[Congressional Record: June 13, 2001 (Senate)] [Page S6147-S6208] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr13jn01-136] BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT 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. 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. Clinton modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment No. 358), to provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school buildings on children and to establish the Healthy and High Performance Schools Program. Cantwell modified amendment No. 630 (to amendment No. 358), to provide for additional requirements with regard to the integration of education technology resources. Hollings amendment No. 798 (to amendment No. 358), to permit States to waive certain testing requirements. Gregg (for Santorum) amendment No. 799 (to amendment No. 358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding science education. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now be 40 minutes for closing debate on the Santorum amendment No. 799 and the Hollings amendment numbered 798. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we resume consideration of the education authorization bill, we have 40 minutes of debate on the Santorum and Hollings amendments concurrently, with two rollcall votes at approximately 9:40 this morning, and votes throughout the day, as well into the evening, as the Senate works to complete action on the education bill this week. If the bill is completed on Thursday, there will be no rollcall votes on Friday. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum. Amendments Nos. 798 and 799 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my amendment which will be voted on in roughly 40 minutes. This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences-- frankly, two rather innocuous sentences--that hopefully this Senate will embrace: ``It is the sense of the Senate that-- ``(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable [[Page S6148]] theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and ``(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested. Our knowledge of science is not absolute, obviously. We continue to test theories. Over the centuries, there were theories that were once assumed to be true and have been proven, through further revelation of scientific investigation and testing, to be not true. One of the things I thought was important in putting this forward was to make sure the Senate of this country, obviously one of the greatest, if not the greatest, deliberative bodies on the face of the Earth, was on record saying we are for this kind of intellectual freedom; we are for this kind of discussion going on; it will enhance the quality of science education for our students. I will read three points made by one of the advocates of this thought, a man named David DeWolf, as to the advantages of teaching this controversy that exists. He says: Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of biological origins in the science classroom. First, this approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself, both because it presents more accurate information about the state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way. Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often disagree about how to interpret their data. By presenting this scientific controversy realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing interpretations in light of evidence--a skill they will need as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion within the context of a pluralistic society. I think there are many benefits to this discussion that we hope to encourage in science classrooms across this country. I frankly don't see any down side to this discussion--that we are standing here as the Senate in favor of intellectual freedom and open and fair discussion of using science--not philosophy and religion within the context, within the context of science but science--as the basis for this determination. I will reserve the remainder of my time. I have a couple of other speakers I anticipate will come down and talk about this amendment, and I want to leave adequate time. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand correctly the Senator from Minnesota has the time from Senator Hollings? Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct. Mr. KENNEDY. So Senator Hollings has the 10 minutes. In his absence, the control of the time should be with the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair whether or not we have 10 minutes altogether on our side or 10 minutes for each of us. What is the understanding from last night? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 10 minutes, and the Senator from South Carolina controls 10 minutes, which has now been---- Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time if the Senator wants it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been tendered 10 minutes from the time allotted to Mr. Hollings. Amendment No. 798 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my hope is the Senator from South Carolina will be able to be here. He spoke last night on his amendment, and he can do it with more eloquence and more persuasively than can I. But I told him, since I support his amendment, I would be pleased to try to be a fill-in for him. I see my colleague is now here. I say to the Senator from South Carolina that I will be delighted to follow him, if he is ready to speak. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. I will follow my colleague. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina seek recognition? The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, this Senate, and I say it advisedly and respectfully, in a sense, we are the best off-Broadway show. We engage in these charades, set up these straw men and then knock them down, taking the credit for being so effective politically. We say we have a surplus; we don't have a surplus. The CBO projected in March a $23 billion surplus for this fiscal year. Mark it down, it will be between a $50 billion and $70 billion deficit. We haven't even passed an appropriations bill. We have not passed any kind of supplemental and already we can foresee, less than a week after the signing of the so-called tax cut--where we had no taxes to cut--a deficit of $50 billion to $70 billion. Now here is what we set up. We say: Wait a minute. In education there is no accountability; there is no testing. The people back home do not know what they need. If we can get some accountability and testing, we will learn what they need. Such fanciful nonsense. We have testing coming out of our ears. You mention the State, and I will give you the millions they are spending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this schedule printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Amount spent Revenue State on testing Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Numbe r of New tests sharing (in thous) 3-8 t ests required proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Alabama........................................... $4,000 B B B B B B 12 0 $24,915,437 Alaska............................................ 3,500 B B ............ B B B 10 2 8,629,291 Arizona........................................... 4,800 B B B B B B 12 0 28,129,355 Arkansas.......................................... 3,200 ........... . B B B B B 10 2 16,983,311 California........................................ 44,000 B B B B B B 12 0 161,769,009 Colorado.......................................... 10,700 R R B B B B 10 2 23,798,968 Connecticut....................................... 2,000 ........... . B ............ B ............ B 6 6 19,875,848 Delaware.......................................... 3,800 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 8,016,860 Florida........................................... 22,400 B B B B B B 12 0 68,848,688 Georgia........................................... 14,000 B B B B ............ B 10 2 43,139,333 Hawaii............................................ 1,400 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 9,961,299 Idaho............................................. 700 B B B B B B 12 0 11,393,934 Illinois.......................................... 16,500 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 57,731,557 Indiana........................................... 19,000 B ............ ............ B ............ B 6 6 31,207,328 Iowa.............................................. 0 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 17,424,763 Kansas............................................ 1,100 ........... . M R ............ M R 4 8 17,179,348 Kentucky.......................................... 8,100 B R M B R M 8 4 21,605,599 Louisiana......................................... 9,000 B B B B B B 12 0 24,579,091 Maine............................................. 3,300 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 10,704,063 Maryland.......................................... 17,100 B B B B B B 12 0 27,457,342 Massachusetts..................................... 20,000 R B ............ M B R 7 5 31,006,359 Michigan.......................................... 16,000 ........... . B R ............ R R 5 7 48,296,329 Minnesota......................................... 5,200 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 27,066,118 Mississippi....................................... 7,600 B B B B B B 12 0 18,198,252 Missouri.......................................... 13,400 R M ............ ............ R M 4 8 28,736,967 Montana........................................... 282 B ............ ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 9,161,562 [[Page S6149]] Nebraska.......................................... 1,650 ........... . R ............ ............ ............ R 2 10 12,374,005 Nevada............................................ 3,300 B B B ............ ............ B 8 4 13,876,879 New Hampshire..................................... 2,500 B ............ ............ B ............ ............ 4 8 10,802,081 New Jersey........................................ 17,000 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 37,746,447 New Mexico........................................ 650 B B B B B B 12 0 13,633,052 New York.......................................... 13,000 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 77,283,719 North Carolina.................................... 11,300 B B B B B B 12 0 39,659,706 North Dakota...................................... 208 ........... . B ............ B ............ B 6 6 7,883,693 Ohio.............................................. 12,300 ........... . B ............ B ............ ............ 4 8 53,078,486 Oklahoma.......................................... 2,500 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 20,932,225 Oregon............................................ 7,000 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 19,516,428 Pennsylvania...................................... 15,000 ........... . ............ B R ............ B 5 7 52,955,297 Rhode Island...................................... 2,300 R B ............ ............ R B 6 6 9,150,790 South Carolina.................................... 7,800 B B B B B B 12 0 22,849,169 South Dakota...................................... 720 ........... . B R ............ ............ B 5 7 8,412,279 Tennessee......................................... 15,600 B B B B B B 12 0 28,600,739 Texas............................................. 26,600 B B B B B B 12 0 108,915,567 Uutah............................................. 1,400 B B B B B B 12 0 17,026,566 Vermont........................................... 460 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 7,730,061 Virginia.......................................... 17,900 B B B B ............ B 10 2 34,846,313 Washington........................................ 7,700 B B ............ B B ............ 8 4 31,448,887 West Virginia..................................... 400 B B B B B B 12 0 12,494,530 Wisconsin......................................... 2,000 R B ............ ............ ............ B 5 7 27,306,317 Wyoming........................................... 1,700 ........... . B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 7,415,370 ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Total....................................... 422,070 ........... . ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 387 213 .............. