don't anybody believe that the test we make every child 
take means that child now is going to have a qualified teacher. It 
doesn't do anything about that. A test doesn't reduce class size. A 
test doesn't make sure the children come to kindergarten ready. Part of 
the crisis in education is the learning gap by age 5. Some children 
come to kindergarten, then they go on to first grade, second grade, 
third grade. Now we are going to test them, age 8.
  One group of children, to be honest with you, actually has had 7 
years of school. They came to kindergarten. Then they had the 3 years 
plus that. Now they are third graders. Before that, they had 3 years of 
enriched child care. They came to kindergarten having been widely read 
to. They know colors and shapes and sizes. They know how to spell their 
name. They know the alphabet. They are ready to learn. They have had 
the education. And then a lot of other children haven't. And they are 
behind, way behind. This is during the period of time of the 
development of the brain, the most critical time. Then they fall 
further behind.
  Testing doesn't change any of that. Testing doesn't do anything about 
making sure there is the technology there. Testing doesn't do anything 
about whether or not you have 40 or 50 kids crowded into a classroom. 
But if we were to make a commitment to some title I funding, then we 
could get some additional help for reading; some additional help for 
after school; for teachers to have assistance helping them with 
children, one-on-one help; prekindergarten.
  How can Senators possibly vote against this amendment? They can't, 
not if they have said they are committed to getting the resources to 
these schools.
  The Association of American Test Publishers, the people who develop 
virtually every large standardized test used in our schools, say the 
same thing. I quote from the Association of American Test Publishers:

       In sum, assessments should follow, not lead, the movement 
     to reform our schools.

  What they are saying is that the testing is supposed to assess the 
reform. The testing isn't the reform. And the reform is whether or not 
we are going to have the resources to make sure these children have a 
chance to do well.
  Senators, if we are going to say that it will be a national mandate 
that every child in America will be tested and we will hold the 
children and the schools and everyone else accountable, then it should 
be a national mandate that every child should have the same

[[Page 10164]]

opportunity to learn and do well in America. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Democratic Governors' 
Association be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. They say:

       While we are pleased to support the Carnahan Nelson 
     amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of 
     legislation to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger 
     more broadly, specifically to include title I. This is the 
     main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged students 
     and the federal government needs to back its efforts to 
     strengthen accountability with adequate new investment.

  These Governors are saying this is part of your major Federal 
commitment. With all due respect, you have to back accountability with 
new investment, and we support the idea of this trigger amendment.
  They are absolutely right. For some reason, these Governors are a 
little worried that we are going to mandate all this testing and then 
not live up to our commitment of resources, for very good reason.
  I would like to quote from an article given to me by my good friend 
from Florida, Senator Graham. This is by a Walter R. Tschinkel. He 
discusses Florida's system of grading schools. The Presiding Officer is 
one of the people in the Senate most immersed in education. What does 
Mr. Tschinkel find is the single most important variable in determining 
how children do on test scores? Would anybody here be real surprised to 
hear that it is poverty? He found that for every percent that poverty 
increases, the school score drops by an average of 1.6 points. He 
showed that the level of poverty in a school in Florida predicted what 
the school's achievement score would be with 80-percent accuracy.
  May I ask, what are we doing here with this bill that is called BEST?
  What are we doing? We are not doing anything to reduce poverty. We 
have not made any commitment to title I money being there, which is 
what this amendment calls for. We are not doing anything when it comes 
to a commitment in prekindergarten and child care.
  We are still funding Early Head Start at the 3-percent level and Head 
Start for 3- and 4-year-olds at the 50-percent level.
  We are not doing anything about rebuilding crumbling schools. Shame 
on us.
  We are not doing anything about reducing class size. Shame on us.
  Now what we are going to do is test these children and show these 
children in America again how little we care about them.
  I have to cool down. It would be better if we had some debate. I want 
to hear how people justify not providing resources.
  I am not surprised by a recent study by the Education Trust Fund 
which shows the extent of the gap between low-income and high-income 
districts. There are not too many Senators who have children in low-
income districts.
  The study found that nationally low-poverty school districts spend an 
average of $1,139 more than high-poverty school districts. In 86 
percent of the States, there is a spending gap favoring wealthier 
students. The widest gap is in New York where the wealthiest districts 
spend on average $2,794 more per student.
  As the Center for Educational Policy concludes:

       Policymakers on the State and national levels should be 
     wary of proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the 
     gap but do not help build the capacity to accomplish this 
     goal.

  That is what this amendment is about. This testing is nothing but the 
rhetoric of closing the gap. We are not closing the gap because we are 
not providing the resources. This amendment says we go on record, we 
are committed, we are going to say to any State and school district: If 
we do not live up to our commitment and provide the resources in 2005, 
which we have gone on record in supporting, then you do not have to do 
the testing.
  This amendment starts to take us in the direction of putting the 
money where our mouth is. Seventy-nine Senators agreed to authorize 
title I so that it would be fully funded in 10 years. Seventy-nine 
Senators should support this amendment.
  By the way, I am being pragmatic. I do not even understand why we are 
not providing the funding now. Why 10 years? What good does it do a 7-
year-old to provide funding in 10 years? She will be 17.
  Childhood is only once. We should not steal their childhoods. In 10 
years we are going to do it. How does that help the 7-year-old? We are 
going to test her when she is 8 and show her--surprise--that she is not 
doing well, but we may not be helping her for many years later.
  I am just starting on this. This is 4 hours of debate now. Next week, 
there might be 36 hours of debate on another amendment.
  Again, we went on record. We said we were for this authorization. 
This amendment just says let's do it. My colleagues say tests have 
their place. By the way, I want to also print in the Record--I hope 
every Senator will read this. This is a high stakes testing position 
statement. This is a statement by health care professionals which 
include people such as Robert Coles, a psychiatrist who has written 
probably 40 books about children in America. The man has won every 
award known to humankind; Alvin Poussaint, another talented African-
American psychiatrist; Debbie Meyer who has done more good work in 
inner-city New York City than anybody in the country.
  Do my colleagues want to know what they say in the statement? They 
say two things. One, which ties into this amendment, is that we must 
make sure we live up to the opportunity-to-learn standard; that every 
child has the same opportunity to learn.
  What I want to point out is they say from a public health point of 
view: What are you doing to these kids? They are talking about the 
stress on 8-year-olds taking all these tests, and they point out what 
is happening to schools.
  I do not know; there must be 30 people who have signed this. They are 
the best educators, the best child psychologists, award-winning 
authors, and they say: What in God's name are you doing to these 
children? That is another amendment about testing next week with 
Senator Hollings. For right now, at the very minimum, what they are 
saying is we ought to at least make sure we provide these children with 
the opportunity to learn.
  One hundred percent of major city schools use title I to provide 
professional development and new technology for students; 97 percent 
use title I funds to support afterschool activities; 90 percent use 
title I funds to support family literacy and summer school programs; 68 
percent use title I funds to support preschool programs.
  The Rand Corporation linked some of the largest gains of low- and 
moderate-income children doing better in education to investment in 
title I.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the Brainerd Public School system has 
had a 70- to 80-percent success rate in accelerating students in the 
bottom 20 percent of their class to the average of their class 
following 1 year of intensive title I-supported reading programs.
  My colleague, Senator Hatch from Utah, cited important research by 
the Aspen Institute:

       In the effort to raise the achievement of all American 
     students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge disparity 
     in resources for education across districts and States. It is 
     not unusual for per student expenditure to be three times 
     greater in affluent districts than poor districts in the same 
     State.

  Mr. President, do you know that in my State of Minnesota, in St. 
Paul, schools where we have less than 65 percent of the students who 
are eligible for the free or reduced school lunch program, receive no 
title I money. We have run out. I could not believe it. I heard the 
Secretary of Education and some of my colleagues saying we have spent 
all this title I money; we have thrown dollars at the problem.
  First of all, we are not funding it but at a 30-percent level and, 
second, title I represents about one-half of 1 percent of all the 
education dollars that are spent, but it is key in terms of the Federal 
Government commitment. I am

[[Page 10165]]

suggesting that it can make a huge difference.
  The problem is, we have had a dramatic expansion in the number of 
children who need help. The GAO study said that, but a lot of States, 
such as the State of Minnesota, in a school that has 64 percent of the 
children who are low income or who qualify for the reduced or free 
school lunch program get no help. Can my colleagues believe that?
  I want to quote from Linda Garrett who is assistant director of title 
1 programs in the St. Paul schools. This is the irony of what we are 
doing. We are pounding ourselves on the chest. This is bumper-sticker 
politics. It is called the BEST. Test every child, say we are for 
accountability, and we are not going to provide the resources for the 
children, all the children, to have the same opportunity to do well. It 
is unconscionable.
  Linda Garrett says:

       The title I entitlement from the Department of Children and 
     Families Learning have remained level for the past 2 years, 
     and we have been notified to expect the same for the next 
     year. While the funding has remained level, the number of St. 
     Paul schools entitled to receive title I funding increased 
     and the number of eligible children increased. In 1998-1999 
     the per pupil title I funding was $720; 1999-2000, $540; 
     2000-2001, $515, 2001-2002, we are now going to $445 per 
     pupil.

  We have surpluses; we say we are for children; we say we are for 
education; and we are providing less money.
  There are 79 Senators who voted for the Dodd-Collins amendment. If 
you voted for that amendment, you have to vote for this amendment. It 
is almost insulting. We are saying to these parents, we need to test 
your children every year so you can understand how they are doing and 
what is working and what is not.
  We are saying to the teachers: Teachers, you are afraid to be held 
accountable, so now we will hold you accountable with these tests. 
Teachers are not afraid to be held accountable. And the teachers and 
the parents and the schools, especially the schools with low- and 
moderate-income children, already know what is working and what is not 
working. They already know they don't get the resources. They already 
know the children come to kindergarten way behind. They already know 
the buildings are dilapidated. They already know the classes are too 
large. They already know they don't have beautiful landscaping. They 
already know they don't have the support assistance they need from 
additional staff. They know all of that. They are just wondering when 
we will live up to our words and provide some assistance. That is what 
they wonder.
  In my opinion, we are playing politics with children's lives. We all 
want to have our picture taken next to them; we all want to be in 
schools with them; we are all for them except when it comes to reaching 
in the pocket and investing in resources.
  I believe what we are doing to poor children in America, unless we 
pass this amendment, is we are going to test children and show they are 
not doing as well. Why would anybody be surprised?
  The children in the inner city of south Minneapolis or west St. Paul 
are not doing as well as the children in the affluent suburbs with a 
huge disparity of resources and a huge disparity of life chances. It is 
staring us in the face in terms of what we need to do. We have not made 
a commitment to them, and now we are going to club them over the head 
with tests and humiliate them. I want Senators to debate me.
  I yield the floor and I reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1


                            Democratic Governors' Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2001.
     Hon. Jean Carnahan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the nation's Democratic 
     Governors, I am writing in support of the amendment being 
     offered by Senators Carnahan and Nelson to S. 1, the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act (BEST). This 
     amendment would ensure that the federal government meets its 
     commitment to states by fully funding the cost of the new 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) testing 
     requirements.
       The amendment would replace the $400 million cap authorized 
     for FY 2002 for developing and implementing tests, in the 
     underlying bill, instead requiring the federal government to 
     pay 100% of all state testing costs not currently required 
     under federal law. If the federal government does not meet 
     this commitment, states would be released from the obligation 
     to implement the new testing requirements. The amendment 
     would also require the Secretary of Education to annually 
     calculate the total costs of testing.
       In addition, the amendment would add a protection that 
     would prohibit the federal government from sanctioning a 
     state for falling behind schedule in designing and 
     implementing tests if the federal government has not provided 
     full funding.
       While we are pleased to support the Carnahan/Nelson 
     amendment, we are hopeful that any final version of 
     legislation to reauthorize the ESEA will apply a funding 
     trigger more broadly, specifically to include Title I. This 
     is the main source of federal assistance for disadvantaged 
     students and the federal government needs to back its efforts 
     to strengthen accountability with adequate new investment.
       We would also prefer that final legislation link federal 
     funding accountability to consequences imposed on states and 
     local schools unable to meet proposed annual performance 
     measures, such as fiscal sanctions and school reorganization. 
     Relieving states from the cost of implementing new tests does 
     not alter the mandated levels of improvement in student 
     performance.
       Democratic Governors urge Congress to fulfill the historic 
     commitment to America's children that the BEST Act represents 
     by fully funding authorized levels for IDEA, Title I, and 
     teacher quality, as well as for testing. We believe that the 
     Carnahan-Nelson amendment helps to ensure this, and we urge 
     that the Senate adopt the amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Gov. Tom Vilsack,

                                                    State of Iowa,
                                         DGA Vice-Chair of Policy.

  Mr. FRIST. How much time is under the agreement on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 hours under the control of each 
side.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Wellstone 
amendment. I look forward to the debate over the next several hours. I 
think the amendment comes back to some of the fundamental questions 
asked about this bill. It will give Members on both sides of the aisle 
the opportunity to address the fundamental concept of the bill, the 
structure of the bill, the why of the bill.
  It comes down to accountability, to flexibility, being able to figure 
out what the problems are. We all recognize there is a problem with 
education in this country. After diagnosing it, we need to intervene in 
a way that we can truly leave no child behind.
  This amendment addresses two issues: the whole concept of 
accountability using assessments and dollars and cents. The amendment 
states that no State shall be required to conduct any assessments in 
any school year by 2005 if the amount appropriated to carry out this 
part for fiscal year 2005 is not equal to or exceeds $24 billion.
  That summarizes the amendment. It can be broken into two arguments. 
One is money and how important money is, and is money the answer. The 
other is assessment and the testing. It is a useful component of what 
is proposed by President Bush and what is in the underlying bill today, 
as amended, accountability and assessment--that measuring success or 
failure is important if you want to intervene and make a difference.
  The Senator from Minnesota asked essentially the question, as he 
addressed those issues, why test if we already know children won't do 
well? There is not much disagreement today over whether we are leaving 
children behind. That has been the thrust of what President Bush 
campaigned on, the thrust of the principles for education reform he has 
given to this body, and the thrust of the underlying BEST bill. I 
thought, as a body of Congress, we generally agreed it is important to 
make a diagnosis if we are going to improve our student's education.
  The comment of the Senator from Minnesota is, why test somebody if 
you know they are not doing well? The implied corollary is, forget the 
test, dump more money and make that cure the system--as if throwing 
more money will make sure we leave no child behind.
  On the first part of that argument, I think testing is important. I 
say that

[[Page 10166]]

as somebody who has a certain parallel, and the parallel of my life, 
obviously, is medicine. The symptoms are there. The symptoms today are, 
we are failing, by every objective measurement we use today, versus our 
counterparts in other countries internationally. Whether we look at the 
4th grade or the 8th grade or the 12th grade, we are failing as a 
society in educating our children. I suppose that is what the Senator 
from Minnesota meant when he said we know we are leaving children 
behind.
  As a physician, when someone comes to your office and complains of 
fatigue, they do not feel quite right, perhaps shortness of breath, as 
a physician and as a nation, it is hard for you to know how to address 
the symptoms of a problem until a diagnosis is made.
  We know children are being left behind. By any measure, there is a 
huge achievement gap, which is getting worse in spite of more money, in 
spite of good intentions, in spite of additional programs. That gap is 
getting worse, and we are leaving the underserved behind.
  How do we correct that? Our side of the aisle worked with the other 
side of the aisle in a bipartisan way, to pass a bill through the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, that injects strong 
accountability into the bill.
  I thought we had gone long beyond the accountability argument. 
Apparently we have not. I think it is important to go through this 
diagnosing, the assessments, so we can intervene and improve the 
education of our children. We need to be able to determine through 
assessments how well each child progresses, or, unfortunately, does not 
progress and falls behind--from the third to the fourth grade; from the 
fourth to the fifth grade; from the fifth to the sixth grade; from the 
sixth to the seventh; from the seventh to the eighth.
  We all know those early years are important. We used to think maybe 
you could catch up in college, or in high school you could catch up in 
math or in science. I think now there is pretty much agreement if we 
need to intervene, we need to intervene early so no child is left 
behind.
  Why do we need more assessments? If you assess a student in the 
seventh grade--say a young girl in the seventh grade--and that test 
shows she is not only last in the class, but last in the community. You 
find out in the seventh grade that she cannot read because she has been 
last in the class, and because she has been ushered along and advanced 
from year to year. Or you find she cannot add and subtract in the 
seventh grade.
  People say: Come on, everybody can read and everybody can do 
fundamental math in the seventh grade. But we know from the national 
statistics, in the fourth and eighth grade a significant number of our 
children are falling behind, both as we compare them to each other and 
as we compare them to other people globally, internationally, other 
developed nations.
  Therefore, I argue it does make sense to have these tests on a yearly 
basis from third to eighth grade because you need the continuity. Also 
you need tests designed in such a way that they are comparative--you 
need to be able to compare what a child has learned in the third grade 
with what he or she has learned in the fifth grade versus the seventh 
grade versus the eighth grade.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FRIST. Let me just finish for a few minutes and then I will be 
happy to yield. I want to walk through several of these concepts.
  As a physician what is it similar to? I mention somebody coming 
through that door to see, not Senator Frist, Dr. Frist; they come in 
and have these vague complaints. If I don't do tests--I can take a 
pretty careful history. But until I do the physical exam, until I do 
some tests--noninvasive tests, very simple tests--EKG, a scan called a 
MUGA scan, fairly simple tests today--I am not going to be able to 
specifically know whether the problem is with the lungs or with the 
heart or whether that the problem is due to lack of conditioning or if 
it is due to general fatigue.
  So if I have the seventh grade girl there, not only should we have 
made the diagnosis earlier, but we need a test that can sufficiently 
make the diagnosis: Is it mathematics? Is it reading? Is it lack of 
resources? Is it lack of an ability to use a computer or type on a 
keyboard? We have to make the assessment. Then once, with that patient 
coming in, I identify the heart, I know how to intervene. I have taken 
the blood pressure, I find it is high blood pressure, there is 
something I can do to intervene. But if it is just fatigue, until I 
know their blood pressure is up, how can I give a pill to bring the 
blood pressure down?
  You can argue there is not enough money in the world to treat 
everybody's hypertension, and you can argue you cannot give everybody 
the full battery of tests and give everybody a heart transplant or 
everything they need. But that is not an argument to me, or it defies 
common sense to say you should not come back and do the tests in the 
first place and ask the question and make the specific diagnosis. In 
fact, I argue if you have dollars, or a pool of dollars--it doesn't 
even have to be a fixed sum--if you want the best value for that 
dollar, instead of taking all that money and throwing it at the fatigue 
of the patient with a whole bunch of potential treatments that may make 
you feel good, or invent programs to put them in, why not step back, 
invest that $1 in making the diagnosis, in figuring out the problem, 
because that will set you, I believe, in a much more efficient way to 
determine treatment over time.
  It means you make the diagnosis early enough so it might prevent that 
heart disease from progressing, that fatigue, maybe a little bit of 
chest. Maybe, if you diagnose it at age 40 and you find the blood 
pressure because you have done the test and you intervene, that stops 
the progression of the heart disease and that patient will live longer 
because of early intervention. It is therapeutic but also it is 
preventive medicine.
  I say there is absolutely no difference with how we should address 
our education system today--if we look at accountability, we want 
better results, we want better value, we are failing, today, to say 
assessments are important, measurable results that can be looked at, 
that can be used and thrown into our own individual database at a local 
level in order to decide how to address that specific problem, whether 
it is the seventh grade girl or whether it is a school we see is 
failing miserably year after year, in spite of putting more resources 
in and getting more teachers and smaller class size and better books 
and more technology--that is the only way to get the answer.
  Then you start drawing this linkage between dollars. We always hear 
from the other side of the aisle--this is a good example. I looked at 
this. I don't know if it is $24 million or $24 billion or $24 trillion. 
To me, it doesn't matter. But it really drives home the point that 
there is a perception that you can throw money at a problem without 
making a diagnosis, without figuring out what the fundamental disease 
is--not the symptoms, we know what the symptoms are--but without 
figuring out what the disease is you will never have enough money.
  Although you can always argue for more money and, boy, I tell you, we 
have really seen it in this bill. If there is one very valid criticism 
of this bill it is that every amendment that comes down here, we come 
down to vote on, every amendment coming from the other side requires 
more money. It is more money for programs, more money for technology, 
more money for teachers, more money for assessments.
  Focusing on money as the only response takes the target off what the 
American people care about. It takes the spotlight off what the 
President of the United States cares about, what the President of the 
United States has demonstrated the leadership at the highest levels 
about, and that is the child. That is the seventh grade girl who is 
sitting in that classroom who is failing and we are not willing to come 
in and do the reform.
  Reform is a scary word. Reform means change to some people. But we

[[Page 10167]]

have to recognize when you say improve accountability, or reform, or 
measurable results--all of that basically says we have to change what 
we are doing, figure out what is wrong, and fix it. And you cannot just 
say throw money at the problem. You have to have the reform. That is 
where the assessment, accountability, measurable results, the figuring 
out what the problem is, is so critically important.
  So to be honest with you, I am not surprised but, as I said earlier, 
I thought we had gotten beyond the fact that you have to have strong 
accountability in order to know how to improve a situation that we all 
know is miserable. It is miserable. Today we are not addressing each 
child. Today we are leaving people behind. It is going to take doing 
something different. It is going to take bringing true reform to the 
table and that is why the assessment comes in.
  We cannot argue with what is underlying this amendment, that you 
don't do the test because somebody has the symptoms. I argue you have 
to do the test. That is first and foremost in order to figure out what 
the disease is, to treat it, to get the best value for the dollar that 
we put in, that we make available. When we hear the rhetoric on the 
floor of playing politics with children's lives, they have to be very 
careful, again, because the debate is so much further along than where 
it was 6 months ago, I think in large part because of President Bush 
and his leadership, putting this issue out front.
  Let's not use that language of playing politics with children, but 
get reform and improvement in the system by putting additional 
resources in as we go forward, which this President and this Congress 
clearly have shown a willingness to do. But let's not just put more 
money in and then do away with tests, which in essence is what this 
amendment does.
  The latest results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
have shown--they show it again and again--that money is not the answer 
and that new programs are not the answer.
  One of the great benefits and advantages and, I think, very good 
parts of this bill is that it has an element of consolidation and 
streamlining to reduce the regulatory burden, the inefficiencies, and 
the sort of deadweight of having hundreds and hundreds of programs out 
there--that there is an element of consolidation in the underlying 
bill.
  We have heard it on the floor again and again. We spent $150 billion 
on literally hundreds of Federal elementary and secondary education 
programs over the last 35 years. In terms of progress compared to 
others, we have not seen it.
  That is why this bill is on the floor. That is why it is critical 
that we address it in a way that recognizes not just the money but the 
modernization, the demanding of accountability, the raising of 
expectations for all children, for all schools, and for all teachers. 
The answer is not just more dollars.
  President Bush really led the debate or led the issue so that now we 
are back here debating accountability again and how important that 
accountability is. He called for strengthened accountability based on 
high State standards. Yes, it is annual testing of all students. And, 
yes, it starts with the third grade and goes through the eighth grade.
  In the bill, there are also rigorous corrective actions for schools 
that fail to meet those standards. Again, Senators have worked very 
hard in a bipartisan way to make sure that accountability is fashioned 
in such a way that you just do not make the diagnosis but you set up a 
system in which there can be early intervention and treatment.
  We have several formulas on yearly progress, and indeed in a 
bipartisan way the initial formulas we used showed that we needed to 
focus a little bit more on the underserved and on the less advantaged. 
We changed those formulas just enough, I believe, to appropriately 
refocus where it wasn't quite right in this initial underlying bill.
  Yes, it is the State that sets the standards. Again, one of the big 
fundamental arguments that will come out again and again --and it has 
over the last several weeks--is whether it should be Washington, DC, or 
the Federal Government running it out of Washington, or whether it be 
should at the State, or local, district, or individual level. Again and 
again, you can have Republicans saying it should be at the local level, 
and on the other side of the aisle--I don't want to overly generalize, 
but if you look at the amendments and the way the voting is going, it 
is more the answer, here in Washington, A, for more regulations and 
programs; and, B, more money--the flip side of where this bill is 
moving, and maybe not quite as far as some of us would like. But that 
is local control, flexibility at the local level, trusting people back 
in counties all across Tennessee and in the State of Tennessee to be 
making decisions rather than here in Washington, DC.
  Luckily, much of the debate has gone back to that individual child. 
That is important because it involves parents. All of us know how 
important it is to have parents involved in children's education and 
that ultimately nobody cares more about that child than the parent. We 
are going to have opportunities later to talk about choice and, if a 
child is either failing or if the child is locked in a failing school, 
or if a child is locked in a disadvantaged or unsafe school, whether 
the parents be given the opportunity to participate in the welfare of 
their child by giving them an option to move that child to a safer 
school.
  We will have an opportunity to come back and debate that either later 
this week or next week.
  In the same way, when we come to this underlying question of 
measuring what one is learning or not learning, I would argue that it 
is necessary. We haven't been doing it in the past. We have to make the 
diagnosis. Again, it comes back to the individual child. It comes back 
to the parent. That is why we need to step in. That is why, when people 
use the word ``mandate,'' I think it is important for us to say at 
least the value of testing is agreed upon, and the individual child or 
that individual parent will know where the deficiencies are and how 
they can improve. Is it math--adding or subtracting? Is it science? Is 
it how to use a computer? We don't know today.
  How we can we intervene and help? How can parents help? Again, I will 
bet that will happen, once these assessments have been made available, 
that the first people to look at them will be that parent, that school, 
and that community. Why? Because the value is there. They will know 
that.
  Annual testing is simply the only way to get away from the symptoms 
of things not going quite right. To be specific, fortunately we know 
what can be done.
  If you have $1--whatever it is, a Federal, or a local dollar, or a 
dollar at school--you know how best to invest that dollar, and not just 
throw a dollar at the symptoms. But you will know how to invest that 
dollar, and it can be accomplished through this legislation. It is 
already in the legislation.
  I want to make sure we don't, with this particular amendment, allow 
the opportunity to strip away all accountability in the bill. That is 
the heart of this bill.
  We are going to talk flexibility and local control and decisionmaking 
at the local level involving the parents. But the heart of this bill 
comes back to accountability.
  This amendment basically gives the opportunity to say, let's just cut 
the heart out of this bill; let's cut out the accountability 
provisions; get rid of it, and we can feel good; and let's in fact 
throw a lot more money at it. That is simply not the approach of the 
President of the United States, which says spend more money but link it 
to modern situations and accountability.
  These assessments we talked about before. We allow individual States 
to participate. It is not a Federal test.
  As I go across the country to talk to people, they ask, Are you doing 
a standardized test out of Washington, DC? No. It is coming down at the 
local level. These tests are at the State level.
  I believe these accountability provisions increase choice for 
students. They increase the opportunity to empower people to make 
decisions that

[[Page 10168]]

will benefit their education, again from the standpoint of the parents, 
and the education of a family as we go forward so that we can truly 
leave no child behind.
  Let me simply close by saying that money is not the answer. That is 
what we come back to. We talk a lot about the accountability. Money is 
important. But as we look to the past, and Federal education, State 
education, and local education, spending has increased dramatically. 
Total national spending on elementary and secondary education has 
increased by about 30 percent over the last 10 years. Federal spending 
on secondary and elementary education has increased by 180 percent. 
Federal spending is only 6 percent of the overall pie. The Federal role 
has increased by 180 percent over the last decade. Over the past 5 
years, Federal funding for elementary and secondary programs has 
increased by 52 percent.
  Yet in spite of all of those increases--people can say that is not 
near enough, or maybe some people would say that is way too much--over 
time, test scores have been national. The achievement gap between the 
served and the underserved, the rich, the poor--however, you want to 
measure it--has gotten greater in spite of this increased spending.
  I, for one, believe we are going to have to inject--I agree with the 
President of the United States, we are in the short term going to have 
to put more into public education K-12 than we have at any time in the 
past. I am confident we will do that. The President has said that. This 
Congress has said it.
  The authorization levels the Senator from Minnesota talked about have 
gone sky high, and it looks as if next week they will go higher and 
higher. There is no way. There is not enough money around to be able to 
fulfill all the pledges that are being made. That is what an 
authorization is. But when it comes back to the appropriation process 
that works pretty well in this body, I am confident that under the 
leadership of this President and the commitment that has been made, we 
will put more into education than has been put in in the past.
  Again, the debate, I am sure, will go on for several hours. It is a 
good amendment to have a debate on because it does link the importance 
of accountability with money. It focuses, I believe, on the fact that, 
yes, it is going to take some more money, but I do not want to have 
this element of--not bribery; that is too strong of a term--but 
basically saying, if you cannot meet this figure of $24 billion, we are 
going to cut the heart out of the education bill that the American 
people believe in, that clearly a group of bipartisan Senators, who put 
these accountability provisions in the bill, believe in, and that this 
President believes in.
  I believe that is a disservice to the underlying bill and to the 
intent of what this Congress and this President has in mind; and that 
is, to leave no child behind.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Nevada needs 
to speak, too, so I will just take a couple minutes to respond.
  First of all, the Senator from Tennessee talks about the importance 
of accountability. I was an educator, a college teacher for 20 years. I 
do not give any ground on accountability. The point is not to confuse 
accountability, testing, and standardized tests as being one in the 
same thing.
  We have had two amendments that have been adopted which I think will 
at least make the testing, and hopefully the assessment, accurate and 
done in a better way.
  This amendment does not say that you do not do the testing. I may 
have an amendment next week that goes right to the heart of that 
question with Senator Hollings, and others, but that is not what this 
amendment is about.
  Everybody in this Chamber has been saying they are for accountability 
and that we are also going to get the resources to the kids. We have to 
do both. You can't do this on a tin-cup budget. We have to walk our 
talk. Seventy-nine Senators voted for this authorization. But that is a 
fiction. It does not mean anything in terms of real dollars.
  This amendment says that with the accountability comes the resources. 
We make a commitment that, unless we live up to what we said we would 
do by way of title I money for our school districts and our children, 
then those school districts and States do not have to do the testing. 
That is all it says.
  That is my first point. So the argument that somehow this is an 
amendment that declares null and void testing is just not accurate. I 
am just trying to get us to live up to our words.
  The second point I want to make is that my colleague said--and I have 
to smile--somehow this is all about decentralization, whereas Democrats 
tend to look to the Federal Government. I have to tell you one more 
time, I do not know where the conservatives are, or whether the whole 
political world is being turned upside down, but I seem to find myself 
being a Senator who--I have not resolved this question, but at the 
moment I do not think it is appropriate that the Federal Government 
mandate, tell, insist, require that every school district in America 
test every child every year.
  This is radical. It is amazing to me. I am surprised others have not 
raised this question. Human rights, civil rights, antidiscrimination, 
yes, but this? I think we are going to rue the day we did this.
  There is a rebellion right now in the country that is developing. 
People are going to say: You voted to make us do this? Where did you 
get off thinking you were the ones who had the authority to do that? I 
think this is a real Federal reach.
  My third point is, this is a real disagreement we have with my 
colleague from Tennessee. My colleague is a very gifted doctor, and 
everybody gives him full credit, of which he richly deserves, but this 
is not trying to find out if a child has a heart problem.
  Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question. But with 
all due respect, we already know--I have been in a school every 2 weeks 
for the last 10\1/2\ years. We know what is not working and what needs 
to be done. It is absolutely no secret.
  We know that children, when they come to kindergarten, are way 
behind. We know children who have had no prekindergarten education. We 
know of the dilapidated buildings. We know of the overcrowded 
classrooms. We know of kids having three or four teachers in 1 year. We 
know of kids who are taught by teachers who aren't certified. We know 
kids go without afterschool care. We know of the disparity of resources 
from one school district to another. We know what the affluent children 
have going for them versus what the poor children have going for them. 
We know all that. We know we fund Early Head Start at 2 percent, 3 
percent. And we fund Head Start at only 50 percent for 4-year-olds. We 
know we fund affordable child care for low-income children where only 
10 percent can participate. We know all that.
  What do we need to know? Why do we need the test? I ask my colleague 
from Tennessee, what I just said, are these not realities? Is there one 
thing that I have said that is not a fact, that is not empirical, that 
is not a reality in the lives of children in America? If you can tell 
me, Paul, there is something you just said that is not accurate, then 
you can argue against this amendment. If you cannot, then you cannot. 
This amendment does not say no to testing. It just says with the 
testing and accountability come resources.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a very brief 
question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the question I want to address to my 
colleague from Minnesota has to do with the testing. I think it is 
worth talking about because I have done the very best I could to make 
the case that for the individual child it is important to make the 
diagnosis. Just throwing money at it is not going to do it.
  The question I would like the Senator to respond to is, having 
children assessed from the third to the eighth

[[Page 10169]]

grade, what is wrong with that? I will argue you have to do it. And 
that is my side of the argument, which I tried to make. But what is 
wrong with it? Why will we rue the day that we give the opportunity for 
a third grader or a fifth grader or a seventh grader the opportunity to 
figure out why they are not being served well? Why do you object to 
having third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or seventh graders assessed?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for the question because then I 
think Senators can have a clear picture of the amendment on which we 
are going to vote.
  This amendment does not say it is wrong to do that. This amendment 
does not say it is wrong to do the testing. This amendment does not say 
it is wrong to do the testing every year. This amendment says, if you 
are going to have a Federal mandate that every child is going to be 
tested every year, you better also have a Federal mandate that every 
child is going to have the same opportunity to do well.
  One of the major commitments we have not made is the title I money. 
That is why the Governors in their letter said we favor this trigger 
amendment. We want to make sure that they also, with the tests, get the 
resources. That is all this amendment says.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another brief 
question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. FRIST. First, the Senator from Minnesota just said he thinks we 
will rue the day we decided to assess the students. My assumption was 
that he feels all students should not be tested, that we already know 
what the problem is. I thought that was what he said. And I asked him 
was he against the assessment because there was not enough money going 
for it, but that he agrees assessments are the right way to go? If so, 
that is very important. I do not believe that is what he implied in his 
earlier comments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, fair enough. I will say to my 
colleague publicly, I have a couple different views.
  First, the amendment. First, let's be clear about the amendment. The 
amendment, you will be pleased to know, does not say no to testing at 
all--not at all. It simply says we ought to live up to our commitment 
on the resources. That is all. That is all it says. That is it. If we 
do not, it says to States: Look, if you do not want to do it, you do 
not have to. That is the amendment.
  Above and beyond that, I will say two other things to my colleague 
from Tennessee, who I know has shown a very strong interest in 
education over the years. In our State--I am sure it is the case in 
Tennessee--we are doing the testing. In fact, by the way, by what we 
passed for title I several years ago, we are just starting to get the 
results of that testing, for which I voted. We are doing the testing. 
The only thing I am telling you is that there is a difference between 
our school districts and our States deciding they want to do it because 
it is the right thing to do and the Federal Government telling them 
they have to do it. I just think it is an important distinction. I do 
not know where I come down on that final question yet. I just think it 
raises an important philosophical question.
  Then the second point I make is that there is also a distinction 
between what we did several years ago with title I, which is a Federal 
program, saying we also want to see the testing and the accountability 
versus telling every school district in Tennessee and every school 
district in Minnesota you will test every child every year--not every 
other year--but every year. That is sweeping.
  My amendment is not about that question. I just raised that question. 
I haven't resolved that question. I will tell you one thing I have 
resolved, which is what this amendment is about. The worst thing we can 
do is to pretend we don't know what the problems are and not make the 
commitment with both the IDEA program and title I, which are two of our 
major program resources, so that we basically set everybody up for 
failure. That is the worst thing we can do.
  If you want to argue that money is not a sufficient condition, I 
agree. I think it is a necessary addition. We can go through the Rand 
Corporation assessment of title I and other assessments of title I 
programs. I can talk about Minnesota. You can talk about Tennessee. A 
lot of these resources are key to prekindergarten, key to extra reading 
help, key to afterschool programs. This is really important. That is 
all this amendment says.
  Did I answer my colleague's question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator to 
clarify again. The amendment is set up such that if $24 billion is not 
appropriated--for people not in the Senate, that is where much of the 
action really is, and I agree with the Senator in terms of the 
importance of appropriations and authorization--this President has 
basically said he is going to put more money into education than any 
other President has in the past. I think that is important.
  But from the assessment end, the ransom for the assessments is that 
if $24 billion is not appropriated, the amendment cuts the heart out of 
the education reform bill, which means we will not be able to determine 
with assessments whether that seventh grade girl has learned how to 
read.
  I am asking, if it is really just the money, why is he linking it to 
the heart and soul of the bill?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. We have a letter from the Democratic Governors that 
says:

       [Above and beyond] the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are 
     hopeful the final version of the legislation to reauthorize 
     ESEA will apply a funding trigger more broadly, specifically 
     to include title I. This is the main source of federal 
     assistance for disadvantaged students, and the Federal 
     Government needs to back its efforts to strengthen 
     accountability with adequate new investment.

  The reason they are tied together is that they go together, for God's 
sake. You can't test every child without also making sure these 
children have an opportunity to do well on the tests. Of course, they 
go together. This amendment simply says that the tests authorized need 
not be implemented until after the title I appropriation has reached 
the level we said.
  We said, 79 of us, we are going to appropriate this money; we are 
going to make sure that with the accountability comes the resources for 
the kids to do well. We went on record.
  Now I have this amendment that says we make the commitment to 
Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, and everywhere else, if we don't live 
up to our end of the bargain and you decide you don't want to do the 
test, you don't have to. By the way, many States are doing it. It is up 
to them.
  I am becoming a decentralist. I am becoming the conservative 
Republican in this debate, apparently.
  Mr. FRIST. My great fear is, if this amendment passes, let's say we 
put $22 billion in, you have destroyed the accountability, the heart 
and soul of this bill, the opportunity to give that seventh grader the 
opportunity to have the diagnosis made of why she is failing.
  I don't understand the relationship. Why would you punish the child 
and eliminate the opportunity to diagnose her problems based on 
funding? Again, why would one hold this ransom for, again, huge amounts 
of money, if you are not trying to link the two directly? Unless you 
are trying to bring down the whole bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I wanted to try to bring down the 
whole bill, I would have an amendment out here to bring down the whole 
bill. Maybe I will, and it won't be successful. I am still trying to 
actually improve the bill, just as we did on testing. I say to my 
colleague, we already have accountability with title I. That is law 
right now that is on going.
  My second point is, this is an honest difference. My colleague's 
concern is that we won't have a test, that somehow that will be nixed. 
My concern is that if we just do the tests and make every school, every 
school district, every child take the test every year, 8, 9, 10, 11, 
12, and 13, but we do not live

[[Page 10170]]

up to our end of the bargain of providing the resources so that the 
children can do well on the test--extra help for reading, 
prekindergarten, after school--then the only thing we have done is we 
have set them up for failure. I don't want to do that. I think that is 
cruelty.
  I cite again the study from Senator Graham which showed that poverty 
predicts 80 percent of the students' scores right now. I am not 
surprised. I have been to school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ 
years. I know that. So far, I haven't heard any compelling reasons 
against this.
  For Democrats, our party, we have been out publicly saying that we 
are committed to the resources that go with the testing. It is time to 
walk the talk.
  I know there are going to be some other Senators who will speak. I 
want to go on to another aspect of this. I have spent some time on 
this, but this is a little different. This has to do with why testing 
actually can do more harm than good if we don't give the schools the 
resources to do better. I have not made that argument yet.
  I will start out quoting the Committee for Economic Development, 
which is a strong protesting coalition of business leaders who warn 
against test-based accountability systems that lead to narrow test-
based coaching rather than rich instruction. I will tell you what 
happens. We don't give the schools the resources. In this particular 
case, I am talking about title I. That is a real commitment on our 
part. They are going and you are going to do the testing, and the 
testing is also going to determine consequences for those schools, 
whether they are sanctioned, whether principals are removed.
  Do you know what happens when they don't have the resources and this 
is what you do? It leads, I say as a teacher--I am not a doctor; my 
colleague is a doctor--it leads to the worst kind of education. Do you 
know what they are going to do? It is what they are doing right now. 
You drop social studies. You drop poetry. You don't take the kids to 
the art museum. And you have drilled education where the teachers are 
teaching to the tests because they are under such duress. That is 
exactly what happens.
  For example, in Washington State, a recent analysis by the Rand 
Corporation showed that fourth grade teachers shifted significant time 
away from arts, science, health and fitness, social studies, 
communication and listening skills because they were not measured by 
the test.
  I do not know if I am making the case the way I want to make the 
case, but the schools that are going to be under duress are the ones 
where the children have not had the same opportunity to learn. They 
came to kindergarten way behind, and we are not making a commitment to 
early childhood.
  Now what happens is because of this--and I see my colleague from New 
Jersey, and I will finish in 3 minutes so he can speak; I thank him for 
being here--now because of this duress, what we have is these schools 
are dropping social studies, art, trips to museums because they are not 
tested and the teachers are being asked to be drill instructors.
  Guess what. Some beautiful, talented teachers are leaving teaching 
today because of this. This is crazy. We better give them the 
resources.
  I say to my colleague from New Jersey, this is a classic example. The 
Stevens Elementary School in Houston pays as much as $10,000 a year to 
hire Stanley Kaplan to teach teachers how to teach kids to take tests. 
According to the San Jose Mercury, schools in East Palo Alto, which is 
one of the poorest districts in California, paid Stanley Kaplan $10,000 
each to consult with them on test-taking strategies.