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are spending $422 million this present year in testing back home. We have been testing since you were a little boy and I was a little boy. The folks back home know what is really needed. But here we come and say they don't know what they need and they never have had any accountability. We want to discover for them what schools are flunking and close those schools down, and in the meantime hurt the students who have never even had the course, so to speak. If you did not benefit, as a poor child, from the Women Infants and Children Program, you don't have a strong mind coming into this world. If your school did not receive Title I funding, if you didn't have access to a Head Start program, if you didn't get a good teacher, if your class was so big that you were unable to listen and learn, you are unprepared. All these programs figure into giving students the course and they are less than 50-percent funded. Now we are going to test students because we know from the debate they have not had the course. We haven't really gotten to the crux of the matter. Congress has decided what is needed. So we have had testing. Right to the point, if you really believe in harming students, as my distinguished colleague from Minnesota points out so vividly and forcefully, and you are merely trying to give yourself political credit, then vote against the amendment. That crowd that has been trying to abolish the Department of Education now comes in saying they are going to get responsibility in education, accountability, and set up a straw man and knock it over with a 7-year bureaucracy of $2.7 billion to $7 billion. That is what it costs. Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the Record this particular survey by the National Association of State Boards Of Education. If you believe in bureaucracy at the cost of some $7 billion, if you believe that Washington knows best, that the people back home don't know what they need--while we have heard on the floor about needs ranging from libraries to curricula to teachers to reducing class sizes to school construction to after-school programs--then don't vote for this amendment. Every Senator over the 7 weeks has put out the needs. But what we need to do is take that money, like revenue sharing, send it back to the local folks, and say: If you want to have testing, test. If you want to have further testing, do that. If you really think you need to increase the teachers' pay, if you need to hire more teachers, those kinds of things, then do it. But that is really assisting; not spending extra money. This is not an increase, this is giving flexibility to the money under the bill to address the needs back home. It is playing as if, fast forward 3 or 4 years, we have had the testing, we know what is needed, and we know what schools are flunking. I could flunk 30 or 40 in South Carolina this afternoon with this so-called quality test, and students do not have another school to go to and you cannot close their school down. So we spend billions, and we are in the same place as we are this minute. If you believe in that bureaucracy, if you believe in unfunded mandates, if you believe in one size fits all, if you believe in harming the children just to get political credit on the floor of the Senate, then vote against this amendment. But if you want to help the children back home and help the local school boards, if you want to help America advance education, then take this same program money and send it back on a revenue-sharing basis so that schools can address their needs, whether those needs be testing or otherwise. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Hollings amendment. Hearing the Senator from South Carolina makes me think that, our motto should be, perhaps: We should invest before we test. I think of what the American people said about Dr. King when he left the pulpit and went out into the community: He went out and walked his talk. I don't think we are walking our talk. If we were walking our talk, we would not only be demanding our tests, but we would be demanding that every child have an opportunity to do well on the tests. We have not done that, and I think Senator Hollings raises what I think is the most important question. I believe I am one of the few Senators who is troubled by this and agonizing over the question of whether or not the Federal Government should be telling the school board, the school district, which epitomizes the grassroots political culture of America: `You do not get to decide what is best.' We are telling them, every school district in America: You are going to test every child, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 every year, with consequences for your school and your school district depending on how these children do in these tests. What this amendment says is we should maybe have a little more faith in people at the school board level. We should have maybe a little more faith in people back in our States to decide what they think is best, and they should have the option on whether they want to do the testing or use the resources to help children. That is what this amendment says. I am all for national community standards for civil rights and human rights and for the first amendment and in making sure there is a floor for a educational commitment below which no poor child falls. I think that is what we are about as a nation. But I think when it comes to this kind of decision, is it right for the Federal Government literally to tell every school district what to do to test every child? I think we might rue the day we have voted for this. I struggle over the question right now. That is why I think this is such an important amendment. I fully support it. I yield the floor. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use. [[Page S6150]] The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, on the Santorum amendment, I hope all of our colleagues will vote in support of it. It talks about using good science to consider the teaching of biological evolution. I think the way the Senator described it, as well as the language itself, is completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with the best information that is before them. I think the Senator has expressed his views in support of the amendment and the reasons for it. I think they make eminently good sense. I intend to support that proposal. On the Hollings-Wellstone amendment, I listened, as I always try to do, to my friend and colleague from South Carolina. There is so much he says that makes very good sense, but I have to oppose the amendment. When he talks about the preparation of children, he makes a great deal of sense. In fact, if the children are denied the Women's, Infants', and Children's Program--the WIC Program--if they are denied the early nutrition, which is so important for the development of the mind, if they are denied the early learning experiences, which are absolutely instrumental in developing and shaping the mind, they lose opportunities. If we are only funding the Head Start Program at 40 percent, we are leaving 60 percent out. The Early Head Start Program is only funded at about 10 or 12 percent. If we take children who are denied all of those kinds of opportunities, unless they are enormously fortunate to have other kinds of sustained enforcement of educational experience and stimulating experience in terms of their home life, or other circumstances, we can ask whether children are arriving in school ready to learn. Some may be but many others may not. One of the most important developments over the period of the last 10 years has been the knowledge of what happens in the development of the brain. We had ``The Year of The Brain.'' It was on the front pages of magazines and newspapers and on television programs. We found that the early development aspects of the brain are absolutely essential where the neurons connect with the synapses and we have the development of the mind. One of the key aspects, that at least many of us have believed, is that not only is it important to leave no child behind in terms of the support of this bill to reach all 10 million children who will be eligible but also the investment in children at the early age, to which Senator Hollings spoke. But if we are going to continue to make that battle and struggle, we are going to have to, on the floor in the Senate and in appropriations, try to invest for the children so they are ready to learn. A number of States responded to the requirements of the title I program in 1994. We require testing in the elementary schools, middle schools, and in the high schools. Fifteen States are meeting that requirement at the present time. But most of the tests which exist in the States are more attuned to national standards rather than State standards. Forty-nine States have established their own standards. The purpose of this legislation is to try to develop a curriculum that will reflect those standards and have well-trained teachers who will use that curriculum and then examination of the students with well thought out tests that are really going to test not only what the child learns but the ability of the child to use concepts. That is why the average test that is being used at the State level is $6 or $7. The test we are trying to develop here, the provisions which are strengthened with the Wellstone amendment and the other requirements, averages $68 a test versus $6. Money doesn't answer everything in terms of being sure you are going to get a quality test, but part of the requirements we have for the use of the test is to be able to disaggregate it. At the current time, there are only three States that use disaggregated information. So you know in the class that there are various groups of students who aren't making it rather than just the test that uses the whole classroom. It is also important to disaggregate information so that you know more completely where the challenges are in terms of the students themselves in order to make progress and tie the curriculum into these types of features, and also to make sure we are going to have the development of the test developed by the States, in the States, for the States' standards. That is our purpose--not that they take off-the-shelf tests. Most of the States using the tests now are using the off-shelf-tests that are focused on national standards rather than State standards. That happens to be the reality. I don't question that in a number of States there are superintendents and school boards who think they are getting adequate information. But this is a much more comprehensive way of finding out what the children know and then hopefully developing the kinds of methodologies to equip the children to move ahead. That is really our purpose. We may not get it right, but that is certainly the purpose we intend. Finally, if the States are developing their own tests, and if they meet the standards which are included in this legislation and they conform with them, then they obviously meet those requirements. Then there is nothing further they have to do. Three States, as I said, disaggregate information and have a number of the items that are included in this bill. But by and large they are not in existence in other areas. If that is the case, and we believe assessments are a key aspect of all of the efforts we are trying to develop in this legislation--I know there are those who don't agree with that as a concept--we know that children are tested frequently. I can give you some cases in Lancaster, PA, where they test actually every 9 weeks in terms of what the children are learning during that period of time; and they alter and change the curriculum to try to give focus and attention to groups of students in those classes who are not making measurable progress. They have seen the absolutely extraordinary progress the schools have made in Lancaster as a result of it. If it is done right, done well, done effectively, it is a very important, positive instrument in terms of children's development. If it is not, then it can have the kind of unfortunate results that have been mentioned in this Chamber. It is our intention to try to do it right. We have built in enough legislation to do it. I think this is the way to go. I think we have a good bill. We have had good authorization. We are going to have the difficulty and challenge of getting the funding. That is an essential aspect of the continuing process as we move through the legislative process. We want to make sure that we are going to do it right. But I do not believe the Hollings-Wellstone amendment is consistent with the whole central thrust of this legislation. I, regretfully, oppose the amendment. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator's time has expired. Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to now ask for the yeas and nays. And then I will ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the amendments? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the remaining time, 15\1/2\ minutes. Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. [[Page S6151]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. If there is no one who wants to address the Senate, I suggest the absence of a quorum--I am sorry. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to use some of the time that is available for our side to talk a little about the bill. I have not said much in relation to this bill, but it certainly is one of the most important issues that we will talk about. We have a great opportunity to help make education stronger in our country. That is, of course, what we ought to be seeking to do. This discussion has gone on for a very long time. I hope we are nearing the end of the debate. I think we have spent nearly 4 weeks, off and on, on this proposition. It is time to bring it to a close. In my view, we have had an excessive amount of amendments; nevertheless, that is where we are. But now if we are really going to do our part, and if we are really going to be able to cause this to be something that is effective, then we need to focus a little bit, as we evaluate where we are, on what our goals are, what it is we are really seeking to do. I guess too often I get the notion that we get wrapped up around here in all the details, little items that mean something to someone, and we lose track of where it is we really want to go. What we ought to do is have a vision--hopefully, a fairly common vision--of what our goals are in terms of education, in terms of the role of the Federal Government in education, and to be able to measure what we are doing each day in terms of how we meet those goals. I think one of them that is quite important is, what is the role of the Federal Government in education? It has been my view, and continues to be my view, that the major responsibility for elementary and secondary education lies at the local level, lies with the community, lies with the school boards, and lies with the States. One of the reasons I think that is so important is there are very different needs in very different places because what you need in Chugwater, WY, is quite different than what you need in Pittsburgh, PA. They ought to be able to make those kinds of unique decisions locally. What is really needed to bring about change? We are all in favor of change, although I am not as pessimistic about schools as many people are. I think most of our schools do a pretty good job. One of the reasons I think that--and I realize this is not a broad sampling--is because of the young people who come to the Senate. They are evidence, it seems to me, that our schools are doing a pretty darn good job. We need to do better, and there are some schools that do better than others, but that ought to be part of our goal, to establish what is really needed to bring about change. Then we ought to measure it. I think too often when we get into these issues, much of our conversation begins to border on political rhetoric: Boy, if you are for education, then that's a great thing. But you have to kind of decide what it is that you are for. Everybody is for education. We have to talk a little bit about spending. This bill authorizes spending far beyond anything that we have ever thought about. Obviously, most of us would agree dollars alone don't bring about quality education. You can't have it without the dollars, but dollars alone don't do that. So I think there has to be some limit. With that, inevitably, goes a certain amount of direction and control from Washington. How much of that do you want? I think there are some things that we ought to think and talk about. As I understand it, the real purpose, as we started out with this S. 1, was to increase accountability for student performance. We do that some by testing. There has to be some accountability. We have to put out there funding, funding that really works and is not wasted, is not used up in bureaucracies. We have to have increased flexibility and local control if we really want to be able to deal with the problems that exist in our school systems. We need to empower parents to have a role in schools. We need there to be opportunities for students such as in charter schools. We need some changes in that respect. We need to provide options for students who are consistently failing or who are in danger at schools. We need to do something about that. But the responsibility really lies at the local level. That is why we elect school boards. That is why we have legislatures. We need to help, but there needs to be local flexibility. I think it is pretty clear from the debate that the bureaucracy and redtape have been real problems. My wife happens to be a special ed teacher. I can tell you, she spends more time with reports than is really necessary. When she ought to be working with the kids, she is having to fill out all these reports that come in and are required. There ought to be a limit to that. We ought to try to reduce the duplicative educational programs that are out there. Now over 50 percent of the Federal education dollars are spent on bureaucracy and overhead. That is unacceptable. The money needs to be there to help the kids. Burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates--talk to anybody who is an administrator at a school and see what they think about unfunded mandates and the burdens of regulation. We do not talk about that very much. We have had 150 amendments that bring about more regulations. We ought to make sure we avoid that. I think, again, we have to work to give the States and the locals unprecedented flexibility. The Federal Government has provided only about 6 or 7 percent of the funding for elementary and secondary education. We ought to do better than that. But keep in mind, the basic thrust is in the local community with the local dollars, the local decisions, the local leaders. That is where it belongs. We talk about schools failing. We ought to put a little responsibility on those who are responsible for those schools that are failing. Help them, yes, of course. But the idea that we are suddenly going to take over this whole educational system and change it, I don't think that is consistent with our notions of Government. So I just think we have a great opportunity. I think there are some very good things in this bill. I hope that we conclude it soon so we can get it moving and so we can get on to some other issues as well. But I hope we evaluate, as we go: What do we think the role of the Federal Government is? How should money be used that is sent to the local and State governments? How do we have accountability? And how, indeed, do we make sure this effort of ours is one that produces the best dividends and moves us towards our vision of what education in this country ought to be. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support of my amendment. I hope the Senate will overwhelmingly vote for and support the amendment that I have offered. The Senator from Wyoming was just talking about the role of the Federal Government in education. I was just thinking about the many visits I have made to school districts around my State. I have been to about 160 or 170 school districts in my State. We have about 500 school districts. I talked about education in many of those visits. Maybe other Senators have experienced the same thing, but when I talk about education in schools, when I talk about educational reform, superintendents and teachers tend to get a little stiff in front of me, tend to get a little tense, because they are living it. And here we are, on the outside, trying to tell them how to do it better. One of the reasons I go to those schools is to listen to the schoolteachers and to principals and superintendents, parents, and students. One of the things I hear more and more from people and parents and teachers in particular is, yes, we need to improve education, but we also need to look at what is coming into the educational system, the children coming into our system, particularly in our lowest performing schools, where children are coming in with many more profound problems than they did 20, 30, [[Page S6152]] 40, even 50 years ago, when we thought we had a pretty good educational system in the country. To sit here and say all the problems in our society, all the problems with our children are because they don't have a good education or there is not a good school, whatever the case may be, sort of laying all the blame on the schools for not producing educated children, in some respects, I believe, misses the mark or certainly doesn't tell the whole story of the problems that we are confronting as a culture and as a nation. We have a couple minutes before the vote, and I wanted to put my two cents in. For those teachers and administrators, people who work very hard in the school system, particularly the poor schools and schools that are in difficult neighborhoods, you are right; the schools are not the sole source of blame for having children who can't read coming out of them. I even argue in many cases they aren't the principal sources of blame or even a particularly big share of the blame. When we talk about educational reform, particularly leaving no child behind--and I support that--we need to look not just within the school system; we have to look outside the school system. We have to look at our culture. We have to look at the American family, our neighborhoods, at our popular culture, and the message being sent to the young children. We have to look at neighborhoods. And whether it is crime or the breakdown of the family or the breakdown of the community, the lack of economic opportunities, whatever the case may be--in most cases, it is all of those things--we need to recognize that education is just a piece of solving this puzzle for a child growing up in these very poor neighborhoods. I hope we don't walk away from here flexing our muscles, raising our hands, saying: We have now solved the problem; We have fixed the educational system and that alone is going to solve the problems we face in our poor and downtrodden communities. It will not, no matter how good our schools are. I always share this story of going to a high school in north Philadelphia, a very poor high school, a very poor neighborhood, a crime ridden neighborhood. I walked through that school. First I walked through the metal detectors. And I finally got to a classroom where, of the students going to the school, less than 5 percent were going to go on to some education beyond high school. I went into the classroom where those 5 percent were, and they were being talked to about their opportunities. They were all from public housing, poor neighborhoods. They could get a free ride to any school they wanted to go to. I remember talking to them about the opportunities they had and sort of seeing somewhat blank stares back at me. We got into a discussion. I said: What is your biggest fear? What is your biggest concern about the school you go to and your education? And the consensus developed was this: Getting to school alive every day. When you are an achiever in a group of people who do not achieve academically, you are a target. You can throw more money at that school, you can improve the quality of the teachers, you can have smaller class size, but if your concern is getting to school alive, we are missing the boat somewhere. I want to step back, as we hopefully will celebrate passage of this bill and say that we have done great things to help children. If we don't get to the issues outside of the school, throwing more money into the school is whistling through the graveyard at night. It isn't going to solve the problem. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been interested in the debate surrounding the teaching of evolution in our schools. I think that Senator Santorum's amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment of this topic in the classroom. It is important that students be exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in which it is viewed by many in our society. I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors? Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking. But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. if education is truly a vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints should be welcome as part of the school experience. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as my friend from Pennsylvania, and perhaps every one in the free world, knows the issue he brings up with regard to how to teach scientific theory and philosophy was recently an issue in my home State of Kansas. For this reason, many of my constituents are particularly sensitive to this issue. I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the record about the controversy in Kansas. In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard 'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would not longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin. However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro- evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species. Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is . . . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact; and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption. The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press. Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts, spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students. The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy. For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that the debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important debate to embrace. I plan to support the amendment and urge my colleagues to join me. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two votes, prior to the second vote in order, there be 2 minutes on each side for debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [[Page S6153]] Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield back the remainder of his time? Mr. SANTORUM. I do. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 799. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.] YEAS--91 Akaka Allard Allen Baucus Bayh Bennett Biden Bingaman Bond Boxer Breaux Brownback Bunning Burns Byrd Campbell Cantwell Carnahan Carper Cleland Clinton Conrad Corzine Craig Crapo Daschle Dayton Domenici Dorgan Durbin Edwards Ensign Feingold Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Graham Gramm Grassley Gregg Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kerry Kohl Kyl Landrieu Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Mikulski Miller Murkowski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Nickles Reed Reid Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Sarbanes Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Specter Stabenow Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Voinovich Warner Wellstone Wyden NAYS--8 Chafee Cochran Collins DeWine Enzi Hagel Stevens Thompson NOT VOTING--1 Dodd The amendment (No. 799) was agreed to. Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 798 Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we have 2 minutes on each side. There will be 2 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina and 2 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, dear colleagues, the fundamental flaw is the approach that we do not, at the local level, have accountability, that we do not have testing. The truth is, and I have previously printed it in the Record, we have testing coming out of our ears: $422 million this year. We know what works. I say, rather than go through a 7-year exercise at $7 billion, along with the bureaucracy from Washington, to develop what Washington thinks is the standard, what Washington thinks is quality, use that money to address local concerns, whether they be further testing or additional needs. We know what the needs are. Senators have stated them over 7 weeks: Curriculum, better teachers, more teachers, smaller class size, and on down the line. This is, in a sense, revenue sharing with the same amount of money. If Members believe in one size fits all, that Washington--and not the local folks--has the answers, if Members believe in unfunded mandates, if Members believe students should be tested on courses that they have yet to receive--Title I, Head Start, and the others--if Members believe we ought to institute this 7-year bureaucracy at a cost of $7 billion, vote against the amendment. If Members believe in local control, and if Members believe they know what is best, and what schools in their states need is help for curriculum, for class size, and everything else, then vote with us. I don't see my distinguished colleague, Senator Wellstone, but I have his support, and I think I might be able to get the support of Senator Kennedy. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with all respect to my friend and colleague from South Carolina, I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment, if passed, will cut out the heart of the bipartisan agreement on educational reform in this underlying bill. The heart of it is that we are going to demand results; we are going to ask for evidence that we can present to educators, to parents, indeed to students and public officials, that the vast amounts of money that we at the Federal level and those at the State and local level are investing in the education of our children is actually working. The important thing to say is that in the requirement that the underlying bipartisan agreement makes for testing of schoolchildren from grades 3- 8, we set the rules, but we leave it to the States to determine the standards. It is the States that will decide each year what is adequate yearly progress. It is the States that will determine how well their students are doing. So this is a national set of rules, but it is the States that will decide how each of them goes forward in implementing the rules. Second, we require an arcane term, but it means a lot, disaggregation of data, so that people in the State, in the local area, parents, can see how each group of children is doing so we will be sure in that evidence that we will not overlook the educational needs of the neediest of our children. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and thereby stand by the bipartisan agreement for educational reform. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment no. 798. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant bill clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 78, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.] YEAS--22 Akaka Boxer Cantwell Conrad Corzine Daschle Dayton Dodd Durbin Feingold Harkin Hollings Inouye Leahy Levin Murray Nelson (NE) Reed Reid Sarbanes Stevens Wellstone NAYS--78 Allard Allen Baucus Bayh Bennett Biden Bingaman Bond Breaux Brownback Bunning Burns Byrd Campbell Carnahan Carper Chafee Cleland Clinton Cochran Collins Craig Crapo DeWine Domenici Dorgan Edwards Ensign Enzi Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Graham Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hatch Helms Hutchinson Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kerry Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lieberman Lincoln Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Mikulski Miller Murkowski Nelson (FL) Nickles Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Specter Stabenow Thomas Thompson Thurmond Torricelli Voinovich Warner Wyden The amendment (No. 798) was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Amendment No. 420 To Amendment No. 358 Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 420. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an amendment numbered 420. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth to perform certain work with wood products) On page 893, after line 14, add the following: SEC. ____. EXEMPTION. Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration and enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it shall not be considered oppressive child labor for an individual who-- ``(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of 14, and ``(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade, to be employed inside or outside places of business where machinery is used to process wood products. ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph (A) shall be permitted-- [[Page S6154]] ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the same religious sect or division as the individual; ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the operation of power-driven woodworking machines; ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from machinery in operation; and ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels of noise and saw dust.''. Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition to discuss my amendment, which briefly stated, would simply permit Amish youths, aged 14 to 18, to be able to work in sawmills. The issue has arisen as to the safety of these sawmills. The Appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Department of Labor which I had chaired held a hearing on this subject. It is appropriate and necessary that the full Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions have a hearing. We have consulted with experts who have given us a formula to provide for what we think is the requisite safety. I have had a brief discussion with the Senator from Massachusetts about my withdrawing this amendment and having a hearing so that due consideration could be given to this issue by his committee. This amendment is designed to permit certain youths--those exempt from attending school--between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced identical measures in the 105th and 106th Congresses. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House twice before. I am hopeful the Senate will also seriously consider this important issue. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live. The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA, with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on this issue. Most recently, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine these issues. At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish. Under my amendment, youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My amendment requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced. The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the establishment clause with the House legislation. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my amendment, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities. I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin versus Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the free exercise clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education. This is a matter of great importance and I urge my colleagues to work with me to provide relief for the Amish community. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator is correct. The Senator has spoken to me about this issue. It is a very important issue because it does involve children and involves a dangerous industry. But there are other factors to be considered. The Senator has given us some recommendations from very noteworthy OSHA experts who believe a way can be found to ensure the safety of these children and also achieve the objective. I think it would be valuable to have that in an open hearing, and we will do so in our Labor Committee and give due notice to the Senator when that hearing will be held, and welcome any of the people from whom he thinks it would be useful for us to hear. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I just add one note. There are very serious issues of religious freedom involved here with the Amish having the right under the Constitution not to have education beyond the age of 14, and those will be considered in due course. Let me thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for yielding so that we could have this brief colloquy. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. We will have a very brief quorum call. 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. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 420 Withdrawn Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the last colloquy I stated my intention to withdraw the amendment. I did not use the magic words, which I now use. I withdraw my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum. [[Page S6155]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. KENNEDY. 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 that upon the disposition of the Dodd amendment No. 382, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, be recognized to call up amendment No. 533; that there be 5 minutes for debate on the amendment equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use of the time, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no second-degree amendment in order thereto. Further, that upon the disposition of amendment No. 533, Senator Kerry be recognized to call up amendments Nos. 423 and 455, that there be 40 minutes total for debate on the two amendments with time divided as follows: 10 minutes each, Senators Kerry, Smith of Oregon, Kennedy, and Gregg, with no second-degree amendments; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendments be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. Provided further that, upon the disposition of the Kerry/Smith amendments, the Senate resume consideration of the Cantwell amendment No. 630, as modified, with a total of 15 minutes for debate divided as follows: 5 minutes each, Senators Cantwell, Kennedy, and Gregg; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Cantwell amendment, with no second-degree amendment in order thereto, with no intervening action. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Under the previous order, the Senator from Louisiana is recognized to call up amendment No. 474 on which there will be 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form. Amendment No. 474 to Amendment No. 358 Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 474. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes amendment numbered 474. Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam 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: (Purpose: To improve the formulas for teacher quality grants) Beginning on page 312, strike line 18 and all that follows through page 313, line 4, and insert the following: ``(I) an amount that bears the same relationship to 35 percent of the excess amount as the number of individuals age 5 through 17 in the State, as determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data, bears to the number of those individuals in all such States, as so determined; and ``(II) an amount that bears the same relationship to 65 percent of the On page 320, strike lines 16 through 26 and insert the following: ``(1) an amount that bears the same relationship to 20 percent of the total amount as the number of individuals age 5 through 17 in the geographic area served by the agency, as determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent satisfactory data, bears to the number of those individuals in the geographic areas served by all the local educational agencies in the State, as so determined; and ``(2) an amount that bears the same relationship to 80 percent of the total amount as the num-''. Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the amendment that I offer today is similar in some ways to the amendment I offered and we adopted 2 days ago. With an overwhelming and bipartisan show of support, we again made a commitment to better target the somewhat scarce education resources offered by the Federal Government under this bill--I use the word scarce judiciously; to some it is an awful lot of money, but to others, relative to what we need, it is not enough towards the communities with the greatest need. Whatever moneys we are able to place, I believe, and many of my colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side and, to his credit, President Bush must be targeted toward helping the children and the schools that need the most help. Particularly when, as Senator Kennedy has so eloquently expressed many times on the floor, this is really a new day for education from the Federal Government. We are initiating sweeping reforms, not mandating local governments but supporting them in their efforts to reform their schools, to increase standards, to implement accountability. We must work with the states and locals in partnership, to help fulfill our promise to leave no child behind. This amendment would target more tightly title II dollars. On Monday, 57 Members of this body helped us to target the title I dollars, the largest title of the elementary and secondary education bill. There are seven general titles in the BEST bill. Title I has always been the largest Federal title. Some would argue the most important. Yet, when you are talking about providing an quality education, it is hard to argue that a Title which is focused on quality teachers is any less important. In my mind and in the minds of many in the Senate, there really is no more important element of an education than a good, qualified teacher. William Arthur Ward once said: The mediocre teacher tells; the good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates; the great teacher inspires. We need a lot more great teachers in America. We have many, but we need more. No doubt there is a crisis in our Nation today. From the East Coast to the West Coast, from the North to the South, from California, to Louisiana, to New Hampshire, to Illinois, communities are faced with a struggle to find qualified people to teach their children. Every major newspaper and magazine in our Nation has covered this story--not on the back page, not on the middle page, but on the cover page. Here is an excerpt from Newsweek published earlier this fall. ``Who Will Teach Our Kids?'' That is the question parents are asking. ``What Schools And Parents Can Do. Half Of All Teachers Will Retire By The Year 2010.'' The picture is of a child waiting for a teacher and these subtitles only scratch the surface of the real crisis facing us today. Let me read briefly from a story that says ``Teachers Wanted.'' I noticed this because Frank, my husband, and I have our 9-year-old Connor in school here. He finished third grade this year. One of the joys of my day is to know every day that Connor is in a school with a wonderful teacher-- Holly Garland, and that he is being well educated in a school that is safe. I can come to work in the Senate and do my job. My husband can go do his job because we have that security. But that is not the case of a family from Georgia. Their names are Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, GA. The article says: It should have been a season of hopeful beginnings, but for Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, Ga., the opening of school this fall has meant only anger and frustration. Their 11- year-old son, Nicholas-- Only 2 years older than Connor-- is in a sixth-grade special-ed class taught by an assistant and a substitute. The regular teacher quit after three weeks of school, and the class of 13 is out of control. ``We can move Nicholas to a special-ed class in another school that has just five kids,'' says Jill, ``but the teacher is leaving in December. I phoned the district, and they told me that they have five special-ed positions to fill. And I asked them if they think they'll have a certified special-ed teacher in that class by December, and they said: `That's the least of our problems right now.' '' Jill, the mother, much as I am with my children, said: ``Well, it's the biggest problem in my life right now.'' To millions of parents, from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to Louisiana to Mississippi, the biggest problem in their lives is their kids, 90 percent of whom are in the public schools of this Nation. They send them to schools and classrooms without certified teachers, without any teachers, with substitute teachers, teachers who come in and out of the classroom every few weeks. How is it possible for a child to begin to learn when the teacher doesn't even know a child's name? This is a parent's worst nightmare. My amendment does not attempt to fix this terrible situation because I am not certain any amendment could actually deal with a problem this large. It is so large and so tough. What my amendment does is say, we know we have a problem; we need to set goals [[Page S6156]] and strategies for fixing that problem; and most importantly, we must provide the resources to address the problem. In short, my amendment attempts to move what money we have into the areas and to the schools that need the most help. This bill requires that all schools with 50% or more of their children in poverty must have all highly qualified teachers by 2005. What would that mean to states? Let me cite some statistics that were actually shocking to me, and hopefully they will be to the Members of the Senate. Let me start with some examples of some States right now that are in pretty good shape. I will cite three or four. Connecticut has a total of 1,069 schools. Yet only 189 of those schools are 50 percent poverty. So out of over 1,000 schools, they have fewer than 200 schools in the whole State that have 50 percent of poverty or more. To meet the requirements under this bill, 6,670 in Connecticut's poorest schools would have to be highly qualified by 2005. That is a manageable amount. Connecticut is in pretty good shape because under the bill, it is going to have to make sure that these 189 schools have the resources to meet this requirement. Based on what I know about the resources in Connecticut and the great work of Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman and other elected officials in that State, I have no doubt that with the extra muscle they can probably manage to find 6,000 highly qualified teachers in 3 years. Let me share the good news about another State, New Hampshire. It has 516 schools. Only 7 in the whole State of New Hampshire--it is a small State--have a poverty rate of 50 percent. That means that they have three years to make sure that the 103 teachers who currently teach in those schools are highly qualified. Again, I am confident that with the good work of the Senators here from New Hampshire and their Governor, Jean Shaheen, and their elected officials , they can find the 103 teachers qualified, get them in those classrooms, and meet the goals of this bill. Let me give you one other example of a State in pretty good shape. It is a larger State, and people might not expect that a large State such as New Jersey would be in good shape, but they are. They have 2,317 schools. Only 400 of those schools have 50 percent poverty rates or greater. They must ensure that 16,000 teachers are highly qualified. Sixteen thousand is a lot, but New Jersey is a big State with a lot of resources. There is substantial wealth in New Jersey. Lots of corporations are there. Their property taxes are pretty high. If they would distribute them a little more evenly, which they are probably in the process of doing, they can perhaps find 16,000 teachers in 3 years. Let me tell you a sad story. Let me talk to you about 3 States. As you may expect, one of them is Louisiana. One of them is Mississippi. And the third is Texas. Let me talk about Louisiana for just a minute. We have--Senator Breaux and I--in our State 1,500 schools. Of the 1,500 schools, 1,013 have more than 50 percent of the children in those schools in poverty. Let me repeat that. We have 1,500 schools in Louisiana. Out of that number, we have 1,013 schools that have 50 percent of poverty, or higher. That means we would have to find 30,000 highly qualified teachers for these classrooms. There are only 49,000 full time teachers in the whole state, so we would have 3 years to make sure that 3 out of every 5 teachers meet the qualification requirements outlined in this bill. I don't know how, if we worked 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, between now and the deadline which is in this bill, with the limited resources we have, if we could meet that deadline. Let me go into a little bit more detail about Louisiana. I want to show you what the challenge is. I think Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, who are very knowledgeable about this, must certainly understand this challenge. In Louisiana, every year we have 8,000 students enrolled in colleges and universities. The students who graduate are 1,600 every year. We will lose 160 in the test because the tests for teachers will weed out some who are not ready and qualified. That is most important. So we will graduate with degrees 1,440. These are last year's statistics. And 33 percent of these, which the taxpayers in Louisiana paid taxes-- income taxes, sales taxes, fees, license taxes--to educate will leave our State. For the most part, they will leave Louisiana because almost every State around us has higher salaries. So we will lose 33 percent of those teachers who come out, leaving us basically with 964 teachers. These teachers will start, and in 5 years 30 percent of them will leave the system, leaving us--out of this graduating class of 1,600--675. This is not right. This is not efficient. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Most important, it is what is contributing to the crisis of us trying to get good teachers in our classrooms. Now a lot of things can be done. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from Louisiana has expired. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes to complete. I ask unanimous consent that I may do that. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the extra time. What's more, 66% of the teachers in Louisiana have bachelors degrees. Only 13 of our teachers were Nationally Board Certified in the year 2000. And over 15% of those teaching in our state have not successfully completed their certification. This is true of Louisiana, but it is going to be true in almost every State you look at. The numbers of people choosing to teach are just not there to meet the requirements. So lots of things can be done. This bill encourages alternative certification, being creative, getting retirees who have had a successful first career into the schools. For instance, a great program Troops to Teachers, which uses our military to fill these slots. We can no longer rely on 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds. We must broaden our thinking. There are positive things that can be done, and there are success stories, but they are not free. I contend today, and I will continue to fight in this debate, that there are simply not enough resources at the local and Federal levels to meet the new demands of this bill and to give a promise to our parents and students that they will be taught by a qualified, good teacher. Let me share some facts about Mississippi. Mississippi is a State that is in a very tough situation. Mississippi has 874 schools. Of the 874 schools, 700 have 50 percent of poverty--students from households represented by an income that hits the poverty level. They need 23,274 highly qualified teachers. Under this bill, they are going to have 3 years to find 23,274 teachers. Mississippi and Louisiana need help. That is what this amendment is about. It is about saying whatever dollars we can muster, whatever we can scratch out of this budget to make an investment in this Nation's future and our kids, let's get it to the States and the children who have been without qualified teachers for too long. We have examples throughout our history of that special teacher with that special touch who can work miracles for a child, any child, regardless of their race or family income. Let's help get teachers to Louisiana and Mississippi. Let me end with Texas. Texas is a big State, and they have a big problem because they have 7,228 schools. Of those schools, 3,190 have student populations with 50 percent of poverty or more. They need a whopping 107,779 qualified teachers in 3 years. Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are examples of States that do not have the same resources other States might have, particularly Mississippi and Louisiana. This amendment is an attempt to bring the resources that will support this reform, that will help meet the goals of this new education bill to the States and to the areas that could use the most help. Some people on the other side have said this is a local issue. This might be where the local issue in terms of decisions are made, but if this Federal Government does not step up to the plate and provide some additional resources to help parishes in Louisiana, such as Red River, Orleans Parish, St. Martin Parish, and Iberia Parish and even Jefferson Parish, they cannot reach their full potential. If we do not step up to the plate, they will never be able to find the thousands of qualified teachers [[Page S6157]] with creativity, with a new approach to education because there are so many barriers. I thank my colleagues for their attention to the issue of targeting federal resources to our areas of greatest need. It is a very important and fundamental principle of this bill. We have set new high standards. We have left the control at the local level. We have given local governments, as you did, Mr. President, when you were Governor of your wonderful State of Delaware, more resources with which to work, but those resources are not adequate. I hope as this moves forward that we can increase our investment in our children's education so that the family I referred to in Georgia or my family or any other family does not have to live through the nightmare of having high hopes for a child, sending them off to school only to be in a classroom out of control because we have not provided the resources and the parameters necessary to succeed. Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested all along. A skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous difference in how well students learn. Is the home environment important? Absolutely. Can children learn without their parents or a parent or a grandparent or a guardian encouraging them? No. But can a good teacher make a difference? Absolutely. Again to quote: The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. But the great teacher inspires. We have a nation that was built on hope and inspiration. Our Nation was founded on the belief that tomorrow could be a better day; that men and women would live in liberty and that value is taught through our school system. If we do not commit the resources to help our teachers do the job, if we do not find ways to get more and better teachers in the classroom, we have not only failed our schools, we have failed our country. I am pleased to say I understand it is going to be accepted. Again, I wish it was broader in its scope because we need to do more, but this amendment targeting our resources will help. I will be back many times to speak about this subject. I thank you, and I believe my time has expired. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. I believe I have time, do I not? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Apparently those opposing the amendment have time. Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu from Louisiana for this amendment. As she has mentioned, this is completely consistent with her previous amendment, which was overwhelmingly accepted, in that it provides greater targeted resources for teachers. For my money, the most important ingredient in the educational process is having a well-trained teacher in the classroom. There are other components, but this is absolutely essential. The greatest challenge we face is the neediest and the poorest schools where we need the best teachers have the most unqualified teachers. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana sharpens the direction of this legislation to ensure, to the extent we can, we get well-qualified teachers to teach the neediest students. It is a very important amendment, and it is a very useful and helpful amendment. I urge the Senate to accept the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee seek recognition? Mr. FRIST. I yield back the remainder of our time, and we can have a voice vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 474. The amendment (No. 474) was agreed to. Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Mr. FRIST. I understand we will now proceed to the Dodd amendment, and that we will have 2 hours equally divided. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Amendment No. 382 to Amendment No. 358 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is recognized to call up amendment No. 382 on which there will be 2 hours of debate equally divided. Mr. DODD. I ask that the Chair notify me when 15 minutes of my time have expired. I will then ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, be recognized for 15 minutes, and at the expiration of his 15 minutes, I be rerecognized to complete my opening statement. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified. Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the committee; Senator Gregg, and other Members, my friend from Tennessee with whom I have worked on many issues and for whom I have the highest regard and respect. I appreciate their efforts. I have enjoyed working with them on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is not a surprise amendment. My colleagues have known for some time I have been deeply interested in afterschool programs. Going back, in fact, I offered some of the earliest amendments to support afterschool programs as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and then as the ranking member, working very closely with my good friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Barbara Boxer from California has been very interested in afterschool programs. Most Senators have been interested in afterschool programs. Afterschool programs--in a sense, I am preaching to the choir addressing the Presiding Officer as a former Governor of the State of Delaware. He understands the tremendous value of having good, strong afterschool programs and how important they are. In a sense, I am offering this amendment not just on my behalf and those who support this, but I do so on behalf of Fight Crime Invest in Kids, which represents a thousand police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders, police organizations, crime survivors; on behalf of the YMCA and YWCA, which are the largest afterschool providers in the United States-- literally there are some 2,500 YMCA and YWCA programs that provide afterschool programs--National PTA, National Network for Youth, Afterschool Alliance, National Community Education Association. I will provide a list. I ask unanimous consent that the long list of education groups, police groups, prosecutors, and others supporting this amendment be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Fight Crime Invest in KIDS YMCA NABYC National PTA National Network for Youth Afterschool Alliance National Community Education Association National Education Association School Social Work Association of America National Association of School Psychologists Council for Exceptional Children National Association of Social Workers Association for Career and Technical Education American Counseling Association American Federation of Teachers National Alliance of Black School Educators American Association of University Women Mr. DODD. Mr. President, their endorsement is not fainthearted. They believe this may be the single most important issue of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Because we are leaving out under the pilot program--and I want to make this argument so people can understand it; this bill can get a little confusing with all the various pieces of it. One of the major pieces of this bill is called the Straight A's Program which is called a pilot program. When we think of pilot programs or demonstration programs, our mind immediately draws on a number that represents a relatively small fraction of [[Page S6158]] the larger group. It will be a pilot program or a demonstration program. Certainly, this program, when it was announced, sounded relatively small. It is a pilot program that would be in 7 States out of 50, in 25 school districts. That sounds pretty small. One cannot imagine that being any great threat as a pilot program. I am not sure whether it is a pilot program for 1 year, 4 years, 5 years, or 7 years. This bill is a 7-year bill. I am not sure how long the pilot programs on the grants are supposed to run during the life of this bill. That is rather vague in the underlying bill. It could end up being 14 States or 21 States over the 7-year life of the bill, or is it just 7 States in 7 years? I am not sure of the answer. In seven States and 25 districts, exclude the 25 districts, I can get you to 44 percent of the entire student population of the United States. If this pilot program that is going to be awarded by the Secretary of Education goes to the 7 largest States and the 25 largest school districts in America, you are at 51 percent of the entire student population of the United States--hardly a pilot program or a demonstration program. I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest that may be the case. I expect every State in the United States to apply for the Straight A's Program. Why? Because it eliminates all the categorical programs. It says to the States, you can basically do anything you want with this money. It says you have to serve the neediest kids, but we know under title I how broad a definition that is already under law for 36 years. I cannot imagine a jurisdiction not saying: I would like one of those; I will take Federal money without any strings attached. It is not any great leap of logic to assume that all 50 States and virtually every school district will probably apply for the Straight A's Program. I don't think it is any great leap if, in fact, you believe this program ought to be national policy and not a pilot program--which is the view of the administration; they only call it a pilot program for the purpose of this bill because if they said they want this to be the national program, there would be a lot of resistance to it. If they call it a pilot program, a lot of people are willing to say they will try a pilot program. The fact is, this could affect a lot of children for a long time. Seven years may not seem like much in the life of a bill in Congress, but if you have a child in kindergarten, the first grade, the second or third grade, that is the entire elementary education your child will get. So afterschool--I will get to the particular program--is important. This could affect a lot of children. It is why the YMCAs, it is why police chiefs, it is why all the other organizations are concerned about this: because of the potential exposure it could mean to an awful lot of children around the country. There are reasons why this particular program is important. Let me explain it in context. What happens under the Straight A's Program, all of a sudden community-based, local-based grant applications get eliminated in these 7 States and 25 districts. It would now come from the State education authority or the Governor as to whether or not there would be an afterschool program. This is why people are concerned. We are moving away from local decisionmaking. We are saying in these States: You are out. That YMCA, the community-based organization, and some of the church-based organizations, you are out. It depends on what happens at the State level. They watch the program grow because of the value. There has never been, in the history of the Department of Education, a grant program that has been sought after as much as this grant. Let me demonstrate the point with this chart. In this year alone there have been 2,762 grant applications. Of that nearly 3,000, only 300 will be funded under existing resources. There have been an average of 2,000 applications a year since the program started, and the numbers are going up. So we are looking at a tremendously popular program. People see afterschool care as critically important primarily to the safety of their children. There is an academic achievement element to this, but it is primarily an issue of safety. In the history of the Department this has been the most sought after grant of any in the United States. That is how popular it is with people all across the country. We increased the funding for this over the years, but not very much. According to the most recent Mott/J.C. Penney poll, nearly two-thirds of voters report difficulty funding quality, affordable afterschool programs. The