  According to the same articles, schools across California are 
spending thousands to buy computer programs, hire consultants, and 
purchase workbooks and materials. They are redesigning spelling tests 
and math tests all to enable students to be better test takers.
  Forget sense of irony. Forget childhood. Forget 8-year-olds 
experiencing all the unnamed magic of the world before them. Forget 
teaching that fires the imagination of children. Drill education to 
taking tests: it is educationally deadening. That is another reason why 
without the resources this is not a big step forward. This is a huge 
leap backwards.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time. My colleague may want to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. If I can take 2 or 3 minutes. Madam President, as I 
spelled out earlier, this amendment is the heart of what President Bush 
put on the table: strong accountability to ensure that we do not leave 
any child behind.
  If this amendment is adopted, we are in a significant way putting at 
risk the entire bill because accountability is the heart and soul of 
the bill. This is where I think the real progress will be made; that 
is, making the diagnosis so we know how to invest education dollars and 
resources. This is the spirit of reform.
  All of it depends on knowing where students are and being able to 
follow their progress over time so we can intervene at an appropriate 
time.
  It is interesting. We talk about dollars. We will be talking about 
assessments and dollars, and in the amendment they are linked together. 
I do not think some sort of ransom should be placed over this bill. We 
have the appropriations process that is going to deal with the reforms 
we put into place.
  If we go back to 1994, the Democrats passed a law which required 
States to develop broad comprehensive reforms in content, curriculum, 
and performance standards. To align those reforms with all of the new 
assessments, much more would need to be added to the bill we are 
debating today.
  Immediately after passage of that law, the President's request in 
1994 for discretionary education funding included a $484 million 
spending cut. The Democratic President's request to cut spending was 
coupled with those new reforms. In the end, the Democratic Congress 
passed an appropriations bill that contained a tiny 0.012-percent 
increase. That is tiny. That is essentially flat, and therefore 
provided no new funding for those new reforms.
  I say all of that because they established new reforms in assessments 
and testing but did not match investment with assessments. This is the 
issue we have been talking about the last couple of hours.
  The provisions in this bill are more modest. I favor what is in the 
bill now. I favor the principles the President put on the table, and I 
think we are going to benefit children greatly with it. We have the 
commitment of the President of the United States and at least this side 
of the aisle to increase education funding by 11 percent. It may be a 
little bit less; it may be a little bit more, but it will be about 11 
percent.
  It is ironic to me as we talk about assessments and measurements, 
that the broad reforms in 1994 under different leadership had 
essentially flat funding. Yet under this President, we have reforms 
which are not quite as ambitious in terms of testing, but we have an 
increase in education funding of over 11 percent. People ought to 
remember this historic perspective as we continue this debate.
  I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about the assessments, the 
heart of this bill. Again, money is not the answer. We have tried it 
for the last 35 years, and we are failing. We are failing our students; 
we are failing the next generation. We have to couple reform with a 
significant increase in spending to which we have agreed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. First, for my colleague to say if Senators vote for 
this, the testing might not take place is as much as saying, therefore, 
we are not going to live up to our word. If my colleagues vote for this 
amendment, the testing will take place because I assume we are going to 
live up to our word. Seventy-nine of us already voted for this.

[[Page 10171]]

  All this amendment says is we are going to be clear to States and 
school districts that we are going to live up to our commitment of 
resources. That is the first point.
  The second point--my colleague from Tennessee left--to say this is 
more modest than in 1994, my God, we are telling every school district 
in every State they have to test every child, every year, ages 8, 9, 
10, 11, 12, 13. That is not modest in scope.
  At the very minimum, transitioning to the Senator from New Jersey, 
what I am saying is, if we are going to have a national mandate of 
every child being tested, then we ought to have a national mandate of 
every opportunity for every child to do well. I reserve the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I could not agree more with my 
distinguished Senate colleague and friend from Minnesota. I rise in 
support of his amendment which ensures we not only test our kids, but 
we actually provide promised resources we have talked about over and 
over in this body to improve educational quality. He believes and I 
believe, and I think common sense argues, that unfunded mandates that 
are put upon our local school districts only aggravate disparities we 
already have about how our children are educated. We ought to make sure 
we start putting money where we are putting mandates on our 
communities.
  Before I discuss the amendment, let me thank Senator Wellstone for 
his leadership on a whole host of these educational matters. It is 
terrific how he has spoken out about leaving no child behind. I am very 
grateful for his dedication to quality education for all of our kids, 
and I am sure the country benefits.
  I agree we need to build more accountability into the system. 
Students, teachers, and administrators need to be held accountable for 
results. I come from the business world. We look at bottom lines. We 
ought to get to stronger and stronger results. Congress should be held 
accountable, too, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
  Accountability measures focused only on our kids, schools, teachers, 
and administrators just do not seem enough to assure that our children 
get an adequate education.
  As the Senator from Minnesota has spoken about several times today, 
79 Senators supported an amendment to increase the authorization for 
the title I provisions in this bill to move that up to $24 billion-plus 
in the year 2005. Seventy-nine Senators voted in support of that. With 
that vote, we made a promise to millions of children who live in 
disadvantaged areas that those promises of better schools and greater 
opportunities would be real. We need to make sure that was not an empty 
promise, political rhetoric, or cynical posturing.
  We have been underfunding the title I program for years. Never in the 
entire history of the program, which began in 1965, has Congress fully 
funded the program. Then we hear we are not getting the results we are 
supposed to be getting when we do not put the resources that actually 
deliver the goods on preschool or afterschool programs or reading 
programs and the other issues about which people are talking. We 
complain but we do not put the resource there to make sure we can 
deliver in those places where they don't have the resources to provide 
the educational opportunities other places in the country have.
  We have seen the educational dollar that the Federal Government 
provides for education shrink from 12 cents to 7 cents, with some talk 
about 6 cents. We shrink that and we wonder why we get disparate 
results.
  Title I is a critical program if we are to ensure all children in our 
society are provided with meaningful educational and economic 
opportunity. Title I is the engine of change for low-income school 
districts across this country. The program is used to train teachers, 
to provide new technology for students, to support literacy and 
afterschool programs, and to promote preschool programs, a whole host 
of items that will make a difference and to make sure every child has a 
comparable education from one community to the next.
  Together, these initiatives have proven effective where they have 
been applied, raising test scores and improving educational 
achievement. But we have to have the resources. It has been underfunded 
for far too long and too many kids have been left behind. The engine of 
reform needs fuel.
  Let me be clear. I support testing. I think it is a good idea. I am 
not sure much of what we are putting in place is a good idea, but I 
support testing. By itself, testing is not enough. I am sure it gets 
our priorities right. What good does it do to test kids if we do not 
provide the tools needed to respond to bad test results and, more 
importantly, even prepare for the tests. It would be similar to 
diagnosing an illness and refusing to prescribe the drugs needed to 
cure it. That does not make sense.
  This amendment stands simply for truth in legislation. It is easy for 
Congress to authorize funding for programs. It makes political 
campaigning a lot easier to go out and say: I stood in there and I 
stood for authorizing title I funds for all our kids. Many people in 
the country hear we have done that and they think we have fully funded 
it. As my colleagues know, an authorization is little more than a 
promise, and all too often it is an empty promise.
  In my view, when it comes to providing quality education for all of 
our children, we need to make sure the promise is real. We need to put 
the money where the authorizing words state they should be. We must 
provide our schools with the resources to help students achieve their 
full potential. We must address the glaring disparity in resources that 
undermines America's sense of fairness and equal opportunity. We want 
to hold every child to high standards. We must provide every child with 
the opportunity to meet them. We have to hold ourselves to high 
standards.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota. Let's test our kids but get real and provide the resources 
we have been promising to ensure quality education for all.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will give the Senate a bit of background. This 
amendment tracks the amendment that Senator Dodd worked on with Senator 
Collins. The Senate went on record--79 Senators--saying we would make 
this commitment to title I and over a 10-year period we would have 
funding.
  I don't think the Senator would disagree, as much as I was for it, in 
some ways I very much regret we could not have said full funding in 1 
year. For a 7-year-old, 10 years is too late.
  In any case, this amendment says by 2005 the Senate went on record 
saying we ought to be spending $25 billion on title I because that puts 
us on track for full funding, gets more resources to schools and our 
children, more help for reading. It can be prekindergarten; it can be 
technology; it can be more professional training for teachers; it can 
be afterschool programs.
  This amendment says, if we do not live up to our commitment, the 
States and school districts, if they do not want to do the testing, do 
not have to. It is up to them. No one is telling them they can't do it, 
but it is entirely up to them. We have been saying over and over and 
over again, with accountability comes resources. I wanted to give my 
colleague a bit of background.
  My other point is, if we are going to have a mandate of every child 
being tested, we better also have a national mandate of every child 
having the same opportunity to do well. Since the title I program is 
one of the major ways we at the Federal level make a commitment to low-
income, disadvantaged children, we ought to live up to our word. That 
is what this amendment says.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota and 
express my appreciation to him for raising this amendment. This is not 
a unique approach. We have taken on matters where we linked financing 
with obligations. One of the constant complaints we receive as Members 
when we return home to our respective States and speak with our mayors 
and Governors, our local legislators, we

[[Page 10172]]

often hear, regardless of the jurisdiction--Minnesota, Connecticut, 
Michigan, New Hampshire, Massachusetts--you folks in Washington like to 
tell us what we need to do, but you rarely come up with the resources 
to help us do what you tell us we have to do.
  We have gone through an extensive debate as part of this discussion 
on special education. We made a commitment as the Federal Government 
years ago that said every child ought to have the opportunity for a 
full education, as much as they are capable of achieving, and that 
special education students would be a part.
  We promised we would meet 40 percent of the cost of that as a result 
of a Federal requirement. That commitment was made 25 years ago. It 
took 25 years, until just recently, as a result of the efforts of the 
Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, 
Senator Collins, my colleague from Minnesota, and many others, who said 
we were going to have to meet that obligation, financially supporting 
the special education needs of the country. As a result of their 
efforts, we have included in this bill a mandatory spending requirement 
to meet those obligations.
  I raised the issue about 12 years ago in the Budget Committee and 
lost on a tie vote.
  Why do I bring that up and discuss it in the context of this 
amendment? If we fail to adopt this amendment that the Senator from 
Minnesota has suggested, in 5, 10, 15 years, we will have a similar 
demand made by the very people asking us today to fulfill the financial 
obligations that we owe as a result of mandating special education 
needs.
  People may not like that comparison, but that is a fact. We are 
saying to these students, across the country, disregarding States and 
in a sense localities, here are some standards we expect you to meet. 
We are willing to authorize, as we did by a vote of 79-21, some 
substantial sums of money to allow for full funding of title I as a 
result of the heroic efforts of my friend and colleague from Maine, 
Senator Collins, along with 78 others in this Chamber. We went on 
record, with a rather overwhelming vote. This was not a 51-49 vote. 
Almost 80 Members of the body said full funding of title I is something 
we ought to do.
  If this bill is going to work, we ought to fully fund this program. 
We said over 10 years.
  I would have preferred if it was a more brief period of time, but we 
have to accept the realities. I think it is important to note that it 
occurred. It is a true expression of the desire of Members here, 
regardless of party or ideology. As a result of the demands we will 
make in this legislation, we are fully prepared to do something that 
kids on the corner often say to each other: Put your money where your 
mouth is.
  We have had a pretty good mouth when it comes to telling the country 
what they ought to do. The question is whether or not we will put the 
money up to back up and support the demands we are making here.
  I think the amendment offered is one that is important. It says, 
obviously, if you want to live up to those commitments--we are asking 
schools to be accountable, to be responsible--then we should as well. 
We cannot very well demand a third grader be responsible or fourth 
grader or fifth grader or some impoverished rural district or urban 
district--as we demand accountability from a superintendent of schools, 
a principal, a teacher--and then we duck our responsibility here.
  There is a long and painful history where demands have been made by 
this government on our localities and our States and then we have 
failed to back up those demands by failing to provide the resources to 
accomplish them.
  This is about as critical an area as can be, education. I do not want 
to see us coming out of this with a self-fulfilling prophecy of 
failure. I don't want us to know going in, as a result of the paucity 
of resources, that young children living in some of the toughest areas 
of the country are deprived of the resources necessary so they can 
maximize their potential. As we begin this testing process, year in and 
year out, as we watch the scores not improving because the title I 
funds are not there--and by the way they work. Title I funds work as we 
know based on all sorts of examinations and studies that have been 
done. Therefore, it seems to me we want to have funding.
  My colleagues and I were at recent meetings at the White House. I 
don't believe we should go into the details of those meetings. The 
President was gracious enough to invite us to those. He cares about 
education a lot. I have no doubt that President Bush cares about it. He 
made that point when he was Governor. He provided evidence of it. He 
has spoken out about it numerous times and gone to schools all across 
the country. So the fact that we are of different political parties or 
persuasions is not the point, obviously. I am willing to believe that 
his slogan that he used a lot during the campaign of ``leave no child 
behind'' is sincerely and deeply felt.
  All I am suggesting, as are the Senator from Minnesota and others who 
support this, is to see those achievements. I believe this President 
wants to see these kids do better. That is what we all want.
  We spend less than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget on 
elementary and secondary education--less than 2 percent. I think that 
would probably come as a shock to most Americans who send their tax 
dollars to Washington to discover that less than 2 cents on every 
dollar the Federal Government spends actually goes to elementary and 
secondary education. I am excluding higher education.
  We have all heard the speeches given around the country of how 
important this is, that any nation that ever expects to improve or grow 
has to have an educational system that creates the opportunities for 
its people. So this is about as important an issue as there is. When 
you talk about economic growth, economic stability, education is about 
as important an issue as you can discuss. If we fail to have an 
educated generation, all the rhetoric, all the decisions by the Federal 
Reserve Board, all the decisions by the Treasury, all the decisions 
made by Wall Street, will not mean a lot if we do not have an educated 
population able to fill the jobs and perform the work needed to keep 
this economy and our country strong.
  This is the first step. If we get this wrong, then the likelihood we 
will succeed at every other point is reduced dramatically, in my view. 
I do not think that is a unique perspective. I suspect if you were to 
ask the 100 Members of this body whether or not you could have true 
economic development and true economic stability and success without a 
strong educational system, I do not know of a single Member of this 
body who would accept that as a likely conclusion.
  What we are saying is, if that is the case, then should we not link 
this issue of providing the resources necessary to the title I program, 
which has proved to be so successful, and to say that before we start 
demanding these tests and so forth we are going to see to it that these 
young people, and these communities, are going to have the resources to 
get the job done? That, it seems to me, is only fair and right. If the 
resources are not going to be there, does anyone doubt, can anyone 
stand up and say if the resources are not there, that these children, 
the most needy in the country--in rural and urban America, most of 
them--are going to be able to do better on these tests?
  If you do not have the resources to make these environments better, 
there is no doubt about the outcomes. You are not going to hire the 
teachers who are qualified. You are not going to have the tools 
necessary. That is just a fact.
  There is more empirical evidence to support that statement than 
anything I know of. Over and over again we are told it will not work if 
you do not have the tools. No matter how strong the desire, no matter 
how ambitious these parents or these children may be, they have to have 
the tools. You cannot be in a classroom with 40 kids and learn. A 
teacher cannot teach.
  You cannot get ready for the 21st century economy without a wired 
school and the ability to access the technology available.

[[Page 10173]]

  You cannot have teachers who know nothing about the subject matter 
teaching math, science or reading. They cannot do it. Don't expect a 
child anywhere to learn under those circumstances.
  The fact is, in more schools around the country, those are the 
realities. I wish I could magically wave a wand and automatically 
guarantee that there will be these tools available. But none of us 
possesses that kind of power. You have to have the resources to do it.
  So to go out and test a bunch of kids who have not had the support 
and backing necessary for them to be accurately tested has structured a 
very cruel arrangement for this Congress and this administration to 
impose. It is going to produce predictable results. So I think the 
Senator from Minnesota has properly asked us to do what any mayor, any 
Governor, any school board or principal or superintendent would ask of 
us. I think what they are saying to us--my colleague from Minnesota can 
correct me--they are saying: Look, we accept the challenge you imposed 
on us. I know my friend from Minnesota and I have heard from a number 
of people who have questioned the wisdom of this annual testing idea as 
a way of somehow proving whether or not kids are doing better. I get 
very uneasy about what teachers are going to be teaching. It is what I 
call turning our schools into test prep centers where you spend half 
the year or more of it getting the kids ready to do well on the tests 
because the teachers, the superintendent, the principal, the Governor--
everybody wants to look good and pass the test. I don't know whether 
you learn anything or not, but you pass the test. I get nervous about 
an educational system that is more geared to passing some test so more 
of the ``political'' people can have bright stars attached to their 
names.
  I think testing is valuable, but your educational system is geared 
toward those testing requirements rather than educating children. I 
certainly think math and reading are very important--but I also think 
science is important, I think history is important, I think geography 
is important, I think languages are important. My fear is in some ways 
we are going to get so focused on a couple of disciplines which are 
critical--very critical, essential, Madam President--but at the expense 
of a lot of other areas which are also critical for the full and proper 
development of a child's educational needs.
  You do not have to be an educational genius to know what can happen 
if you are just geared to getting the class to pass the Federal test in 
order to keep the school open. I am very worried about that.
  But I will put that aside. I will put my worries aside for a minute. 
I am not the only one worried. This is not just Democrats and 
Republicans who are worried. I think parents out there who may not know 
all the nuances of this bill are worried. People who work hard in 
school every day will tell you they know what they are going to end up 
doing. But we will put that aside for a second.
  At the very least, if we are going to demand this in tests, it seems 
we have to have the kid prepared, at least give them a chance to do 
well.
  If the resources are not there for them to do well, then I think we 
all know what the results are going to be. That is really what this 
amendment is all about. Maybe it is more complicated than that. But I 
don't think it is.
  Take the environment, or transportation, or any subject you want. No 
one would suggest that you can anticipate high performance without the 
resources being there to help you achieve it. Yet in the education 
field we seem to be indulging in a fiction that somehow we can set the 
standard and demand the test, hold back the resources, and expect the 
students to reach it. I don't know where else you could ever imagine 
that kind of result to occur.
  We seem to be anticipating 50 million children around America, if the 
bill is passed and signed by the President shortly thereafter, having 
to meet these tests. It is fewer than 50, because we are talking about 
grades 3-8. Whatever that number is of kids in elementary and secondary 
school--perhaps it is 30 million who are in our elementary schools. So 
30 million kids will start to be tested. You are not going to have the 
resources necessary to help the hardest hit schools in America ensure 
that the children are well prepared.
  I realize this amendment is troublesome to people. They prefer that 
we don't demand this. But just as we demanded special education for 
children without resources, until finally people were banging on the 
doors of Washington and saying, ``You people promised to help us do 
this,'' I suggest we get ahead of their argument and provide the 
resources as a result of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, 
and then go forward with it.
  I am prepared to support this. But I say to my friend from Minnesota, 
as hesitant as I am about supporting testing in the third, fourth, 
fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades--by the way, if it were one 
test, I wouldn't mind. This is Federal. Forget about the State and 
local. On average, there are about five tests that kids have to go 
through during a year. I am willing to accept that. But I have the 
outrageous demand that we provide the resources to these schools so 
these kids have a chance to demonstrate what they are capable of.
  If you are telling me that I can't have the resources to at least 
give them a chance to prove how bright they can be, don't ask me to 
require a kid to take a test that they can't possibly pass and set them 
up for failure in life.
  We only debate this bill once every 6 years. I suspect many of us on 
the floor today may not be here the next time the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act is debated. If it were debated every year, I 
might wait until next year to try it. But if we don't provide the 
funding in the language here that provides for it, a half a decade or 
more will go by before we are back again discussing this.
  I don't want in this last debate for the next 5 or 6 years, where we 
mandate this testing and mandate these standards from Washington to 
every school district in America, to then stick our hands in our 
pockets and walk away and tell them we are not going to give them the 
resources necessary to achieve success. I am confident they can 
achieve.
  We have no obligation to guarantee any American success. But we do 
have an obligation to guarantee every American the opportunity to 
achieve his or her potential. That is a responsibility that I think I 
bear as a Member of this body. I am going to be hard pressed to vote 
for a piece of legislation that demands success without giving these 
kids the opportunity to prove what they are capable of.
  The Senator from Minnesota has offered us an amendment which would 
complete the circle by requiring the tests but providing the resources 
that will allow us to judge fairly whether or not these children, their 
parents, and their schools are meeting their obligations. I thank my 
colleague for offering the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I know other people desire to speak. I would like to 
take 20 seconds to say to the Senator from Connecticut that, try as I 
might, I cannot say it as well as he did. I thank him. We thank each 
other all the time. But what he said was so powerful. Honest to God, it 
was so powerful. I really do believe having national testing without 
any guarantee of equal opportunity to pass the test, and the 
opportunity to do well, is ethically unjust. What we are trying to say 
with this amendment is let's give these children the opportunity to do 
as well as they can. I thank him.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield to no one in this body in my 
battle to seek full-funding for the title I program. I joined with the 
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine on the amendment to 
authorize full funding for title I. I have supported additional funding 
in this bill, in terms