Census Bureau reports that nearly 7 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 go home alone unsupervised each week. Let me show a graph with the number of children, showing the growing numbers of grade-school-age children in self-care in the United States: 2 percent of 5-year-olds have no afterschool care and are home alone; 3 percent of 6-year-olds; 4 percent of 8-year-olds; and 11-year-olds-- these are children, not teenagers--10- and 11-year-olds, 1 in every 4 is home alone. The second chart points out what police chiefs say about the program, and why dumping it into a block grant and eliminating community organizations from asking for help is wrongheaded. Police chiefs were asked in a survey: Which of these strategies do police chiefs choose as the most effective for reducing youth violence in the country? ``Afterschool,'' almost 70 percent chose that. Then it drops way down for ``try juveniles as adults,'' ``hire more police,'' with ``metal detectors'' at 1 percent. Is there any doubt where those people, who deal with these issues every day believe this program has value? Is there any doubt whether or not it ought to be taken out of this block grant and left to local community organizations such as the YMCAs, such as our community organizations that find these programs worthwhile, to apply for these dollars? I can only, with the money, grant 300 out of almost 3,000 a year that apply. But eliminate this, and these 7 States and 25 districts for 7 years, left totally to the discretion of a State agency or a Governor, may cut a lot of these programs. Why? Because a lot of the kids come from some of the poorest rural and urban districts and don't have the local clout to be applying for this assistance and carrying it off. This is very important. If you talk about basic safety, it is critical. Again, listening to me is one thing, but listen to people who work every day in this area. They are the ones behind this. Listen to the police chiefs across the country. Let me read their letter: As an organization led by more than 1,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders of police organizations, and crime survivors, we urge you to support a Senate floor amendment to S. 1 to remove 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) from the Straight A's Block Grant. We are concerned that if 21st CCLC is folded into a block grant with many other educational programs the investment that the Federal government has finally begun to make in expanding after-school programs will wither. After-school programs are different than many of the other programs included in the block grant. They support and enhance academic performance but they are not necessarily direct academic programs. Therefore, in a block grant where the accountability provisions measure only academic performance, after-school programs will likely lose out to regular school- day academic programs. In addition, as law enforcement leaders and crime survivors we feel strongly that one of the most important aspects of after-school programs is the crime-prevention impact. The Straight A's block grant accountability provisions do not measure crime-prevention outcomes and therefore do not completely recognize the unique nature and importance of after-school programs such as 21st CCLC. In the hour after the school bell rings, violent juvenile crime soars and the prime time for juvenile crime begins. The peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. These are also the hours when children are most likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, have sex, smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs. After-school programs that connect children to caring adults and provide constructive activities during these critical hours are among our most powerful tools for preventing violent juvenile crime. For example, in a five- city study, half of a group of at-risk high-school kids were randomly assigned to participate in the Quantum Opportunities after-school program. The boys left out of that program had six times more criminal convictions in their high-school years than the boys who attended the after-school program. Yet roughly 11 million children go home from school regularly to an empty house. With such a large unmet need, now is the time to be strengthening the Federal government's commitment to after-school programs, not weakening it. [[Page S6159]] That is 1,000 police chiefs talking about this. Forget about the Senator from Connecticut talking; will we listen to the people who work on these issues every day? Let me read a letter from the YMCA. This is the largest program, celebrating its 150th year of existence this year. These people know what they are talking about. These are some of the best programs in the country. This is a letter from Ken Gladish, national executive director: A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. According to census figures, more than seven million school- age children are left home alone and on the streets, unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth to place in danger of academic failure and much worse. As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. Many other community-based organizations in this country also have decades of experience operating quality afterschool programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program better by making sure funding is available for programs operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool programs and to make it available to community organizations, Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall positive impact afterschool programs can have on local communities. I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in the Record. Thee being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: YMCA of the USA, Washington, DC, May 4, 2001. Hon. Chris Dodd, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the YMCA of the USA, I would like to thank you for offering your amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to remove the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program from the ``Straight As'' demonstration provision. Dedicated funding for afterschool programs and the ability of community-based organizations to compete fairly for this funding would be severely restricted without passage of your amendment. A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. According to census figures, more than seven million school- age children are left home alone and on the streets, unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth to place in danger of academic failure and much worse. As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. Many other community-based organizations in this country also have decades of experience operating quality afterschool programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program better by making sure funding is available for programs operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool programs and to make it available to community organizations, Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall positive impact afterschool programs can have on local communities. As we celebrate our 150th anniversary in the United States in 2001, YMCAs remain committed to doing what it takes to build strong kids, strong families and strong communities. Thank you for your efforts to increase opportunities for all our kids. Sincerely, Kenneth L. Gladish, Ph.D., National Executive Director. Mr. DODD. Can there be any more eloquent argument that whatever else we do with Straight A's and academic performance, we should not take a program for which there is such need in this country, where the overwhelming evidence is that police officers and people who provide afterschool programs are begging us not to jeopardize the millions of kids who could be in a pilot program affecting literally millions of children--we should not exclude this valuable tool for keeping kids safe and providing some safe harbor for them in the afterschool hours. With that, I promised my good friend from Tennessee, because of other obligations he has, to provide him with whatever time I have remaining to respond to these eloquent, persuasive arguments--maybe he will endorse the amendment at this point--and then I have unanimous consent to reclaim my time. Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut outlining the debate in which we will be engaged for the next 2 hours. He raised many important points. I do rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment. Over the next 13 or 14 minutes, I hope to explain to my colleagues why I am opposed to this amendment. I will address two issues. No. 1, I will address problems with the substance of the amendment itself and its impact on the underlying bill. No. 2, I hope to reveal how this particular amendment, in stripping out part of the bipartisan education bill, violates the principles behind this bipartisan agreement. I mention this right upfront because if this amendment were agreed to, it would potentially threaten the entire education bill. Most important, in response to the eloquent words of the Senator from Connecticut, we should focus on the substance of the amendment itself. First of all, you will hear several terms. One is ``Straight A's''; one is ``21st Century School.'' Let me back up a little bit and paint the big picture. ``Straight A's'' is the title that is given for the program entitled Academic Achievement for All. This is a program that is a part of the underlying bill. It functions as a pilot program. Its purpose is to demonstrate, not on a nationwide scale, but for up to 7 States and 25 districts which can apply to qualify for this pilot program. The reason the program itself is so important to our side of the aisle is that it does crystallize and underscore the important principle of flexibility and--and this is where I disagree with my colleague--local control. Local control is coupled with higher standards of accountability. The BEST bill requires all students meet standards of achievement. However, if you participate in this voluntary pilot program, you are given greater flexibility to make decisions at the local level, and you will be required to deliver higher standards than are required in the underlying bill. Again, I mention it because people think this is a block grant with no strings attached, and that is simply not true. The strings are attached in the form of high academic standards and accountability. If you don't meet the standards, you cannot participate; again, if you don't qualify in the evaluations that are built into the underlying bill, your privileges of flexibility are taken away. What funding are we talking about? We are not talking about enormous Federal block grants which are taken from education funding. Many are concerned about the approximately $8 billion title I funds that are aimed at disadvantaged children. No, we are talking about the other programs, non-title I funds. I do not want people to misunderstand where these funds will come from. I can't emphasize this enough. After a lot of negotiation with the White House, with the Democrats, with the Republicans, we brought everyone to the table, and we agreed on certain programs. That is why Straight A's is in the underlying bill. But this amendment is trying to strip it out. We agreed to choose those categorical programs which conform to the ideas in the underlying bill: Increased flexibility and strong accountability. The pilot program links greater flexibility to accountability for higher student achievement. Not all 18 categorical programs incorporate these two components. However, I believe about 9 do. Nine categorical programs have been included, one of which is the 21st Century program. This is an afterschool program. It is a program which I believe, as the Senator from Connecticut does, is a very positive, important program which is integral to strengthening the entire underlying education bill. [[Page S6160]] The program may be worthwhile. I am not going to argue that it is not, because the program is a worthwhile program. I will argue, however, that there are situations where local districts should be able to use that money for afterschool programs, or for more tutoring, or for more teachers, or for class size reduction, or for teacher training, or for school construction. They ought to have the freedom to choose how best to use those funds, and this pilot program gives local and State officials the authority to do this. It captures innovation through increased accountability with local control. Those concepts are terribly important to the Republicans. We started negotiating with all 50 States to agree to more flexibility if they guarantee high accountability. But, in the negotiations, it went from 50 States to 40, to 30, to 20, to 10 and now we are down to 7 States. Indeed, we had 9 categorical programs with title 1 funds. We started with many more. But after negotiations with the White House, Democrats and Republicans, we narrowed it down 9 programs which made sense to be a part of this consolidation