[[Page 10174]]

of professional development, bilingual programs, afterschool programs, 
school construction, and the other programs. We are going to make every 
effort to ensure that reforms are accompanied by resources.
  But I have to really take issue with some of the points that have 
been raised this afternoon, including the statements from my good 
friend from Connecticut. We are already testing. Forty-six States 
currently administer annual reading and math tests in two or more grade 
levels.
  Adequate yearly progress in current law, as well as in this 
legislation, will be based upon the tests that were held last year. 
That legislation is currently in place. It is happening in my State. I 
will spend some time later in my conversation to go through the scores 
of States that already test in grades 3-8. That is already taking 
place.
  No one argues with the point about ensuring that all students will be 
prepared to take these tests. However, it is not quite that easy, even 
with the full funding for title I. We are not providing full funding 
for the Head Start Programs--only 40 percent. We are not providing full 
funding for the Early Start Programs. All are enormously important for 
our children to progress. But a number of States are doing a very good 
job.
  On the idea that we were going to effectively end any assistance to 
those States after we accepted the amendments from the Senator from 
Vermont in terms of effectively saying if we don't get the funding for 
effective tests, that we are not going to be obligated to do it, we 
have accepted the Wellstone amendment in terms of quality; we have 
accepted the Wellstone amendment for increased funding; we are going to 
make the battle in terms of funding for those programs.
  But those tests which the States are using under this legislation are 
happening today in 46 States. The question is, How are we going to have 
those tests? What I think the Senators from Minnesota and Connecticut, 
and I think on all sides of the aisle, want is not punishment for 
students but instruments by which we can determine what children are 
learning and what they are not learning: We want tests that will be 
responsive to curriculum reform with well-trained teachers in those 
classrooms. It is going to take some time. But we have recognized that 
we are going to try to use quality tests in an effective way to enhance 
children's learning.
  I am not going to take a good deal of time, although I had the good 
opportunity in Massachusetts last week to appear at a conference 
sponsored by Mass Insight, and also to meet with Achieve--a nationally 
known organization that has been working on accountability for several 
years.
  When I met with Achieve, they reported that 22 schools in 
Massachusetts have made significant progress using tests and 
demonstrating, with measurable results, how students have been making 
progress. Those tests are being used well and effectively. No one 
stands to defend poor quality tests that may, in fact, be detrimental 
to children. But, the Senator from Minnesota's premise that if we do 
not get to the full funding for the Title I program within 4 years, 
that we cannot provide for high-quality tests and good school reforms, 
is flawed. Choosing not to commit to developing good instruments of 
educational assessment and high standards that will drive curriculum 
reform, teacher reform, educational reform, and accountability in those 
communities, I think, just misses the point.
  Our bill in the Senate requires States to develop assessments in 
grades 3 through 8 in math and literacy, with the understanding that 
those subjects are vital to the future educational success of children. 
If students do not know how to read, they cannot learn. If they do not 
know mathematics, they cannot continue their education, and they will 
not be able to survive in the modern economy. So, we have made a 
commitment in this bill to ensure that States develop and implement 
tests in those subject areas.
  But in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, we required States to 
administer tests for school accountability at least three times: one in 
grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Some States 
have done a very good job of developing these assessments. Some have 
not done so well. But this bill seeks to build upon the progress made 
by those States who have developed high-quality assessments, and ensure 
that the additional assessments developed by States are of the highest 
quality.
  I question the logic of discouraging high-quality assessment that 
will provide data to help improve education, if in Congress may not be 
able to secure 100 percent of the resources for reforms across the 
board in Title I. I cannot understand this, as much as I fight for 
increased funding for enhanced professional development, afterschool 
programs, technology, literacy programs, and scores of other reforms 
essential to improve student achievement.
  There are not many Members of the Senate who like increased funding 
as much as I do. However, we should not use tests as a scapegoat if we 
are not able to achieve all that we advocate for. We should not take 
out our frustrations that stem from insufficient funding for Title I, 
on what have been recognized as effective instruments that measure 
student achievement, and help teachers tailor instruction to meet the 
needs of students. That should not be our goal.
  I respect the opinion of my friend from Minnesota, and understand 
that he does not regard assessments as having a critical role in school 
reform. I know that he feels too many teachers teach to the test, and 
that too many tests are used punitively, rather than constructively. I 
believe that his concerns are at the heart of this amendment. However, 
good tests can play an important role in school reform.
  Earlier in our consideration of this bill I mentioned examples of 
assessments working in tandem with efforts to reform schools, as has 
occurred in my own State of Massachusetts, at the Jeremiah Burke High 
School. The Burke school lost its accreditation 6 years ago because of 
the low-level of education that was being offered at that school. This 
year, the school has one of the lowest dropout rates in the city of 
Boston. And every single student has been accepted to college. High 
expectations, high standards, and the assessments needed to measure 
progress.
  At the Burke school, they use tests to identify student weaknesses, 
and develop what is almost an individualized curriculum and academic 
program for each student in need of extra help. This is not a school 
that has great financial resources, but to the credit of the principal, 
the Burke school was received with great excitement by parents and the 
local community for the academic progress that has been made in the 
school.
  I am not prepared to accept an amendment that would propose to throw 
away meaningful and important tools to gauge student achievement if 
Congress cannot secure full-funding for all of the reforms included in 
this bill. I do not think that is wise education policy. I think such 
an amendment effectively undermines this legislation.
  I take a backseat to no one in the fight to increase funding for 
Title I and other programs. But no member in this body thinks we'll 
meet the rate of increase for Title I called for in this amendment.
  We should not discard the tools that can help promote school success. 
I think that we should accept the basic assessment provisions in this 
legislation, and take steps to monitor and watch State's progress 
toward fulfilling the promise of those provisions. We are going to have 
to ensure that States develop and implement effective, quality tests.
  We have taken steps, with the Collins amendment, to review and 
financially evaluate the costs associated with producing effective 
tests. I can commit that as long as I am chairman of the Education 
Committee, we will have vigorous, vigorous oversight on this particular 
issue. We will take the steps that are necessary to alter and change 
this situation if States do not have the resources to effectively 
develop or use assessments.
  But to eliminate provisions to provide for instruments that are being

[[Page 10175]]

used as tools for reform by teachers throughout the country would be 
wrong. We should promote teachers' understanding of what children are 
learning, and we should promote parents' understanding of what children 
are learning. Denying parents the opportunity to understand how their 
children's school is performing makes no sense.
  At the appropriate time, I intend to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, first of all, let me be real clear. I 
have said that in my own mind it is an interesting question as to 
whether or not the Federal Government ought to be telling every school 
district in every State to do this. I have never said I am opposed to 
accountability. I was a college teacher for 20 years, and I do not tend 
to give ground on this issue.
  The reason I have had amendments to try to make this testing of high 
quality is because, if this is going to be done, it has to be done the 
right way. But there is more to this legislation.
  My colleague from Massachusetts says we are already doing this with 
title I. That is right. This legislation requires every school district 
to test every child--not just title I children, every child, every 
year.
  I have heard Senator after Senator after Senator say we ought to, 
along with the mandate of testing every child, have the opportunity for 
every child to do well. That is all this amendment says.
  I cannot believe what I have heard in this Chamber, which is that we 
are not going to live up to what we said. Seventy-nine Senators voted 
for the authorization. We were going to fully fund title I in 10 years. 
It was going to be up to the level of $25 billion in 2005. Right now we 
are only funding 30 percent of the children who are eligible. And now 
my colleague comes to the floor and says that is all fiction, that it 
is never going to happen.
  If it is never going to happen, why, in God's name, do we want to 
pretend it is going to happen? Whatever happened to the idea that every 
child should have the same opportunity to succeed and do well?
  I will say it one more time. I have heard a million people--I am the 
one who first said it--say you cannot achieve the goal of leaving no 
child behind on a tin-cup budget. You cannot pretend to have education 
reform on a tin-cup budget. I have heard Senator after Senator after 
Senator say we are going to do both accountability and resources. All 
this amendment says is, not that States and school districts cannot 
test--they can; not that they don't want to go ahead with testing--they 
can. What we are saying is, if we do not live up to our commitment to 
provide the money for more help for kids for reading, more 
prekindergarten education, more afterschool education, then the State 
can say they do not want to do the testing.
  We ought to live up to our end of the bargain. I cannot believe we 
are acting as if the test brings about better teachers; that testing 
leads to smaller class sizes; that testing means kids come to 
kindergarten ready to learn; that testing means children get the help 
they need. None of that is happening the way it should. And title I is 
part of our commitment.
  Can't we at least live up to our words? That is all this amendment 
says. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Is the Senator from Minnesota 
yielding time to the Senator from Rhode Island?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-five and one-half minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to my colleague from 
Rhode Island. I also say, in 30 seconds right now, for month after 
month after month, I have been hearing how we are going to get a 
commitment from the administration of resources. We have no commitment 
of any resources in this bill when it comes to title I. I am trying to 
make sure we live up to our promises.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Wellstone 
amendment and a strong supporter of the amendment. I believe what 
Senator Wellstone is doing is calling our collective bluff. We talk 
about high standards, high accountability for every school in America. 
We talk about not leaving any child behind. We talk about authorizing 
significant amounts of money for title I. In fact, we have all come 
together, 79 of us, to vote for a substantial increase in title I 
spending--authorization, not appropriation, under the leadership of 
Senator Dodd and Senator Collins.
  What he is saying is, if we are all in favor, if we have all voted 
for it, let's make sure we do it. Let's make sure we do it in 
conjunction with the testing, not after the fact, not testing first, 
money later. Let's do it together.
  That is very wise public policy. It reflects what we have all been 
talking about for weeks and weeks now. I have heard in the course of 
the debate analogies to other realms of endeavor, talking about the 
efficacy, the importance of testing. We know testing is important. 
There is no one in the Senate who does not recognize that if you test 
students to see if they are making progress, you have to evaluate the 
test scores of schools to see if they are adequate. No one is arguing 
with that logic.
  Let's look at, for example, a medical situation. If you showed up in 
one hospital, you would get the same test as another hospital across 
town. But in one hospital, you are discovered to have a serious heart 
problem. They don't have a lot of money, so they give you some chewing 
gum. The other hospital across town has lots of money, so they give you 
beta blockers and all sorts of exercise counseling, nutrition, 
everything under the sun. You are besieged by counselors and 
therapists, people organizing your life so that you can deal 
effectively with this discovery. It is the same test, however, with 
much different results. Senator Wellstone is arguing, we will have 
those tests, but we want the same results.
  Frankly, it is about money. It is about resources. The difference, as 
he pointed out so well, between the performance of students on tests is 
inextricably, invariably linked to the income levels of those students 
and, as a result, the income levels of those schools. We all know the 
basic source of funding for public education in the United States is 
the property tax. Inner cities with declining property values put less 
into their programs than affluent suburbs. The reality is, if we really 
want the system to work, if we want the tests to work, to do more than 
just identifying failure, if we want to guarantee success, we have to 
put these resources in. That is the heart of the amendment.
  I have also heard--and we hear this every time we engage in a debate 
on education--we are doing so much worse compared to other countries, 
particularly European countries. We very well may be. The answer, 
however, might not be testing. The answer might be having a 
comprehensive health care system for every child. It might be to have a 
program of daycare for every child, a very elaborate parental leave 
program for every family. Maybe if we did those things, our test scores 
would look very good relative to France or Germany or Great Britain or 
other countries. So be very careful and wary of these comparisons 
internationally.
  We know that we can improve the quality of our education if we have 
accountability, and that requires some testing. But we also should know 
and recognize, as Senator Wellstone does, that accountability in 
testing without real resources won't make the difference we want to 
achieve. That is not unique to Senator Wellstone.
  A recent Aspen Institute report noted:

       In the effort to raise the achievement of all American 
     students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge 
     disparities in resources for education across districts and 
     states. It is not unusual for per student expenditures to be 
     three times greater in affluent districts than in poorer 
     districts of the same state.

  That accounts for many of the reasons why some students succeed and

[[Page 10176]]

others fail. The real test, in fact the essence of democracy in 
America, is not what we say but where we send our children to school. 
Many parents recognize that when they purchase homes in areas that have 
good public schools versus those areas that are not funded as robustly.
  Now, in addition, the Center for Education Policy concludes, in a 
recent report, that policymakers ``should be wary of proposals that 
embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap but do not help build the 
capacity to accomplish that goal.''
  Testing is just one aspect of that capacity building. We have to have 
good professional development, good parental involvement, and resources 
so that the school building itself is a place that children will want 
to go to and not try to shun and leave as quickly as they can.
  The Wellstone amendment is very straightforward. It simply states 
that the new tests authorized under title I need not be implemented 
unless title I appropriations have reached $24.72 billion by 2005. That 
was the amount authorized by the Dodd-Collins amendment for the year 
the tests are scheduled to go into effect, also 2005.
  This amendment has widespread support: The American Association of 
School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, the Hispanic 
Education Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education 
Fund, the NAACP, the National Association of Black School Educators, 
the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, 
the National PTA, and the National School Boards Association--all of 
these groups representing those individuals closest to the issue of 
education. The school boards, the PTAs, they recognize the logic and 
the wisdom of the Wellstone amendment.
  I hope we can recognize that logic, that we can support this 
amendment. And, frankly, if our intentions are good, and I believe they 
are, this amendment will be merely hortatory. If our intentions are 
good, we will appropriate the money. We will reach those targets. 
Testing will go into effect. But if it is the intention or the mishap 
that we vote for testing but we don't vote for resources to title I, 
then rather than ruing that day, we should vote for this amendment and 
provide a real check.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back my 
time to Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, let me say a few words about this 
amendment. Then I will speak on the bill in general.
  Just reading the Wellstone amendment helps to clarify the argument 
and the signal this amendment sends. It says:

       No State shall be required to conduct any assessments under 
     this subparagraph in any school year if, by July 1, 2005, the 
     amount appropriated to carry out this part for fiscal year 
     2005 does not equal or exceed $24,720,000,000.

  That is, let's fully fund--however we define ``fully fund''--title I 
before we require this accountability and these assessments. The signal 
of this amendment, the not-too-subtle message is that the problem in 
our educational system in this country is there is not enough money. 
That is the less-than-subtle message the Senator from Minnesota would 
send out to school districts across this Nation: We are not going to 
have accountability; we are not going to require testing; we are not 
going to have assessments under this title until we triple the funding.
  If money were the issue, if simply spending more money would solve 
our education problems in this country, we would have no education bill 
before us.
  If one looks at the last decade, particularly in terms of the Federal 
Government's involvement, it has been about a 180-percent increase over 
the previous decade. Nationally, we have increased spending on 
education by about 30 percent, if one looks at every source of spending 
on education.
  There have been dramatic increases in education spending, but there 
has been no--I repeat--there has been no correlation to increased test 
scores and increased student achievement.
  While I do not doubt the sincerity of the Senator from Minnesota, I 
question the logic and the message this amendment sends forth.
  In the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, Congress required assessments in 
three grades. Those provisions were in effect no matter how much or how 
little Federal funding was provided. The fact is, we did not pay for 
the testing that we at that time required. In the bill before us, I 
believe we are more than increasing spending sufficient to meet the new 
mandates that are being placed upon the States.
  The Senator from Minnesota says we are setting schools up for 
failure. I suggest that what we are really doing is freeing schools and 
freeing States to make the kind of reforms to focus resources where 
real academic achievement can be realized.
  I have talked to education officials in the State of Arkansas. I have 
talked to education officials in our State department, and they support 
the President's education initiative. They support the provisions 
regarding testing. It does not scare them. They realize this is the way 
we measure; this is the way we assess; this is the best means we have 
to really demonstrate that education is working, that children are 
learning, and that the investments being made in Federal, State, and 
local resources are good investments.
  This amendment strikes at the very heart of the President's plan. We 
currently provide almost $9 billion for title I, and since title I has 
been around, we have seen no correlating rise in test scores among 
students being served. Why then would it be suggested we should require 
that we eliminate the most important accountability provisions of the 
bill and not put those accountability provisions in effect until we 
triple title I funding?
  Total national spending on elementary and secondary education has 
increased 129 percent over the last decade, but Federal spending has 
increased by over 180 percent over the last decade. Since Republicans 
gained control of the House and Senate in 1995, Federal spending on 
elementary and secondary education has increased from $14.7 billion in 
1996 to $27.8 billion in 2002. That is an almost doubling of the 
Federal funds for elementary and secondary education.
  I suggest we should not try to portray one party or another party as 
being committed to education but look at the facts, look at the 
commitment that has been demonstrated in resources. But increasing 
funding is simply not the answer in and of itself. There are a lot of 
statistics that can demonstrate that. Let me share a few of them.
  These statistics came from the most recent 1998 National Assessment 
of Educational Progress, the NAEP test, demonstrating that with the 
$120 billion that has been invested, poor kids still lag behind those 
of more affluent backgrounds in reading. In 4th grade, 8th grade, 12th 
grade, the areas in which we require testing, we can see that gap is as 
real and as evident as it ever was.
  The whole reason the Federal Government involved itself in local 
education was justified by our commitment to narrowing the gap between 
affluent homes, advantaged children, and those from less affluent homes 
and disadvantaged backgrounds. The experiment has been a monumental 
failure. We have invested billions of dollars, and yet we have not 
narrowed that gap. It is not time to reduce the resources but to ensure 
with those resources there are genuine and real reforms that accompany 
the resources.
  This is a graph demonstrating ESEA funding versus the NAEP reading 
scores. A chart such as this clearly demonstrates there is a lack of 
correlation between increased spending and automatic improvement in 
reading scores or academic achievement. The appropriation for ESEA 
programs is in the billions of dollars. The red line demonstrates how 
dramatically those increases have occurred. The green line demonstrates 
the national fourth grade