as we go forward. Clearly, President Bush feels strongly about flexibility and local control. It is part of his larger agenda. And so much of the underlying bill itself has moved away from the flexibility that I and many others had hoped would be in this bill. This is the only thing left in this overall education bill that really captures high accountability, maximum flexibility, and local control. It is important for our colleagues to understand that negotiations and compromise brought us to the point where we agreed in a bipartisan way to narrow the scope of this program from 50 to 7 States. We also included fewer categorical programs to raise the academic standards. It was a bipartisan compromise. Therefore, I have to mention that if this amendment passes, it will strip away the heart and soul of Straight A's, which is in the underlying bill. In fact, it jeopardizes the entire education bill. Let me elaborate on flexibility. Seven States will participate. They can still have the Safe School Programs, but they will make that decision for themselves. We allow for diversity at the local level. One district might take a lot of steps toward an afterschool program. In another district, they may already have an afterschool program funded in some other way. They may want to use those funds for more teachers or improving technology or for more computers in classrooms. All of these initiatives can improve education, but only the local schools know which programs will most effectively improve education. Again, this can only be done when they are given maximum flexibility and local control. What does the Dodd amendment do? It destroys the program. The Dodd amendment destroys the pilot program because it takes away from the overall funding that is available. If a State is accepted into the program, the Dodd amendment takes away about 40 percent of that funding, leaving only about 60 percent of the funding for flexibility programs. We know, based on the negotiations with States and districts, that if the Straight A's program only provided the little amount of funding which the Dodd amendment allows for, it wouldn't be worthwhile for a State or a district to participate. This amendment takes 40 percent of the funding out of a very important program that we negotiated through compromise. We simply cannot strip more out of it because nobody will take advantage of it. It destroys Straight A's. It destroys what is left in the education bill that we feel strongly about, and that the President of the United States feels strongly about. It is one of the few things left in the bill that captures innovation, captures creativity, and focuses on local decisionmaking coupled with high standards of accountability. There were several questions that the Senator from Connecticut brought up. I will go through them again. He mentioned the pilot program which requires a review of the State's performance. If a State fails to meet what is agreed to in terms of the average yearly program for 2 years, or if the State fails to exceed the average yearly process for 3 years, the agreement is terminated right then. He mentioned that the Straight A's program will eliminate all of the categorically targeted programs. It does not eliminate all of them. I think as we observe which programs local schools choose, we will understand which programs are most effective and more frequently implemented, but it doesn't eliminate all of them. I started with 50 States. That is where we were. That is what our Republican caucus wants. We don't want to impose the program on any State, but if a State wants more flexibility in exchange for higher standards, they should be able to choose this path. We whittled it down from 50 to 7 states, but we just can't take away anymore and still have an effective program. I hope as many States as possible will take advantage of this program. The Senator from Connecticut made a point about losing local control. This is an important principle because larger principle behind this program is: local people can make better decisions. They will make better decisions, if they are held accountable to improve education. That is what this elementary and secondary education bill is all about--reauthorization of education for those children. Local districts get the same amount of funds, but they decide what their priorities are. This includes afterschool programs; we are not taking that away. They get the exact same amount of money. But they can decide where to spend the funds. Maybe in rural Tennessee all of the kids are out playing football in the afternoon and don't need an afterschool program. Under our plan, they can take that same amount of money and put it in tutoring for those students who are not doing as well academically. Today, they don't have that flexibility. The money has to go straight into the 21st century afterschool program whether they want it to or not. The Senator from Connecticut said the programs would eliminate afterschool programs. We don't eliminate them. We believe that local districts should use that money for afterschool programs, if they like, or for teachers, or for technology, or for tutoring, or for textbooks. Are there strings attached? Absolutely. This is not a block grant program where they can take the money and use it however they want. Again, this is not a block grant. That is why, again, it came from the negotiations. We put the standards pretty high in the underlying bill--but raised them even higher for the straight A's program. These are the highest standards anywhere in the bill. If a district participates, they will operate under higher standards, or they will not qualify to continue to participate in the program. We do not eliminate all categorical grant programs. For example, we didn't touch the reading program. We didn't touch homeless or Indian or emigrants or vocational education. Are all categorical grant programs within bipartisan negotiations? Yes, it was narrowed down 17 to 9. I will close. Again, I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut allowing me the opportunity to respond to some of the points he made. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this bill. I hope to be able to speak a little bit later this afternoon. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my friend from Tennessee. I am unclear--I don't expect this to be resolved in this amendment-- as to how long these actual block grant applications will be in existence. It is unclear in the bill. That is why I said it could be 7. It could be 14. It could be 21 States, if the grants are for shorter periods of time. That is an open-ended question. But the important point I want to make and the distinction here is that the decisions within the State are not made locally. That is a big difference. They are made by the State education authority, or the Governor. We had that debate the other day as to who would dominate in that discussion. But the idea that the local town or some community in Delaware or Connecticut can make the decision about an afterschool program is not the case. I wish it were. That decision, and whether or not you are going to get any afterschool programs, will be made [[Page S6161]] by a higher authority. They are the ones who will make that decision. Under the existing program, the town or the county can apply, and they can receive it or not. But it is a local decision. If you have football programs locally and you don't need it, you don't apply for it. There are many communities who need the help, so they apply directly. Some are not communities, they are community-based organizations, which are expanding tremendously. That is why YMCAs and other organizations, even some that involve churches and synagogues, are allowed to apply here, which does not mean the State has to make that decision. So all I am saying under the Straight A's Program is, just on those afterschool programs, leave it to the local communities to decide whether or not they think afterschool programs are worthwhile. I do not believe that is that great a difficulty. By the way, on the percentages taken out--this has been said over and over again--I asked the Congressional Research Service to give me their financial interpretation of what my afterschool program would mean in the context of the Straight A's Program. If you exclude title I, yes, my colleague from Tennessee is right, it is 40 percent. But I do not think you can pick and choose here. Under all of the Straight A's Programs, the afterschool program amounts to 5.7 percent. That leaves roughly 94 percent of the dollars under Straight A's that is still there to do all the other things for academic performance. So if you are going to define Straight A's as eliminating all non- title I funds, of course you get a higher percentage. But that is not what this is. Under Straight A's, it the entire pot of money, it is 5.7 percent, not 40 percent or 50 percent, as has been argued by some. So I make those two points particularly. The rest, as my colleague has said very candidly, would like to have all 50 States under this, with no strings attached, to just go out and do what they want to do. That is why there is an Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Why did the Federal Government, 36 years ago, pass this law? It passed the law because there was a growing concern that the neediest of children in the United States--28 million of them who grow up in poverty, and 12 million working families in poverty, and others--that there was a need to step in and try to do more to see to it that the neediest children would be served. That is why there is a Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, because there was a concern across the country that these neediest kids' needs were not being met. Over the years, we have contributed about 6 cents. It has gone up from 4 cents to 6 cents of an education dollar; that is, 94 cents comes from the State and local property taxpayers, and 4 cents or 5 cents or 6 cents of the education dollar comes from the Federal Government. So what we are trying to do in that 6 cents is just to make sure that in certain areas the neediest of our children are going to get served, not that we have a right to guarantee anyone's success. We do not. There is no obligation to say to Americans: You ought to count on your Government guaranteeing you success. That is out. What we try to do-- all people at all levels in our society--is to create equal opportunity for people. That is the beauty of America. That has been such an attraction to people all over the globe and why people every morning get up around the world and line up around U.S. Embassies to try to come here, either as citizens or as green card holders. There are a lot of reasons why they come, but I think the most important one is that this is a place of equal opportunity. We are not perfect. We have not arrived at perfection, but we try very hard to see to it that, regardless of where you come from, if you are a citizen of this country, regardless of ethnicity or background or religion, you have an equal opportunity to succeed. That is America. There is no guarantee of success, but an equal opportunity to succeed. That is what this is all about. That is the beauty of America, more so than our wonderful natural landscape or the economic wealth of our country. As important as those things are, I have always believed that the great beauty of America, the great magic of it, is this notion of equal opportunity. How equal can the opportunity be if your education isn't equal? I have told the story in this Chamber, when my great grandmother came to America, at age 14 or 15, with her husband--Thomas and Catherine Murphy--from the west coast of Ireland, she could not read or write. That was not uncommon for immigrants in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century. The first thing she did was she got herself elected to the Voluntown, CT, school board. She understood that education was going to be the key for the nine children she was about to have--my grandfather being the ninth--and that was the way you were going to get ahead. No guarantee of it, but if you had a decent education, you had an opportunity to get ahead. We are at the beginning of the 21st century, not at the end of the 19th century, and I happen to believe that principle my great grandmother intuitively applied to her own family. It is something we ought to apply to all families. At least give people a good education in this country, a good starting block--that is what this is really all about--and see to it that kids can be safe. As you can see from the chart, when you have between 7 million and 11 million children home alone--if you take 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds, and you have 9 percent of 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds alone for hours after school, and you have 10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds, where about 60 percent of those kids are home alone, you have a problem on your hands. You do not need a Ph.D. in child psychology to tell you that. You