[[Page 10177]]

reading scores, which have effectively, since 1991, been level. There 
has been increased spending without a comparable increase--in fact, any 
demonstrable increase--in reading scores nationally.
  If we look at math, we find exactly the same story. These are ESEA 
funding versus NAEP math scores. There is a flat line on math 
achievement and a dramatic increase in appropriations for ESEA. We 
simply cannot find the evidence which shows that with increased 
spending, given the resources, the results are going to be there.
  This bill dramatically increases spending, but to its credit and to 
the President's credit for taking the lead on this issue, it says 
increased resources must be accompanied by real reforms, real 
assessments, real accountability. That is what this legislation does.
  The United States spends more per student than most other advanced 
nations in the world. This chart clearly demonstrates, even if we look 
at advanced nations in Europe--Denmark, Switzerland, France--and 
Australia, we are expending more money, sometimes dramatically more 
money, than other developed nations.
  If spending were the answer, if the more we spent per student the 
better the test scores were going to be, the greater the academic 
achievement, hence, the greater opportunity those children would have 
in the future, then we should be leading the world in academic 
achievement. After all, we are spending more per student than any other 
advanced nation in the world.
  What are the academic results internationally? A 1999 chemistry 
knowledge achievement on the TIMSS eighth grade test shows we are 
lagging way behind Hungary, Finland, Japan, Bulgaria, Slovak Republic, 
South Korea, Russian Federation, Australia--we are way down in our 
achievement in the area of chemistry. We are spending more, but we are 
not producing more.
  This chart shows the 1999 algebra knowledge achievement test in the 
area of math in the eighth grade. Once again, we are near the bottom of 
the industrialized nations of the world. South Korea cannot compare 
with how much we are spending per student in this country, and yet they 
dramatically outperform American students. There simply is not the 
correlation between spending and academic achievement that many would 
like to draw.
  This next chart is 1999 geometry knowledge achievement in the eighth 
grade. Once again, looking at the industrialized nations around the 
world from Japan to Australia, they far outperform American eighth 
grade students in math and in science.
  Does it mean we should spend less? No. It means we should spend more 
wisely. It means we must accompany increased spending with real reform, 
with accountability, with assessment, with local control and 
flexibility. Truly one size does not fit all.
  There is one message the Arkansas Department of Education sent to my 
office: Do not handcuff us; do not continue down the road of 
prescriptive national formulas on what we must do. Give us the 
flexibility to make local reforms and, hence, improve student 
achievement.
  The evidence is clear that this amendment, well intended as it may 
be, is greatly misguided. We have a bill before us that, if we were to 
enact it without undermining its very underpinnings and pulling its 
very heart out, could move us in a dramatically new and better 
direction on education.
  It provides important provisions on greater parental choice, not as 
much as many would like but greater parental choice. The charter States 
and the straight A provisions, although much watered down, still 
provide a new and bold opportunity for a few States to experiment with 
real reform, unhindered by Federal prescriptive programs.
  New standards; the requirement of testing grades 3-8; participation 
in the NAEP; testing 4 and 8; ensuring that not only are the States 
testing but the tests they are utilizing are meaningful and are giving 
an accurate depiction of what schools are succeeding and what schools 
are failing; what States have reforms that are working and what States 
are not doing the job.
  On improvement in teacher quality, I applaud and commend the 
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire for his lead on improving 
teacher quality and ensuring that money is wisely invested in 
professional development, not giving a one-size-fits-all but providing 
a flexible funding stream to meet the particular teacher quality needs 
that school districts have across this country.
  Finally, with those reforms, with increased parental flexibility, 
local school flexibility, with attention on individual children, with 
the requirements on testing, with the consolidation of the plethora of 
Federal programs, with all of those reforms, there is the increase in 
spending. That should be the proper Federal role.
  We have a great opportunity before the Senate. We have been on the 
bill for weeks and weeks. We have debated scores of amendments. The 
genuine and real thrust of the President's education program has thus 
far been kept intact. The challenge before the Senate this week and 
next will be to beat back those amendments that turn back to the failed 
practices of the past, turn back to the misguided notion that more 
money means better education. That is our challenge, to keep that part 
of this bill alive, to honor the pledge the President of the United 
States made to the American people to take us in a new and dramatically 
better direction on education. I am still hopeful and optimistic, but 
amendments such as this threaten a return to the failed status quo.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I also ask unanimous consent the Senator from Michigan 
be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I indicated my opposition to the Wellstone amendment, 
but I take a moment to correct the record of my good friend from 
Arkansas.
  We spend $400 billion a year in K-12; and $8 billion on title I. The 
fact that some students have not made progress is not the fault of the 
Title I program. Instead, it is a reflection of the fact that States 
have not provided the leadership in terms of assistance and resources. 
That is where accountability comes in.
  No one is saying money is the answer to everything, but it is a clear 
indication of a nation's priorities. Although we have a difference in 
terms of this particular legislation, I stand shoulder to shoulder with 
the Senator from Minnesota and others who say we ought to work for the 
full funding because we are only reaching a third of the students.
  I remind my friend from Arkansas what happened in Texas. Look what 
has happened in school funding from 1994 to 2001. Texas has increased 
their funding for education statewide by 57 percent. Look at the 
student achievement. Student achievement has increased by 27 percent. 
Resources have been expended in developing standards and assessments, 
academies that assist low-achieving students, professional development, 
and smaller class sizes. That is how the resources have been spent. 
They have been getting results.
  I agree what we want to do is, with scarce resources, give the tried 
and true policies which have demonstrated effectiveness in the past and 
make them available to local communities so they make decisions and 
hold them accountable within that community. That is what this 
legislation will do.
  The testing is also a part of this process. I agree it should be. I 
am not prepared to put it at risk because we don't reach the actual 
dollar figure included in the Senator's amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a unanimous consent, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Briefly, Mr. President, I will respond to my friend 
from

[[Page 10178]]

Arkansas and his charts, comparing our country to other countries.
  One of my concerns in comparing countries is that we in the United 
States do not stress that we have very different values regarding 
universal free education for all children, kindergarten through the 
12th grade. We take all. Whatever child walks in the door, whether that 
child has had breakfast, whether they have had a good night's sleep, 
whether they even had a bed or home in which to sleep the night before. 
We take all children. I believe that is a strength of the United States 
of America.
  I have had the opportunity to travel around the world and speak with 
those involved in education in other systems and know if we were to 
make certain adjustments and only let children over the eighth grade 
who have met a certain level proceed, or do as done in other countries, 
that would have a different effect from what we do in the United 
States.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. Certainly. I ask it come from the opposition time.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Would the Senator from Michigan concede that although 
there are differences between European nations and the students they 
educate in the upper grades, the statistics I showed giving 
international comparisons in the eighth grade in both Europe and the 
United States, all students are being educated, that it demonstrates we 
are achieving less on those international test scores than comparable 
student bodies in European nations?
  Ms. STABENOW. If I may reclaim my time, I concur, from watching the 
study and what has been done, that we, while doing well at the fourth 
grade level in the TIMSS international studies, by the eighth grade we 
are losing children. We need to be toughening curriculum and we need to 
focus on accountability. Many times comparisons that are done are not 
fair and accurate given the value we have on public education.
  Two further comments. First, saying resources should not be coupled 
with accountability and don't make a difference is to ignore what has 
happened today for our children in schools. It is not about the 
dollars. It is about lowering the class size. I have a friend in Grand 
Rapids, MI, who teaches high-risk students and last year had over 30 
students; this year, 15. Surprise, the children went from F's and D's 
to A's and B's. That is because there was more time for the teacher to 
teach and the children to learn. It is not about money; it is about 
children learning and teachers being able to teach smaller classes.
  As an example, that same school has books that have situations that 
don't exist anymore, countries that don't exist anymore, discussions 
about NASA from years ago. They need to be updated.
  I have one final point in support of the amendment of my colleague. I 
was not here 25 years ago when IDEA passed, when special education was 
brought forward. However, I do know as someone who has been in a State 
legislature and has been an active parent with my two children growing 
up, special education, while setting very important requirements, had, 
also, the promise that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of 
the costs to help the schools so they would not have to take dollars 
away from other programs, other children, in order to provide these 
important special education services.
  What happened? The Federal Government has never hit 15 percent--never 
hit 15 percent--even though the promise was 40 percent. The reason I 
believe this amendment is important is we cannot do this again to the 
schools. The fact we are not keeping our promise on special education 
costs my Michigan schools $420 million this year--$420 million that is 
taken from the ability to lower class size, the ability to upgrade our 
technology and focus on math and science in our schools, to fund 
critically important special education programs.
  We should not do this again. This amendment will guarantee that, in 
fact, we will not just talk about requirements; we will make sure the 
resources are there so our children can truly succeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent 
agreement, the Senator from Washington is to be recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask how much time we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the amendment have almost 23 
minutes, the opponents of the amendment have just over 60 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow us, Mr. President, 
after the Senator from Washington speaks, to set aside his amendment so 
the Senator from Texas could offer her amendment? And then after 
offering her amendment we could go back to the Wellstone amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask how much time the Senator from Texas 
requires?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to take about 7 minutes, 
and the Senator from New York would be speaking on the amendment as 
well for about 5 minutes. Could we have, perhaps, 15 minutes? Because 
Senator Collins from Maine is going to try to come down. After 15 
minutes, then we would go back to the Wellstone amendment, close that, 
and our amendment would be voted on afterwards.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my understanding is this would be after 
the Senator from Washington speaks? That will be fine.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from 
Washington speaks, the Senator from Texas be recognized to offer her 
amendment, that we set aside Senator Wellstone's amendment, that she 
offer her amendment and be on her amendment for up to 15 minutes. Then 
we will return to Senator Wellstone's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, Senator Wellstone brings us an amendment 
today that really gets to the very heart of this bill, helping our 
schools ensure that no child is left behind. Some seem to think the 
heart of this bill is testing, but I have to say as a parent and former 
educator I know testing alone will not ensure that one additional child 
learns to read. Testing alone will not help our Nation's students learn 
to add and subtract. The heart of this bill must be a true effort by 
the Federal Government to serve as a partner to our States and to our 
local communities, offering every child a high-quality education and 
true chance to succeed.
  In 1965, when the Federal Government first recognized its special 
responsibility to provide additional resources to help the most 
disadvantaged students, we determined a level of support that was 
necessary to ensure that every child would succeed. Since that time, we 
have failed over and over again to really give them that support. That 
is what this Wellstone amendment is about: ensuring we finally meet our 
commitment to those children.
  Over the course of this debate, many of my colleagues have said that 
title I has failed to help our children over the past 35 years. They 
cite stagnant test scores as proof that additional investments in title 
I are a waste. Frankly, that is ridiculous. The reality is, after 
adjusting for inflation, title I spending has been almost flat. 
Meanwhile, the job of our public schools has gotten much more 
demanding, serving not only more students overall, but more students 
with challenges in limited English proficiency and disabilities.
  But these glib statements about title I having failed our 
disadvantaged students are perhaps most disingenuous and frustrating 
when one considers the chronic underfunding of title I. Let me talk 
about that for a moment and illustrate the absurdity of this argument 
that title I has failed.
  Let's assume that Congress decides we must build a bridge from the 
House to the Senate side of the Capitol; after building a third of that 
bridge, we begin sending people over that bridge. Not surprisingly, no 
one makes it to

[[Page 10179]]

the other side. Some Senators come to the floor and express shock and 
dismay that no one has crossed the incomplete bridge. After years of 
this kind of folly, we finally declare on the floor of the Senate that 
the bridge is clearly a failure and it has to be torn down.
  That is what we have done with title I. We have determined that a 
need exists. We have developed a solution. We have failed to implement 
that solution. And then we have declared that the solution is not a 
good one.
  The promise of title I has never truly been fulfilled, and because of 
that, the promise for millions of children has also not been fulfilled. 
But this is not a matter of getting people across the Capitol. This is 
about our children's lives. This is about giving them a true chance to 
succeed. Title I has not failed our most disadvantaged children; we 
have failed them by not fully funding title I. Title I provides some of 
the most targeted and flexible funding. This is the kind of funding we 
need to offer if children are going to have any chance of passing these 
tests.
  Last week, when I was home in my home State of Washington, I met with 
31 superintendents in one meeting, and then I talked with countless 
other parents who stopped me in the grocery store or on the street or 
anywhere else they found me to express their enormous concern about 
this bill. They know we are sending them a huge unfunded testing 
mandate, but they are not sure whether we are sending them much else. 
Frankly, neither am I.
  I know this bill does not provide smaller classes. It doesn't provide 
support for school renovation or even all the money they will need to 
develop and implement the tests we are requiring. I also know this bill 
imposes serious consequences based on the results of these new tests, 
but this bill does not give our children or our teachers or our schools 
the tools they need to help the kids pass these tests.
  What is our goal in this bill? Is it to impose an enormous unfunded 
testing mandate on our schools? Is it to declare our schools are in 
need of improvement or to shut them down? Is it to set our children and 
their teachers up for failure or is it to ensure that no child is left 
behind by, yes, measuring their progress but also providing the 
resources that will help them make that progress?
  I have heard my colleagues claim over and over again that the testing 
in this bill is simply a measure and it will help us identify the 
needs. Will anyone really be surprised if these new tests show that 
many children in our most poor schools are not succeeding? When will 
they have sufficient evidence that the problem exists and be willing to 
then take the steps necessary to solve it? We keep hearing people say 
this bill is about accountability. I have news for them. Most of our 
Nation's teachers, principals, and educators have always felt 
accountable to the people they serve in their own communities.
  What about our accountability? When will we be held accountable for 
following through on our commitments? We have gotten away with not 
following through on this one for 35 years. Isn't it time we held 
ourselves accountable and stopped picking on the teachers and the 
parents and the students who are struggling every day with insufficient 
resources?
  About a month ago, 78 of our colleagues came down to this floor and 
voted to invest this amount of funds in our most disadvantaged 
children. Was our goal that day just another empty promise? I expect at 
least some of those same 79 votes will be registered in favor of 
Senator Wellstone's amendment since it simply affirms the commitment we 
have made to these children.
  This vote is a test. Are we willing to put our money where our mouths 
are? Any Senator who voted for the Dodd amendment but votes against 
this amendment will have some explaining to do--not to me, by the way, 
but to the children they are deceiving with false promises of help 
backed up with only another test, not a smaller class, a well-prepared 
teacher, or an afterschool program.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Wellstone amendment and show the 
Nation's most disadvantaged students that we are committed to offering 
more than just words of encouragement. We are committed to offering 
them the support they need to succeed.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I could take a moment, I thank the 
Senator from Washington. Her work as a State legislator, as a school 
board member and teacher, her familiarity with children and what is 
happening in schools, with kids, with teachers, and for the amendment, 
comes through all the time.
  I thank her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
Senator from Texas is recognized for 15 minutes on her amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
any pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 540.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 540 to Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 540.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for education reform programs that provide same 
gender schools and classrooms, if comparable educational opportunities 
                are offered for students of both sexes)

       On page 684, strike liens 1 through 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(L) education reform programs that provide same gender 
     schools and classrooms, if comparable educational 
     opportunities are offered for students of both sexes;''.


                     Amendment No. 540, as modified

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to 
amendment No. 540, a modification to be substituted for the text of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 540), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the provisions relating to same gender schools and 
                              classrooms)

       On page 684, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(L) programs to provide same gender schools and 
     classrooms, consistent with applicable law;
       On page 684, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(c) Award Criteria and Other Guidelines.--Not later than 
     120 days after the date of enactment of the Better Education 
     for Students and Teachers Act, the Secretary shall issue 
     specific award criteria and other guidelines for local 
     educational agencies seeking funding for activities under 
     subsection (b)(1)(L).

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that several of 
us have worked on for quite a while trying to come up with the right 
formula.
  I thank Senator Kennedy, and I especially thank the cosponsors of my 
amendment, Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Clinton, for 
trying to come up with a solution to a problem that we have seen over 
many years; that is, obstacles put in place against public schools 
being able to offer single-sex classrooms and single-sex schools.
  We are trying to open more options to public school than are 
available in private school because we want public schools to be able 
to tailor their programs to what best fits the needs of students in 
that particular area.
  Most of the time coeducational classes in schools are going to be the 
answer. But sometimes in some circumstances we find that girls do 
better in a single-sex atmosphere and boys do better in a single-sex 
atmosphere. We want parents who might not be able to afford private 
school or might not have the option of parochial school to be able to 
go to their school board and say: We would like to offer a single-sex 
eighth grade math class for girls or we would like to offer a single-
sex chemistry lab for boys or we might want a whole single-sex school, 
such as some that have had wonderful results.
  I imagine my colleague, the Senator from New York, will mention this 
because one of the great success stories

[[Page 10180]]

in single-sex public schools is the Young Women's Leadership Academy in 
East Harlem, NY, which just saw its first high school graduation and 
schools such as Western High School in Baltimore that has been in place 
since the 1800s.
  These are the kinds of schools that have weathered all the storms, 
faced the lawsuits, and have gotten over it. We don't want those kinds 
of barriers.
  If people want that kind of option, and parents come to the school 
boards wanting that option, that is easily obtain. Our amendment simply 
says, under applicable law, schools can offer, under title VI, which is 
the creativity title--the title that we hope will open more options for 
public schools, single-sex schools and classrooms--we want to 
particularly have the Department of Education, which is provided in 
this amendment, to have 120 days to issue guidelines so the public 
schools that are interested in offering this kind of option will have 
clear guidelines on how they must structure the program to meet 
applicable law. That is simply what the amendment does. It has been 
agreed to by all of the entities that have been working on this issue.
  I think this is very exciting. It is something I have worked on since 
Senator Danforth of Missouri left the Senate; he tried to get an 
amendment passed when he was here that would have allowed single-sex 
schools and classrooms and made it easier to do that. But the 
Department of Education, frankly, has been the barrier. They have put 
the roadblocks in front of the people who want to try to do this around 
the country. Most people have been persuaded. Ones such as the East 
Harlem Young Women's Leadership Academy have prevailed, and they have 
done very well.
  However, we shouldn't have to overcome hurdles. We want public 
schools to meet all of the tests and all of the individual needs of 
students without having to go through a lot of redtape, a lot of 
bureaucracy, and many barriers. That is what this amendment will do.
  I call on my colleague from New York, who has worked with me on this 
amendment. I talked to her about my observations of the leadership 
school in Harlem when we first put this amendment forward. She has been 
a real leader in helping me work through the amendment and getting 
everyone to agree on what we could do to go forward. I appreciate that 
help. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague 
from Texas for her leadership on this and so many other issues. The 
remarks she made very well describe why I stand in support of this 
amendment.
  I believe public school choice should be expanded and as broadly as 
possible. Certainly, there should not be any obstacle to providing 
single-sex choice within the public school system. I thank the Senator 
from Texas for being a leader in promoting quality single-sex education 
and for working with me, as well as our colleagues from Maryland and 
Maine, and with the chairman of the Education Committee, to find a 
compromise that would further the ability of our school districts 
around the country to develop and implement quality single-sex 
educational opportunities as a part of providing a diversity of public 
school choices to students and parents but in doing it in a way that in 
no way undermines title IX or the equal protection clause of the 
Constitution.
  We know, as the Senator from Texas has said, that single-sex schools 
and classes can help young people, boys and girls, improve their 
achievement.
  In New York City, we have one of the premier public schools for girls 
in our Nation. In fact, yesterday the New York Times reported that the 
first class of girls graduating from the Young Women's Leadership 
Academy in East Harlem in New York City--all 32 of the seniors--have 
been accepted by 4-year colleges, and all but one are going to attend 
while the other young woman has decided to pursue a career in the Air 
Force, which we know is also an opportunity for young women.
  We have to look at the achievements of a school such as the one in 
New York City that I mentioned, the Young Women's Leadership Academy, 
or other schools that are springing up around the country. We know this 
has energized students and parents. We could use more schools such as 
this.
  With the negotiations we have engaged in over this amendment, there 
was some disagreement that we had to work out about how to comply with 
title IX and with the Constitution because there has been confusion 
around our country in school districts about how they can develop 
single-sex educational opportunities without running afoul of the law 
or a constitutional prohibition.
  This amendment clearly states that school districts should have the 
opportunity to spend Federal educational funds on promoting single-sex 
opportunities so long as they are consistent with applicable law. It 
also makes clear that the U.S. Department of Education should clarify 
to our school districts what they can and cannot do. Their guidance 
should be developed as soon as possible. The Senator from Texas and I 
will watch closely to make sure this guidance is available to school 
districts.
  Both title IX and the equal protection clause provide strong 
protections so schools cannot fall back on harmful stereotypes. For 
example, we have done away with the prohibition that used to keep girls 
out of shop classes. I can remember that--even out of prestigious 
academic high schools because they were boys only. We have broken down 
those barriers. We don't in any way want this amendment to start 
building them up. We are trying to be very clear that we uphold title 
IX and the Constitution while we create more young women's leadership 
academies that will make a real difference in the lives of young women 
and young men.
  For example, we do not need another situation as we had with VMI, 
where young women were first prohibited from attending the school and 
then were provided with an alternative that was not in any way the same 
as what was available to the boys.
  The language offered here strikes the important balance between 
providing flexibility to offer single-sex educational opportunities and 
providing the legal safeguards pursuant to the VMI decision, and key 
title IX protections, to ensure that we do not turn back the clock.
  What the Senator from Texas and I want to do is to provide more and 
more opportunities for our young people to chart their own courses, to 
make it clear that they are able to have their own futures in their 
hands by getting the best possible public school education.
  So I am very grateful that we have come together today on behalf of 
this important amendment which will send a clear signal that we want 
public schools to provide choices. We want to eliminate sex-based 
stereotyping. We want to make it clear that every young girl can reach 
her fullest potential and should be able to choose from among options 
that will make that possible; and the same for our young boys as well.
  So I thank the Senator from Texas for not only putting forth this 
amendment but for working so hard on making it really do what we intend 
it to do, so there will be the kind of opportunities for our children 
that we in this Chamber favor and that we hope this bill will bring 
about.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back the time.
  There are approximately 5 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to my 
colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first, I commend the Senator from Texas 
for her superior work on this issue. She and I have been working on it 
for a very long time. I am delighted to see the bipartisan compromise 
amendment reached today.

[[Page 10181]]

  This action is long overdue and would correct a misinterpretation of 
title IX of the education amendments of 1972 that clearly was never 
intended.
  Our amendment would ensure that local school districts can establish 
single-sex classrooms. I would like to share with my colleagues a 
wonderful example from Presque Isle High School in northern Maine of 
what can be accomplished with a single-sex classroom.
  A gifted math teacher in Presque Isle by the name of Donna Lisnik 
believed that an all-girls advanced mathematics class would result in 
higher levels of achievement by women. She was absolutely right. Donna 
established an all-girls math class, and the results were absolutely 
outstanding. Both the achievement of the girls, whether measured on SAT 
scores or by other tests, and the results, the number of girls 
participating in the class, soared. Everything was a plus.
  I had the privilege of visiting Mrs. Lisnik's class. I saw firsthand 
the enthusiasm the girls had for mathematics, how comfortable they 
felt, and how they were accelerating.
  However, unfortunately, in the previous administration, the 
Department of Education concluded that this very worthwhile and 
effective course did not correct historical inequities and, thus, 
deemed it to be a violation of title IX requirements. As a result, 
Presque Isle had to open the course to both boys and girls. It was 
unfortunate that the school was prevented from pursuing a strategy that 
was resulting in very high achievement levels for the girls attending 
those classes.
  Senator Hutchison's bipartisan compromise amendment will ensure that 
schools with innovative education programs, designed to meet gender-
specific needs, will not face needless obstacles.
  This amendment is a great example of our working across party lines 
to do what is best for our children and for educational reform. It will 
give schools the flexibility to design and the ability to offer single-
gender classes when the school determines that these classrooms will 
provide students with a better opportunity to achieve higher standards.
  That is a goal we all share.
  I see the Senator from Delaware is also seeking to speak on this 
issue, so I yield back to the Senator from Texas the remainder of my 
time. Again, I commend her for her hard work on this issue. It has been 
a pleasure to be her partner in this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to say we would not have 
gotten to this point without Senator Collins' leadership and help. We 
adopted this amendment before. We are now back adopting it again 
because the bill that we passed before did not end up with a 
Presidential signature. So I thank her for being with us because of her 
experiences in Maine and appreciate her support very much.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The Senator has half a minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be 
yielded 1 minute, and then that I be recognized for 30 seconds to 
close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas very much 
for providing me the 1 minute. And I thank the Presiding Officer for 
sitting in for me so I might speak.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to 
the amendment that is being offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. We in the Senate should be concerned foremost with what 
is going to work to raise student achievement. We want to provide the 
resources that will enable and foster and nurture that achievement. We 
also want to make sure we take away barriers to that student 
achievement.
  When I was sitting as the Presiding Officer during the debate, I 
realized the nature of the amendment being offered, and I felt 
compelled to applaud what we are endeavoring to do.
  It reminds me that 10 years ago we faced a roadblock in my own State 
of Delaware because we were unable to do, on a small scale, what we 
seek to do with this amendment. I know it is not just our State but in 
the 49 other States young men and young women will benefit if we are 
able to include this in the legislation that goes to the President, and 
then if we follow up in the 50 States of America.
  I applaud each of you for offering the amendment and thank you for 
the opportunity to speak on its behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware, the 
distinguished former Governor, who obviously has another example of how 
these big barriers have hurt our ability to allow students to get the 
best education for their particular needs.
  So I just close by saying, now it is up to the Department of 
Education. What we are saying in this Chamber today is: Drop the 
barriers. Open the options for public schools. Give parents a chance to 
have their child in public school have all the options that would fit 
the needs of that particular child.
  I again thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins who have been with 
me on this amendment from the very beginning, and I thank our new 
cosponsors, Senator Clinton, Senator Carper, and Senator Kennedy, for 
working with me to form this compromise.
  The bottom line is that the Department of Education must step up to 
the plate. I have discussed this with Secretary Rod Paige. He agrees. 
He has committed to me that he will open the spigot, open the 
floodgates, to allow this to be one of the options that will be 
available to the parents of public schoolchildren in this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Minnesota, we 
could dispose of the amendment on a voice vote now. Would that be 
agreeable to the Senator?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That would be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
540, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 540), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself just 3 minutes on the 
amendment of the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to join in thanking the Senator 
from Texas. This issue is one of enormous importance. We have heard 
very eloquent comments and statements about the opportunities that this 
type of amendment can provide for young Americans.
  We want to take advantage of those opportunities. As one who has been 
here for some time, I have often seen where there appear to be 
opportunities, and where there has also been discrimination against 
individuals. That has been true in a variety of different 
circumstances. None of us wants to see this. We know that that is not 
the intention of any of us who is supporting this particular program.
  The Senator was enormously helpful and positive and constructive, as 
was the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Collins, Senator 
Mikulski, and others, in making sure that we were, to the extent 
possible, not going to see a reenforcement or a return to old 
stereotyping which has taken place at an unfortunate period in terms of 
American education. They have done that, the Senator has done that with 
the amendment. That has been enormously important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from New York.

[[Page 10182]]


  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment under consideration be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I did not realize that the Senator from 
Minnesota wanted to continue at this moment. I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the Senator have an amendment she is trying to 
dispose of?
  Mrs. CLINTON. I am trying to propose the amendment, but I will lay it 
aside, and I am not asking for a vote.


                           Amendment No. 466

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think we should probably go ahead and finish up on 
the other amendment. How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes and 57 minutes 30 seconds for 
the other side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. May I ask the other side how much time they intend to 
use?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wanted to yield the time 
back, I would urge my colleague from New Hampshire to yield his time 
back.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have a little time to summarize. If you all are 
going to use a few minutes, then at the end I will go ahead and finish. 
If you have a lot to say, I want to respond to your comments. All 
right.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues who have come to the 
Chamber and spoken on the amendment; quite a few Senators have. I thank 
each and every one of them for some very powerful words. I almost 
forget everybody, but Senator Dodd, Senator Murray, Senator Reed, 
Senator Corzine, Senator Stabenow, I thank all of them.
  This amendment says that the tests that are authorized under title I 
need not be implemented until after we live up to our goal of 
appropriating the $24 billion for title I. This is the amount the Dodd 
amendment called for in authorization. I am not saying that Minnesota 
or any other State can't go forward. They can do whatever they want. 
What I am saying is, States have a right to say to us, if you don't 
live up to your word to get us the resources to go with the testing, 
then we decide whether we want to do this. The testing that is being 
done post-1994 goes on. I am talking about the testing in this bill.
  This amendment has endorsements from, among others, the Hispanic 
Education Coalition, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 
NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, 
National Parent Teacher Association, National School Board Association. 
In addition, we have a letter from Democratic Governors basically 
saying, while we support the Carnahan/Nelson amendment, we are hopeful 
that any final version to reauthorize ESEA will apply a funding trigger 
more broadly, specifically to include title I, the argument being that 
the Government needs to strengthen its accountability with adequate new 
investment.
  Colleagues, there is a reason that all these organizations that 
represent the education community on the ground--I didn't include the 
National Education Association as well--support this amendment, because 
what they are saying is: Don't set us up for failure. If you are going 
to mandate that every child in every grade will be tested every year, 
grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, then how about a Federal mandate that we 
will have equality of opportunity for every child to be able to succeed 
and do well on these tests? To not do so is ethically unjust.
  This bill, right now, without the resources, without this amendment 
passing, will test the poor against the rich and announce that the poor 
failed. Federally required tests without federally required resources 
for the children amounts to clubbing children over the head after we 
have systematically cheated them. We already know in advance which 
children are going to fail. This is a plan, without this amendment 
passing, not for reform, not for equality, but for humiliation of 
children.
  How in the world can we continue to have the schools? They don't have 
the resources. They have the large classes. All too often, it is two or 
three or four teachers in a given year, much less the children living 
in homes where they move two or three times a year. They come to 
kindergarten way behind, not kindergarten ready. Quite often, they 
don't have qualified teachers. They don't have the technology. They 
don't have the resources. Then, in the absence of making the commitment 
to making sure these children have a chance to do well, the only thing 
we are going to do is require testing and fail them again.
  This amendment is just saying, if we are going to have the testing, 
we are going to provide the resources.
  My friend Jonathan Kozol, who I think is the most powerful writer 
about children in education today, says that testing is a symbolic 
substitute for educating. Don't substitute a symbol for the real thing. 
Kids who are cheated of Head Start--we fund 3 percent of the children 
who could benefit from Early Head Start, barely 50 percent of the 
children who are 4-year-olds. Children who are cheated of small 
classes, cheated of well-paid teachers learn absolutely nothing from a 
test every year except how much this Nation wants to embarrass and 
punish them. That is what is wrong with having the testing without the 
resources.
  I hope the testing advocates do not assume that teachers are afraid 
to be held accountable. Frankly, that is libel against teachers. No 
good teacher is afraid to be held accountable for what she or he does. 
I wish I had the time. I have e-mails from teachers all across the 
country about this.
  Accountability is a two-way street. What we have here is one-way 
accountability. We want to have the tests every year, but we don't want 
to be accountable to the words we have spoken. Seventy-nine Senators 
went on record to vote for authorizing full funding for title I, for 
disadvantaged children, in 10 years.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, presiding. He would 
say: Why 10 years? He is right. A 7-year-old will be 17 then. That is 
too late. You only have your childhood once. Nevertheless, we went on 
record, and that means that by 2005, we made a commitment of $25 
billion for title I, which right now is funded at a 30-percent level.
  So Senator Dayton, in St. Paul, when you get to a school with fewer 
than 65 percent low-income children, they don't receive any funding--we 
have run out already--money that could be used, especially with the 
little children, for additional reading help, after school, 
prekindergarten. What this amendment is saying is that 79 Senators 
voted for that authorization. If that is what you did, and it was a 
good vote for the Dodd-Collins amendment--Senator Dodd was here speak-
ing--then let's live up to our words.
  Let's say that unless that money is appropriated--and I can see 
Senators running ads: I voted to authorize full funding for the title I 
program for the children in my State--knowing that the authorization 
has nothing to do with whether there is money.
  This amendment makes the words real. Let's not fool around with 
people. Let's live up to our commitment, and let's make it clear; yes 
to accountability, but we also are going to follow through when it 
comes to living up to our commitment of resources.
  I have heard Senators say if we talk the talk but we do not walk the 
walk, we are going to fail our children. That is exactly what is wrong 
with this bill that calls for the testing without the resources. 
Testing and publishing test scores is talking, only talking.
  Giving title I, supporting what we should be doing--fully funding 
Head Start, making sure every child comes to kindergarten ready to 
learn, getting the best teachers in the schools, providing additional 
help for reading--that is walking. That is what this amendment is. This 
is a walking amendment.
  I say to Senators: It is time to walk. It is time to start walking. 
It is time to start walking your talk. It is time to start living up to 
what you said

[[Page 10183]]

when you voted for the full funding for title I.
  Let's be accountable. I have heard the majority of Senators say they 
were going to fight for the resources to go with the testing. Now is 
the time to do so.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator make a 
very impassioned plea for funding the program, and I am all in 
agreement with it. I feel, however, as if we are describing two 
different bills.
  The pending Senate bill already includes accountability. The bill 
already includes testing. And, at the present time, under current law 
there are already 15 States that are testing students every year, in 
grades 3 through 8, in math and reading. There are 46 States that are 
testing their students annually in at least two grades. States are 
complying today with the 1994 law, and are being held accountable for 
their progress, under provisions that describe adequate yearly progress 
in Title I. This is nothing new.
  The amount that those 15 States are spending on their statewide tests 
is low. Many States are not investing the resources that they really 
need to ensure high-quality assessments. According to the Education 
Commission of the States, those 15 States only spend between $1.37 and 
$17.16 per student annually on their assessments.
  Under our legislation, the Jeffords amendment would ensure $69--do we 
hear that?--$69 per student for States to develop their annual 
assessments by the 2005-2006 school year, in reading and math for 
students grades 3-8. According to the National Association of State 
Boards of Education, it takes between $25 and $125 per student to 
develop such assessments. $69 should be sufficient. Not $1, as exists 
now, not $5, but $69.
  The Wellstone amendment essentially eliminates requirements to 
develop those assessments, and eliminates the promise that those high-
quality assessments may hold to produce the data that can drive school 
reform. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Senator 
Wellstone is thinking that, sometime in the future, we will eventually 
begin this process of assessment. In reality, assessments are in place 
now.
  To say if we do not get full funding, if we miss it by $500 million, 
what happens? We are not going to provide any of the accountability. If 
we miss it by $300 million, we are not going to get it. With all 
respect to my colleague from Connecticut, their amendment for full 
funding was for 10 years. This amendment calls for full funding in 4 
years. I am all for full funding in 4 years, if Senator wants to offer 
an amendment that does not compromise essential reforms in the 
underlying bill.
  I have spoken with the President about this very subject. We ought to 
increase funding for Title I, and double our present commitment to 
cover two-thirds of the children, and the other third during his 
administration. I have said it publicly, and I said it to the President 
within the last 3 days.
  I am going to continue to fight this fight, because I believe in the 
Title I program. However, to say that at the end of the day we are not 
going to be able to implement high quality tests that help us in the 
reform process I do not understand. I just do not understand it because 
tests are nothing new, we are currently assessing student progress for 
accountability today, and more and more States are implementing a plan 
similar to that which is in this underlying bill. Many States are not 
implementing tests that are of high-quality. They are not doing very 
well. We have seek in this bill to address that point.
  We are not talking about the future. We have addressed the issue of 
quality in the assessment process with the amendments that we have 
taken. We want to improve upon States' current practice. We have tried 
to accomplish that with the amendments to date, but that goal will not 
be met by the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 47 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me try to clear up the confusion of my good friend 
from Massachusetts. First, part of what we talked about is whether or 
not there should be full funding for the testing. I support the 
Carnahan amendment. It was not adopted. I think it should have been 
adopted.
  The Senator talked about the Dodd amendment full funding in 10 years. 
This amendment does not call for full funding by 2005. This amendment 
tracks the Dodd amendment. This amendment is a 100-percent reflection 
of what we have already gone on record supporting. I do not call for 
full funding; $25 billion in 2005 is not full funding. This is exactly 
what the Dodd amendment calls for as we reach full funding in 10 years.
  As to the testing, it is true we are already testing. As a matter of 
fact, this amendment does not talk about that testing. This amendment 
talks about the fact that this bill, called the BEST bill, I say to my 
colleague from Massachusetts, does not say title I children are tested. 
It says every child in every school district in every State is tested 
every year. That is quite a different piece of legislation in its 
scope. Finally, one more time, the National Council of LaRaza, National 
Education Association, National Parent Teacher Association, National 
School Board Association, Democratic Governors--why in the world do you 
think they support this? Because they have had enough of it. They have 
had enough of us constantly putting more requirements on them without 
backing it up with resources.
  They are a little bit suspicious of the Congress. They think we are 
great when it comes to telling them to do this, this, and this, but 
they do not think we fully fund what we ask them to do, and they are 
right.
  That is why they support this, and they are right. They are saying if 
you are going to have a national mandate that every child is tested, 
then let's have a national mandate to make sure every child has an 
opportunity to do well on those tests and make sure you live up to your 
commitment on the title I programs, which is one of the major Federal 
commitments--it is not a large part of education money spent, but it is 
a real important piece when it comes to what our commitment is.
  This commitment just asks every Senator to walk the talk. You already 
went on record saying you are for this. Now let's get real. This 
amendment just says walk your talk.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  On page 43 under ``Assessments,'' this bill spells out the tests 
which I mentioned earlier are statewide. There are currently 15 States 
that are testing reading and math annually in grades 3 through 8.
  Accountability in current law is based, at least partly, on these 
tests that are currently being administered. Not all, but many of these 
tests are not of the highest quality. They are not aligned with 
standards. They are not valid and reliable measures. I want to make 
them better. We have in place in this legislation, with the amendments 
that have been accepted--the Jeffords amendment, the Wellstone 
amendments, the Collins amendment.
  The best estimate has been provided by the National Association of 
State Boards of Education. They estimate that the cost of developing 
high quality State tests, aligned to standards, in grades 3-8 ranges 
from $25 to $125 per student. Our bill provides $69 per student. If 
States do not receive the funds provided by the Jeffords amendment 
under this bill for testing, they may suspend the development or 
implementation of their tests.
  The fact is, S. 1, when the President signs it, will contain 
accountability provisions that will be driven by, as it says on page 
43, existing tests under requirements that mirror current law. Many of 
those tests are not of high quality. Some States are doing better than 
others. I can understand why the President and our committee both

[[Page 10184]]

want to do better. To eliminate the possibility to do better, by 
warding off assessments, does not make any sense to me.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if the Senate lives up to its word and 
we do exactly what we say we are going to do in the appropriations, 
which is to provide the money for title I which provides the money for 
the extra help for reading and afterschool and prekindergarten, nobody 
loses.
  I am calling everybody on their bluff on the words they have spoken. 
I have not seen any firm commitment about money. I have not seen the 
administration come forward with any commitment of resources to expand 
title I to make sure we do our very best for these kids. I don't think 
this program called BEST, is the best, unless we live up to our 
commitment.
  This should be easy for Senators to vote for. It just means that in 
our appropriations we do exactly what we promised to do. How can anyone 
vote against what was already voted for? How can Members vote against 
an appropriation that is exactly the same thing Members voted for as an 
authorization? What is wrong with saying, don't ask for me to vote for 
testing every child throughout America in every school, which is what 
Senator Dodd said? Start as young as age 8, unless you are also going 
to give me a chance. Don't ask us to vote for a mandate of testing 
every child without also letting us have an opportunity to pass 
legislation which will assure we get the resources to the schools and 
the teachers and kids so they can do well in these tests.
  I don't believe that is an outrageous assumption. I stand for that. I 
hope we get this through.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I associate myself with the comments of the Senator from 
Massachusetts. There has been a significant amount of debate so I will 
not carry it on. I reinforce the fact that the President has suggested 
we extend the testing passed in 1994 to three additional grades. The 
testing in 1994 required the curriculum be aligned and that the tests 
be fairly pervasive. At the same time, when those tests were put in 
place, there was no funding at all to support them.
  This President has suggested that is not correct. He has put in place 
$3 billion of new funding for the purposes of underwriting the costs of 
these tests. In addition, he has suggested the most significant 
increase of title I funding for the actual problematic side than any 
President in the history of this country. He has suggested increases 
that represent more than 50 percent of an increase in title I funding. 
So the commitment is significant in the area of dollars.
  Senator Kennedy hit the nail on the head. If this amendment passes, 
essentially we are stepping backward on the issue of assessment. And we 
are stepping backward, therefore, on the issue of finding out whether 
or not low-income kids are getting fair treatment in our school 
systems. That is what this is about.
  Will we have in place a procedure for determining whether or not our 
low-income children are getting fair treatment? The only way to do that 
is through a testing regime in the form outlined in this bill. If we 
abandon that testing regime, for all intents and purposes, we are going 
back to the present status quo which has produced 35 years of failure. 
We know it is not working. It is time to make the changes proposed in 
this bill. Regrettably, the Wellstone amendment takes us backward, 
rather than forward, in that effort.
  I yield back the remainder of our time on our side.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Torricelli), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if 
present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote 
``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``nay'.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Akaka
     Biden
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--71

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Boxer
     Crapo
     Hatch
     McCain
     Miller
     Torricelli
  The amendment (No. 466) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have just talked to the majority 
leader. And I see our deputy leader and our Republican floor manager. 
We had been talking during the course of the afternoon, and hopefully 
we will have a pathway which will lead us to two votes, I believe, on 
Monday night and then hopefully set the stage for our Tuesday 
deliberations.
  I heard from our leader, if we are able to work that out, there might 
not be further votes this evening. But this is underway. I just hope 
the membership can give us a minute or two to see if that can be put in 
a unanimous consent agreement. We will do that just as rapidly as 
possible.
  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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 516 To Amendment No. 358

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 516.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself, Mr. 
     Torricelli, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 
     516.

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

[[Page 10185]]



 (Purpose: To provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health 
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on 
                               children)

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

     SEC. __. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS OF 
                   SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON 
                   AMERICA'S CHILDREN.

       Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                   ``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS 
                   OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS 
                   ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention and in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     conduct a study on the health and learning impacts of sick 
     and dilapidated public school buildings on children that have 
     attended or are attending such schools.
       ``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information 
     shall be included in the study conducted under subsection 
     (a):
       ``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy 
     school environments, including the prevalence of such 
     characteristics in public elementary and secondary school 
     buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings 
     that--
       ``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
       ``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
       ``(C) have occurrences of mold;
       ``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling 
     systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not 
     meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents, 
     insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
       ``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or 
     construction efforts; and
       ``(F) have been subjected to an inappropriate use of 
     pesticides, insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based 
     paint, or asbestos or have radon or such other 
     characteristics as determined by the Director of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention to indicate an unhealthy 
     school environment.
       ``(2) The health and leaning impacts of sick and 
     dilapidated public school buildings on students that are 
     attending or that have attended a school described in 
     subsection (a), including information on the rates of such 
     impacts where available. Such health impacts may include 
     higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease, 
     or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood 
     lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such 
     learning impacts may include lower levels of student 
     achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other 
     educational indicators.
       ``(3) Recommendations to Congress on the development and 
     implementation of public health and environmental standards 
     for constructing new public elementary and secondary school 
     buildings, remediating existing public school buildings, and 
     the overall monitoring of public school building health, 
     including cost estimates for the development and 
     implementation of such standards and a cost estimate of 
     bringing all public schools up to such standards.
       ``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in 
     information regarding the health of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings and the health and learning 
     impacts on students that attend unhealthy public schools, 
     including recommendations for obtaining such information.
       ``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a) 
     shall be completed by the earlier of--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; or
       ``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the 
     conduct of the study under subsection (a).''.


                     Amendment No. 516, As Modified

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment and send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 516), as modified, is as follows:

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

     SEC. __. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS OF 
                   SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON 
                   AMERICA'S CHILDREN AND THE HEALTHY AND HIGH 
                   PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

       Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                   ``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS 
                   OF SICK AND DILAPIDATED PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS 
                   ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.

       ``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in 
     conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention and in consultation with the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall 
     conduct a study on the health and learning impacts of sick 
     and dilapidated public school buildings on children that have 
     attended or are attending such schools.
       ``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information 
     shall be included in the study conducted under subsection 
     (a):
       ``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy 
     school environments, including the prevalence of such 
     characteristics in public elementary and secondary school 
     buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings 
     that--
       ``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
       ``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
       ``(C) have occurrences of mold;
       ``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling 
     systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not 
     meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents, 
     insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
       ``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or 
     construction efforts; and
       ``(F) have been subjected to an inappropriate use of 
     pesticides, insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based 
     paint, or asbestos or have radon or such other 
     characteristics as determined by the Director of the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention to indicate an unhealthy 
     school environment.
       ``(2) The health and leaning impacts of sick and 
     dilapidated public school buildings on students that are 
     attending or that have attended a school described in 
     subsection (a), including information on the rates of such 
     impacts where available. Such health impacts may include 
     higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease, 
     or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood 
     lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such 
     learning impacts may include lower levels of student 
     achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other 
     educational indicators.
       ``(3) Recommendations to Congress on the development and 
     implementation of public health and environmental standards 
     for constructing new public elementary and secondary school 
     buildings, remediating existing public school buildings, and 
     the overall monitoring of public school building health, 
     including cost estimates for the development and 
     implementation of such standards and a cost estimate of 
     bringing all public schools up to such standards.
       ``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in 
     information regarding the health of public elementary and 
     secondary school buildings and the health and learning 
     impacts on students that attend unhealthy public schools, 
     including recommendations for obtaining such information.
       ``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a) 
     shall be completed by the earlier of--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment 
     of this Act; or
       ``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the 
     conduct of the study under subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 4502. HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     `Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001'.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     local educational agencies in the production of high 
     performance elementary school and secondary school buildings 
     that are healthful, productive, energy-efficient, and 
     environmentally sound.
       ``(c) Program Establishment and Administration.--
       ``(1) Program.--There is established in the Department of 
     Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this 
     section referred to as the `Program').
       ``(2) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program, 
     award grants to State educational agencies to permit such 
     State educational agencies to carry out paragraph (3).
       ``(3) State use of funds.--
       ``(A) Subgrants.--
       ``(i) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds made 
     available under subsection (d)(1)(A) to award subgrants to 
     local educational agencies to permit such local educational 
     agencies to carry out the activities described in paragraph 
     (4).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under clause (i) to local educational agencies that 
     have made a commitment to use the subgrant funds to develop 
     healthy, high performance school buildings in accordance with 
     the plan developed and approved pursuant to clause (iii)(I).
       ``(iii) Implementation.--

       ``(I) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award 
     subgrants under subparagraph

[[Page 10186]]

     (A) only to local educational agencies that, in consultation 
     with the State educational agency and State offices with 
     responsibilities relating to energy and health, have 
     developed plans that the State educational agency determines 
     to be feasible and appropriate in order to achieve the 
     purposes for which such subgrants are made.
       ``(II) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational 
     agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies 
     to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other 
     sources in the implementation of their plans.

       ``(B) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving 
     a grant under this section shall use the grant funds made 
     available under subsection (d)(1)(B)--
       ``(i) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies 
     with the requirements of this section;
       ``(ii) to distribute information and materials to clearly 
     define and promote the development of healthy, high 
     performance school buildings for both new and existing 
     facilities;
       ``(iii) to organize and conduct programs for school board 
     members, school district personnel, architects, engineers, 
     and others to advance the concepts of healthy, high 
     performance school buildings;
       ``(iv) to obtain technical services and assistance in 
     planning and designing high performance school buildings; and
       ``(v) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the 
     high performance school building projects funded under this 
     section.
       ``(C) Promotion.--Subject to subsection (d)(1), a State 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this section may 
     use grant funds for promotional and marketing activities, 
     including facilitating private and public financing, working 
     with school administrations, students, and communities, and 
     coordinating public benefit programs.
       ``(4) Local use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--A local educational agency receiving a 
     subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) shall use such subgrant funds 
     for new school building projects and renovation projects 
     that--
       ``(i) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces 
     energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school 
     constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in 
     Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code, 
     or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially 
     equivalent results; and
       ``(ii) achieve environmentally healthy schools in 
     compliance with Federal and State codes intended to achieve 
     healthy and safe school environments.
       ``(B) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency 
     receiving a subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) for renovation of 
     existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds to 
     achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces energy use 
     below the school's baseline consumption, assuming a 3-year, 
     weather-normalized average for calculating such baseline and 
     to help bring schools into compliance with health and safety 
     standards.
       ``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State receiving a grant under this 
     section shall use--
       ``(A) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out subsection (c)(3)(A); and
       ``(B) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry 
     out subsection (c)(3)(B).
       ``(2) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve an amount not 
     to exceed $300,000 per year from amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (f) to assist State educational agencies in 
     coordinating and implementing the Program. Such funds may be 
     used to develop reference materials to further define the 
     principles and criteria to achieve healthy, high performance 
     school buildings.
       ``(e) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial 
     review of State actions implementing this section, and shall 
     report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
       ``(2) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary 
     shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures 
     used by State educational agencies in establishing 
     eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under 
     this section, and may assess other aspects of the Program to 
     determine whether the aspects have been effectively 
     implemented.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out 
     this section--
       ``(1) $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 through 
     2005; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2011.
       ``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term 
     `healthy, high performance school building' means a school 
     building which, in its design, construction, operation, and 
     maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
     efficient practices, is cost-effective on a life cycle basis, 
     uses affordable, environmentally preferable, durable 
     materials, enhances indoor environmental quality, protects 
     and conserves water, and optimizes site potential.
       ``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or 
     biomass power.''.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to focus the attention of 
my colleagues and our country on the environmental health and energy 
efficiency of our Nation's schools.
  Throughout this debate, we have come to the floor to propose 
solutions for improving student achievement and ensuring that all of 
our children are provided with a world-class education. I am very 
pleased that we have made a lot of progress in coming to consensus on 
some basic tenets--that all children should be guaranteed an education 
focused around high academic standards, that every child should be 
taught by a quality teacher, and that we should hold educators 
accountable for making sure their students can meet these high 
standards.
  There is something we have not yet addressed; that is, to ensure that 
our children attend schools that are in good working condition and that 
are conducive to their learning and not detrimental to their health. I 
was disappointed that we were not successful in our efforts to provide 
needed Federal support for repairs and renovations to modernize our 
schools, and we have done a disservice to many of our children.
  In the State of New York, for example, we have children who attend 
schools that are in deplorable condition. Approximately 67 percent of 
all the schools in New York have at least one inadequate building 
feature. That can mean a leaky roof or poor plumbing or electrical 
shortages, windows that are broken, heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning systems that just don't work. What I hope we can do is to 
take a hard look at what the effects of these building conditions are 
on our children. We have children in New York attending classes in 
school buildings that average 50 years of age. In upstate New York the 
average is 38. These are the problems that are brought to my attention 
every single day--leaking roofs and bad filtration conditions that are 
beginning to demonstrate health problems in the schools.
  In central New York, the Council for Occupational Health and Safety 
began receiving complaints from teachers and students about a 
particular school. When the director inspected the building, he 
discovered that the air filtration system was filled with hundreds of 
colonies of fungus and that another part of the system was filled with 
stagnant water. At another school in Cohoes, NY, near Albany, the 
ventilation problem in the city's middle school was so bad that the 
school administration banned the use of chalk because the dust hung in 
the air, making it difficult for students and teachers to breathe.
  I recently received an e-mail from a father in Schenectady, NY. He 
wrote me the following:

       My children attend school in the city of Schenectady. At 
     the 90-year-old elementary school they attend, peeling lead-
     based paint, a malfunctioning heat system resulting in 80-90 
     degree classroom temperatures, and general disrepair have 
     been the norm for years. There have been persistent roof 
     leaks, resulting in molds growing in the building. 
     Maintenance of playgrounds to conform to safety standards has 
     been neglected. Many of these problems continue to exist 
     today. I believe that the primary cause of this is the highly 
     constrained financial resources that are available in aging, 
     low- to moderate-income urban communities.

  This morning, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reported that 
tomorrow in Pittsford, NY, there will be a 3-hour public forum on the 
impact that environmental hazards in school buildings have on teachers 
and students. This forum in Pittsford is part of a series of EPA 
informational sessions on environmental problems in our schools. These 
stories from New York reflect a serious problem across our country.
  A 1996 GAO study found that 15,000 schools in the United States have 
indoor pollution or ventilation problems affecting over 11 million 
children. Furthermore, as many as 25 million students nationwide are 
attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory environmental 
condition.
  This is something I don't think we can afford to ignore because 
indoor air can have an even greater effect on children than the air 
they breathe outside.

[[Page 10187]]

The EPA warns that Americans spend 90 percent of our time indoors. With 
children spending much of their day inside schools, that pollution can 
add up, and it can be a greater stress on them than anything they 
encounter outside. We know that poor indoor air quality severely 
impacts children's health.
  According to the American Lung Association, asthma accounts for 10 
million lost schooldays annually and is the leading cause of school 
absenteeism attributed to a chronic condition. Furthermore, a survey 
conducted by New York City Health Schools Working Group found that 40 
percent of schoolchildren who had a preexisting condition, such as 
asthma, worsened from their being in school.
  In addition to facing poor air quality, we also know that our 
children are exposed to chemicals, lead paint, and other hazardous 
substances. In fact, the GAO found in their 1996 study that two-thirds 
of schools were not in compliance with requirements to remove or 
correct hazardous substances, including asbestos, lead, underground 
storage tanks, and radon. And experts believe that exposure during 
childhood, when children are developing, may have severe long-term 
effects.
  In Monroe County, NY, a group called Rochesterians Against the Misuse 
of Pesticides have been doing surveys of indoor and outdoor pesticide 
use by schools since 1987. That latest survey in 1999 showed that 
schools in Rochester were using 72 different pesticides. That is, as 
one member of the group said, a real chemical soup to which our 
children are being subjected.
  What I am hoping is that we can build on the work that has been done 
in some places, such as Rochester, and the Healthy Schools Network in 
Albany, NY, and try to find out more about what happens to our 
children's health inside our schools.
  The American Public Health Association recently passed a resolution 
calling for further research on the extent and impact of children's 
environmental health and safety risks and exposures at schools and 
prevention measures, including research sponsored by the U.S. 
Department of Education.
  My amendment would authorize $2 million for a study conducted by the 
Department of Education in conjunction with the Centers for Disease 
Control and the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the health 
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on 
the children who attend those schools.
  This study would specifically call for researchers to determine the 
characteristics of our public schools that contribute to unhealthy 
environments, including the prevalence of such characteristics as the 
ones I have just mentioned in our elementary and secondary school 
buildings. How can we better monitor the situation and what steps can 
we take or help our local school districts take to remedy this 
situation?
  Hand in hand with our environmental health is the issue of energy 
efficiency because many of the problems are from old ventilating 
systems, old heating systems that are not in working order and cause 
health problems, as well as costing more in energy than should be the 
norm.
  In this amendment, we are asking that we help our schools deal with 
their energy costs. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 
schools can save 25 to 30 percent of the money they currently spend on 
energy--namely, about $1.5 billion--through better building design and 
use of energy-efficient appliances, renewable energy technologies, and 
just plain improvements to operations and maintenance.
  I recently visited the John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Kingston, 
NY. It is leading the way in our State in making schools more energy 
efficient and saving money. In fact, last year, the Kingston School 
District saved $395,000 through energy-efficient upgrades.
  When I was there, I released a brochure that we are sending to every 
school superintendent in New York called ``Smart Schools Save Energy, 
Promoting Energy Efficiency in New York State Schools,'' with a lot of 
good ideas about how to go about making the schools energy efficient 
and saving money to be used on computers or other important needs of 
the school.
  What we have been told is that many school personnel want to do what 
is being recommended in this brochure and is known to many school 
districts, but they need a little bit of help to do it. They need that 
startup grant money that will enable them to make the changes that will 
save them money. This amendment would provide grants to States to help 
districts make their buildings healthier and more energy efficient.
  By incorporating provisions of legislation I recently introduced, the 
Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001, this amendment would 
provide funds for States to provide information and materials to 
schools, help States organize, and conduct programs for school board 
members, school district personnel, architects, engineers, and others, 
and would help bring our schools up to code, the codes that will make 
our schools healthier and a better investment when it comes to energy 
usage, to install insulation, energy-efficient fixtures, and the like.
  With these Federal funds, we can make our schools more energy 
efficient which can save money which can then be used as reinvestment 
in our children's education that all of us in this body support.
  I thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg for the opportunity to offer this 
important amendment. I also reference the energy legislation that has 
been introduced by Senators Murkowski and Bingaman which include 
provisions to bring this about.
  I appreciate the opportunity for the entire Senate to vote on this 
amendment which will be a healthy vote as well as an energy-efficient 
vote on behalf of our children. No parent should have to worry about 
sending a child to school because it is a health risk. No school 
district should have to worry more about paying the lighting bill or 
the heating bill than paying their teachers.
  Understanding the effects of unhealthy classrooms and school 
buildings and moving toward energy efficiency goes hand in hand with 
the high standards we set in this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for healthy schools, energy-efficient schools, and better 
educational outcomes for all of our children.
  I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be laid aside and await a 
vote which I hope we will be able to schedule for next week. I yield 
back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for 
giving focus to two extremely important issues. One deals with the 
inefficiencies in many of the older schools, in urban and rural areas. 
This is something that should be done. It is not being done. It is 
particularly important to consider since we have been unable to accept 
a school construction amendment that would deal with the modernization 
of our schools.
  With all the challenges we are facing in energy efficiency, having 
visited so many of the schools in many of the older communities in my 
own State, this is something that can make an enormous difference. I do 
not know whether the Senator has had the experience, but in 
Massachusetts we had an energy expert come in and look at our home down 
on Cape Cod. The recommendations they made and the savings that could 
be achieved were truly remarkable. We are not getting that kind of 
evaluation which is available in the private sector in the school 
districts. We hope school districts will go ahead.
  The Senator's amendment recognizes there are other priorities for 
school boards, and there is a national interest in having greater 
efficiency.
  In the area of health, this is enormously important. I think all of 
us--I know the Senator has--worked in the area of lead paint poisoning 
and the impact that has particularly on smaller children, situations 
where older children bring the lead paint dust back to their homes, and 
they can be consumed by infants and the potential health hazards to 
these children is dramatic.

[[Page 10188]]

  There is asbestos, radon, and new chemicals which we all know about 
in the industrial areas that are being given attention in OSHA. The 
schools are increasingly exposed to these challenges. It is having an 
impact.
  I commend the Senator for bringing this up. In Woburn, MA--the 
Senator probably read the book ``A Civil Action,'' or saw the movie on 
it. We had the greatest concentration of children's leukemia in the 
country. It was in a very narrow area. This was adjacent to conditions 
which were illustrated in ``A Civil Action.'' The families who were 
involved were similar in situations.
  We knew a certain distance upstream from where the wells were they 
were dumping these old wooden casks which had been filled with acids 
used in tanneries in Lynn where they process it, and some magnificent 
leather products were produced there. But they were dumping, and these 
wells were anywhere from 10 to 15 miles downstream. There were open 
wells, and families were using the wells, and the children were getting 
leukemia. It was as certain as we are standing here, it was related to 
these chemical problems. We had the best toxicologists in the world 
examine the water, and they could not find anything wrong with it--
nothing. The best from CDC, the best universities and toxicologists, 
have never been able to detect a particular ingredient that caused it, 
but we knew it was happening.
  The Senator is pointing out what I have seen. We know it is happening 
in some schools. The children are getting sick, it is affecting their 
ability to learn. We can benefit from this effort.
  I thank the Senator and look forward to supporting this amendment 
when we have a chance. I urge our colleagues to accept it. I thank her 
for bringing it to the floor this evening.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 1 on Monday, June 11, at 2:30, and Senator 
Bond be recognized to call up amendment No. 476, with 30 minutes for 
debate, equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree 
amendments in order; following debate, the amendment be laid aside and 
Senator Landrieu be recognized to call up amendment No. 475 regarding 
title I, with 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, with no 
second-degree amendments in order.
  Further, that at 5:15 the Senate vote in relation to Landrieu 
amendment No. 475; and, following the disposition of the Landrieu 
amendment, there be 4 minutes for closing debate to a vote in relation 
to the Bond amendment No. 476.
  Further, on Tuesday, June 12, the Senate resume consideration of the 
education bill at 9:30, and Senator Gregg be recognized to call up 
amendment No. 536, and there be 4 hours of debate equally divided, with 
no second-degree amendments in order.
  Further, following the disposition of the Gregg amendment, Senator 
Carper be recognized to call up amendment No. 518, with no second-
degree amendments in order, and there be 2 hours of debate equally 
divided; that upon the use of the time, the Senate vote in relation to 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In light of this agreement, there will be no further 
rollcalls this evening. There will be two rollcall votes beginning at 
5:15 on Monday, June 11.


 Amendments Nos. 557, as modified, 483, as modified, 404, as modified, 
556, as modified, 624, as modified, 548, and 415, en bloc, to amendment 
                                  358

  Mr. KENNEDY. I have a package of cleared amendments. I ask unanimous 
consent it be in order for those amendments to be considered en bloc, 
any applicable modifications be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to, 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc:
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 557, 483, 404, 556, 624, 548, and 415.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments, 
en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                     AMENDMENT NO. 557 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To provide additional limitations on national testing of 
   students, national testing and certification of teachers, and the 
           collection of personally identifiable information)

       On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 16. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) National Testing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act or any other provision of law, and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), no funds available to the 
     Department or otherwise available under this Act may be used 
     for any purpose relating to a nationwide test in reading, 
     mathematics, or any other subject, including test 
     development, pilot testing, field testing, test 
     implementation, test administration, test distribution, or 
     any other purpose.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     following:
       ``(A) The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
     carried out under sections 411 through 413 of the Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010-9012).
       ``(B) The Third International Math and Science Study 
     (TIMSS).
       ``(b) Mandatory National Testing or Certification of 
     Teachers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or 
     any other provision of law, no funds available to the 
     Department or otherwise available under this Act may be used 
     for any purpose relating to a mandatory nationwide test or 
     certification of teachers or education paraprofessionals, 
     including any planning, development, implementation, or 
     administration of such test or certification.
       ``(c) Development of Database of Personally Identifiable 
     Information.--Nothing in this Act (other than section 
     1308(b)) shall be construed to authorize the development of a 
     nationwide database of personally identifiable information on 
     individuals involved in studies or other collections of data 
     under this Act.''.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 483 AS MODIFIED

      (Purpose: To establish a National Panel on Teacher Mobility)

       Beginning on page 380, strike line 5 and all that follows 
     through page 383, line 21, and insert the following:

     SEC. 202. TEACHER MOBILITY.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Teacher Mobility Act''.
       (b) Mobility of Teachers.--Title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), as 
     amended by section 201, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

                       ``PART D--TEACHER MOBILITY

     ``SEC. 2401. NATIONAL PANEL ON TEACHER MOBILITY.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established a panel to be 
     known as the National Panel on Teacher Mobility (referred to 
     in this section as the `panel').
       ``(b) Membership.--The panel shall be composed of 9 members 
     appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall appoint the 
     members from among practitioners and experts with experience 
     relating to teacher mobility, such as teachers, members of 
     teacher certification or licensing bodies, faculty of 
     institutions of higher education that prepare teachers, and 
     State policymakers with such experience.
       ``(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the panel. Any vacancy in the panel 
     shall not affect the powers of the panel, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       ``(d) Duties.--
       ``(1) Study.--
       ``(A) In general.--The panel shall study strategies for 
     increasing mobility and employment opportunities for high 
     quality teachers, especially for States with teacher 
     shortages and States with districts or schools that are 
     difficult to staff.
       ``(B) Data and analysis.--As part of the study, the panel 
     shall evaluate the desirability and feasibility of State 
     initiatives that support teacher mobility by collecting data 
     and conducting effective analysis on--
       ``(i) teacher supply and demand;
       ``(ii) the development of recruitment and hiring strategies 
     that support teachers; and
       ``(iii) increasing reciprocity of licenses across States.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which all members of the panel have been appointed, the panel 
     shall submit to the Secretary and to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report containing the results of the 
     study.

[[Page 10189]]

       ``(e) Powers.--
       ``(1) Hearings.--The panel may hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the panel considers advisable to 
     carry out the objectives of this section.
       ``(2) Information from federal agencies.--The panel may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the panel considers necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section. Upon request of a majority of the 
     members of the panel, the head of such department or agency 
     shall furnish such information to the panel.
       ``(3) Postal services.--The panel may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       ``(f) Personnel.--
       ``(1) Travel expenses.--The members of the panel shall not 
     receive compensation for the performance of services for the 
     panel, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 
     diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for 
     employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the panel. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the Secretary may accept the voluntary and 
     uncompensated services of members of the panel.
       ``(2) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal 
     Government employee may be detailed to the panel without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       ``(g) Permanent Committee.--Section 14 of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     panel.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 2002.
       ``(2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this subsection shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.''.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 404 AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To provide for the funding of suicide prevention programs)

       On page 507, line 4, strike ``and''.
       On page 507, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 507, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(5) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years to 
     carry out section 4126.''.
       On page 565, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 4126. SUICIDE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants and contracts to elementary schools and secondary 
     schools for the purpose of--
       ``(A) developing and implementing suicide prevention 
     programs; and
       ``(B) to provide training to school administrators, 
     faculty, and staff, with respect to identifying the warning 
     signs of suicide and creating a plan of action for helping 
     those at risk.
       ``(2) Award basis.--The Secretary shall award grants and 
     contracts under this section--
       ``(A) on a competitive basis;
       ``(B) in a manner that complies with the requirements under 
     subsection (c) of section 520E of the Public Health Service 
     Act; and
       ``(C) in a manner that ensures that such grants and 
     contracts are equitably distributed throughout a State among 
     elementary schools and secondary schools located in rural, 
     urban, and suburban areas in the State.
       ``(3) Policy dissemination.--The Secretary shall 
     disseminate to elementary schools and secondary schools any 
     Department of Education policy guidance regarding the 
     prevention of suicide.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may 
     be used for the following purposes:
       ``(1) To provide training for elementary school and 
     secondary school administrators, faculty, and staff with 
     respect to identifying the warning signs of suicide and 
     creating a plan of action for helping those at risk.
       ``(2) To provide education programs for elementary school 
     and secondary school students that are developmentally 
     appropriate for the students' grade levels and are designed 
     to meet any unique cultural and language needs of the 
     particular student populations.
       ``(3) To conduct evaluations to assess the impact of 
     programs and policies assisted under this section in order to 
     enhance the development of the programs.
       ``(c) Confidentiality.--Policies, programs, training 
     materials, and evaluations developed and implemented under 
     subsection (b) shall address issues of safety and 
     confidentiality for the victim and the victim's family in a 
     manner consistent with applicable Federal and State laws.
       ``(d) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to be awarded a grant or 
     contract under this section for any fiscal year, an 
     elementary school or secondary school shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       ``(A) describe the need for funds provided under the grant 
     or contract and the plan for implementation of any of the 
     activities described in subsection (b);
       ``(B) provide measurable goals for and expected results 
     from the use of the funds provided under the grant or 
     contract; and
       ``(C) incorporate appropriate remuneration for 
     collaborating partners.
       ``(e) Applicability.--The provisions of this part (other 
     than this section) shall not apply to this section.''.
                                  ____



                     amendment no. 556 as modified

 (Purpose: To provide additional protections and limitations regarding 
         private schools, religious schools, and home schools)

       On page 29, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 16. ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS AND PROTECTIONS REGARDING 
                   PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS, AND HOME SCHOOLS.

       ``(a) Applicability to Home Schools.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall be construed to affect home schools, whether or not a 
     home school is treated as a home school or a private school 
     under State law or to require any home schooled student to 
     participate in any assessment referenced in this Act.
       ``(2) Construction of superseded provision.--Section 11 
     shall have no force or effect.
       ``(b) Applicability to Private Schools.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to affect any private school that does 
     not receive funds or services under this Act, or to require 
     any student who attends a private school that does not 
     receive funds or services under this Act to participate in 
     any assessment referenced in this Act.
       ``(c) Applicability to Private, Religions, and Home Schools 
     of General Provision Regarding Recipient Nonpublic Schools.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act or any other Act 
     administered by the Secretary shall be construed to permit, 
     allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any 
     aspect of any private, religious, or home school, whether or 
     not a home school is treated as a private school or home 
     school under State law. This section shall not be construed 
     to bar private, religious, and home schools from 
     participation in programs and services under this Act.
       ``(2) Construction of superseded provision.--Section 12 
     shall have no force or effect.
       ``(d) Applicability of Gun-Free School Provisions to Home 
     Schools.--Notwithstanding any provision of part B of title 
     IV, for purposes of that part, the term `school' shall not 
     include a home school, regardless of whether or not a home 
     school is treated as a private school or home school under 
     State law.
       ``(e) State and LEA Mandates Regarding Private and Home 
     School Curricula.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     require any State or local educational agency that receives 
     funds under this Act from mandating, directing, or 
     controlling the curriculum of a private or home school, 
     regardless of whether or not a home school is treated as a 
     private school or home school under State law, nor shall any 
     funds under this Act be used for this purpose.''
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT NO. 624 AS MODIFIED

    (Purpose: To provide for the identification and recognition of 
   exemplary schools, and for demonstration projects to evaluate the 
                performance of such Blue Ribbon Schools)

       On page 776, line 17, strike ``education'' and all that 
     follows through the end of line 19 and insert the following: 
     ``education and the identification and recognition of 
     exemplary schools and programs such as Blue Ribbon Schools, 
     that are designed to promote the improvement of elementary 
     and secondary education nationally.
       `` `(e) Blue Ribbon Schools Dissemination Demonstration.--
       `` `(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     demonstration projects to evaluate the effectiveness of using 
     the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools to improve the 
     educational outcomes of elementary and secondary schools that 
     fail to make adequate yearly progress, as defined in the plan 
     of the State under section 1111(b)(2)(B).
       `` `(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date on which the Secretary implements the initial 
     demonstration projects under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report regarding the effectiveness 
     of the demonstration projects.
       `` `(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be 
     necessary in each of the 7 fiscal years thereafter.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 548

            (Purpose: To limit the application of the bill)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

[[Page 10190]]

       ``Sec.  . (a) Whereas the Bible is the best selling, most 
     widely read, and most influential book in history;
       (b) Whereas familiarity with the nature of religious 
     beliefs is necessary to understanding history and 
     contemporary events;
       (c) Whereas the Bible is worthy of study for its literary 
     and historic qualities;
       (d) Whereas many public schools throughout America are 
     currently teaching the Bible as literature and/or history;
       Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that nothing in this 
     Act or any provision of law shall discourage the teaching of 
     the Bible in any public school.''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 415

                (Purpose: To establish a grant program)

       On page 565, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 4126. GRANTS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS AND MENTAL 
                   HEALTH SYSTEMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements to State educational 
     agencies, local educational agencies, or Indian tribes, for 
     the purpose of increasing student access to quality mental 
     health care by developing innovative programs to link local 
     school systems with the local mental health system.
       ``(b) Duration.--With respect to a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement awarded under this section, the period 
     during which payments under such award are made to the 
     recipient may not exceed 5 years.
       ``(c) Interagency agreements.--
       ``(1) Designation of lead agency.--The recipient of each 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement shall designate a 
     lead agency to direct the establishment of an interagency 
     agreement among local educational agencies, juvenile justice 
     authorities, mental health agencies, and other relevant 
     entities in the State, in collaboration with local entities 
     and parents and guardians of students.
       ``(2) Contents.--The interagency agreement shall ensure the 
     provision of the services to a student described in 
     subsection (e) specifying with respect to each agency, 
     authority or entity--
       ``(A) the financial responsibility for the services;
       ``(B) the conditions and terms of responsibility for the 
     services, including quality, accountability, and coordination 
     of the services; and
       ``(C) the conditions and terms of reimbursement among the 
     agencies, authorities or entities that are parties to the 
     interagency agreement, including procedures for dispute 
     resolution.
       ``(d) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this section, a 
     State educational agency, local educational agency, or Indian 
     tribe shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(2) Content.--An application submitted under this section 
     shall--
       ``(A) describe the program to be funded under the grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement;
       ``(B) explain how such program will increase access to 
     quality mental health services for students;
       ``(C) explain how the applicant will establish a crisis 
     intervention program to provide immediate mental health 
     services to the school community when necessary;
       ``(D) provide assurances that--
       ``(i) persons providing services under the grant, contract 
     or cooperative agreement are adequately trained to provide 
     such services;
       ``(ii) the services will be provided in accordance with 
     subsection (e); and
       ``(iii) teachers, principal administrators, and other 
     school personnel are aware of the program;
       ``(E) explain how the applicant will support and integrate 
     existing school-based services with the program to provide 
     appropriate mental health services for students; and
       ``(F) explain how the applicant will establish a program 
     that will support students and the school in maintaining an 
     environment conducive to learning.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--A State educational agency, local 
     educational agency, or Indian tribe, that receives a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement under this section shall 
     use amounts made available through such grant, contract or 
     cooperative agreement to--
       ``(1) enhance, improve, or develop collaborative efforts 
     between school-based service systems and mental health 
     service systems to provide, enhance, or improve prevention, 
     diagnosis, and treatment services to students;
       ``(2) enhance the availability of crisis intervention 
     services, appropriate referrals for students potentially in 
     need of mental health services and on going mental health 
     services;
       ``(3) provide training for the school personnel and mental 
     health professionals who will participate in the program 
     carried out under this section;
       ``(4) provide technical assistance and consultation to 
     school systems and mental health agencies and families 
     participating in the program carried out under this section;
       ``(5) provide linguistically appropriate and culturally 
     competent services; and
       ``(6) evaluate the effectiveness of the program carried out 
     under this section in increasing student access to quality 
     mental health services, and make recommendations to the 
     Secretary about sustainability of the program.
       ``(f) Distribution of Awards.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded 
     under subsection (a) are equitably distributed among the 
     geographical regions of the United States and between urban 
     and rural populations.
       ``(g) Other Services.--Any services provided through 
     programs established under this section must supplement and 
     not supplant existing Mental Health Services, including any 
     services required to be provided under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).
       ``(h) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall evaluate each 
     program carried out by a State educational agency, local 
     educational agency, or Indian tribe, under this section and 
     shall disseminate the findings with respect to each such 
     evaluation to appropriate public and private entities.
       ``(i) Reporting.--Nothing in Federal law shall be 
     construed--
       ``(1) to prohibit an entity involved with the program from 
     reporting a crime that is committed by a student, to 
     appropriate authorities; or
       ``(2) to prevent State law enforcement and judicial 
     authorities from exercising their responsibilities with 
     regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes 
     committed by a student.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2002, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 2003 through 2005.


                     amendment no. 404, as modified

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, every year, thousands of youth die in 
the United States, not from cancer or car accidents, but by their own 
hand, they make the choice that they want to die, and they take their 
own life. Statistics show that suicide is the 3rd leading cause of 
death among those 15 to 25 years of age, and it is the 6th leading 
cause of death among those 5 to 14 years of age. 5 year old children, 
killing themselves! But it's the truth. Statistics show that more than 
13 of every 100,000 teenagers took their life in 1990, and that 
number's rising every year. Many think that these are isolated 
incidents, but they aren't. It is estimated that 500,000 teenagers try 
to kill themselves every year, and about 5,000 succeed.
  In my home State of Alaska, suicide is the greatest cause of death 
among high school age youths. In fact, Alaska's suicide rate is more 
than twice the rate for the entire United States. Recent studies have 
shown that girls are more likely to report suicide thoughts, plans, and 
attempts than are boys. Among Alaskan girls, 24.9 percent have 
seriously thought about suicide, 20.5 percent have made a plan for 
suicide, and 10 percent have reported a suicide attempt. Among Alaskan 
boys, 12.5 percent have seriously thought about suicide, 10.8 percent 
have made a plan for suicide, and 5.3 percent have reported a suicide 
attempt. Alarmingly, Alaska Native teens attempt suicide at four times 
the rate of non-Native teens.
  Only recently have the knowledge and tools become available to 
approach suicide as a preventable problem with realistic opportunities 
to save lives. Last month the Surgeon General issued a ``National 
Strategy for Suicide Prevention.'' The ``National Strategy'' requires a 
variety of organizations and individuals to become involved in suicide 
prevention and emphasizes coordination of resources and culturally 
appropriate services at all levels of government--Federal, State, 
tribal and community.
  One of the objectives included in the Surgeon General's ``National 
Strategy'' is developing and implementing suicide prevention programs. 
His goal is to ensure the integration of suicide prevention into 
organizations and agencies that have access to groups that may be at 
risk. The objectives also address the need for planning at both the 
State and local levels, the need for technical assistance in the 
development of suicide prevention programs and the need for ongoing 
evaluation. The amendment I am proposing today would help implement 
these objectives. It would allow for state and local educational 
agencies to create suicide prevention programs through the Safe and 
Drug Free

[[Page 10191]]

School and Communities Program. Research has shown that many suicides 
are preventable; however, effective suicide prevention programs require 
commitment and resources. I feel that the Federal Government should 
provide the resources and support to States and localities.
  My amendment would allow the Secretary of Education to award $25 
million worth of grants to elementary and secondary schools for the 
purpose of: (1) developing and implementing suicide prevention 
programs; and (2) provide for the training of school administrators, 
faculty and staff with respect to identifying the warning signs of 
suicide and creating a plan of action for helping those at risk.
  This is a small step in the right direction. It is time that we do 
something to fight the suicide epidemic. With an unacceptably high 
suicide rate, more attention must be focused on both the causes and 
solutions to this growing tragedy. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. America's youth are crying out for help.


                     Amendment No. 624, as Modified

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire for accepting amendment No. 624, an amendment to continue the 
Blue Ribbon Schools program and authorize a demonstration program to 
investigate how we can implement the best practices of Blue Ribbon 
Schools in schools that this bill identifies as needing improvement.
  The United States Department of Education awarded the first Blue 
Ribbon designations to middle and high schools in 1982. The first 
elementary schools received the designation in 1985. Since that time, 
we have identified thousands of exemplary schools that have undergone a 
thorough self-assessment involving parents, teachers, and community 
members; evaluated their practices in areas such as school leadership, 
professional development, curriculum, and student support services; and 
proven that these practices work through performance on standardized 
tests and other indicators. I think every member of this body can 
attest to the quality of the Blue Ribbon Schools in his or her state.
  The legislation before the Senate would create two new awards 
programs, the Achievement in Education Awards and the No Child Left 
Behind Awards. Mr. President, I did not offer this amendment in 
opposition to the Department offering these awards. In fact, I support 
the recognition of schools that significantly improve student 
achievement. However, these two awards are outcomes-based, focused on 
which schools improve test scores from one year to another. The Blue 
Ribbon program offers a contrast. It recognizes schools that work with 
parents and community members to identify shortcomings within the 
school and design programs to successfully address those shortcomings. 
I believe that we should continue to recognize these schools.
  For the Blue Ribbon Program to continue and thrive, we must commit to 
applying the information we gather from Blue Ribbon designees to offer 
schools in need of improvement. This process works. Beaufort Elementary 
School was included in a list of the 200 worst schools in South 
Carolina during the 1994-95 school year. Yet instead of relying on an 
academic or bureaucratic improvement process, the school constructed a 
road map for reform using the successful practices of Blue Ribbon 
Schools. Less then six years later, Beaufort Elementary received a Blue 
Ribbon designation of its own, symbolizing a 180-degree turnaround. 
Another school that has successfully used this process to generate 
positive school reform is Handle Middle School in Columbia, SC. I hope 
all of my colleagues will take the time to read the May 21, 2001 issue 
of Time magazine that recognizes Hand Middle School as the Middle 
School of the Year. The article does a much better job than I could of 
describing a school that implemented changes based on the successful 
practices of Blue Ribbon schools and rallied the community to create a 
better, more productive learning environment for students. These 
schools now serve as a model for other low-performing schools who are 
working tirelessly to reverse their fortunes.
  I have included new authorization in my amendment to allow the 
Department of Education to initiate demonstration projects that would 
use the best practices of Blue Ribbon Schools to turn around schools 
that fail to make average yearly progress. This is an area that the 
Department has neglected since the inception of the Blue Ribbon 
Program. As we speak, filing cabinets full of Blue Ribbon applications 
containing information on research-based educational practices that 
work are doing little else but gathering dust. Let's take this 
information and get it out to schools in need of improvement and see 
how it works.
  This is not a bureaucratic or regimented process. This is not a 
process that involves Federal or state governments mandating one 
approach over another. This is not a process that attempts to reinvent 
the wheel. This would be a process that disseminates information on 
practices that we know are effective. I envision schools first 
identifying an area for development--whether it be a new reading 
curriculum, teacher mentoring or a dropout prevention program. Next, 
they are able to examine records from Blue Ribbon Schools that have 
implemented similar programs and decide which approach best fits their 
own needs. Because these programs come from Blue Ribbon Schools, they 
are researched-based and have been favorably reviewed by educational 
experts. I have also required the Secretary to report to Congress on 
the effectiveness of these demonstration projects 3 years after the 
demonstration begins, so we will know if this process is working.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We have 
been making important progress. I am not sure we can say yet tonight 
that the end is quite in sight, but hopefully we can say that at the 
early part at the end of the day on Tuesday we might be able to see a 
glimmer of hope for reaching a final disposition of this legislation.
  I thank all colleagues for their cooperation, and I thank my friend 
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and, as always, the Senator from 
Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, before going to morning business, I 
compliment the managers of this legislation. It is obvious they are 
both veterans and understand the legislative process. We have made 
great progress the last 2 days.
  As Senator Kennedy has said, next week we should be able to finish 
this bill with a little bit of luck.

                          ____________________