Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues for voting for final passage of H.R. 4425 and for supporting the funding for the Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act contained in this bill. By working together with Senator Domenici and his staff, we were able to quickly put together a piece of legislation that will compensate the many New Mexicans injured by the Cerro Grande fire that raged through Los Alamos and the surrounding forests in early May. Because of the federal government's role in setting what began as a controlled burn in the Bandelier National Park, this legislation was a necessary response from the federal government. The intensity of the Cerro Grande fire resulted in extraordinary losses for both the residents of Los Alamos and the surrounding pueblos. I am pleased that a compensation fund will now be available for those who lost their homes in the fire, those who were forced to close down their business and those who provided emergency relief to the threatened community. The compensation fund will also be made available for those who suffered other kinds of losses as a result of the fire. This would include aid to the Santa Clara Pueblo to help them restore the thousands of acres they lost to the Cerro Grande blaze. It would also include assistance to the members of the San Ildefonso Pueblo who have suffered economically due to the fire closing down the roads and cutting off the tourist traffic that frequents the pueblo. I'm also glad that we were able to provide funding for the Los Alamos National Laboratory so it can begin to address the damages it sustained as a result of the Cerro Grande fire. I am very pleased that the Cerro Grande compensation fund will be available shortly so people can get on with their lives and start rebuilding their communities. Once this legislation is signed by the President, FEMA will have 45 days to draft regulations that govern this claims process. I would like to thank FEMA, and especially Director James Lee Witt, for taking on this very large responsibility of handling the fire claims process. He has worked tirelessly to aid disaster victims across this country and I know he will devote the resources necessary to aid the victims of the Cerro Grande fire. We hope that the regulations governing the claims process will be in place shortly and the victims of the fire can begin settling their claims with the federal government by late summer. As I thank my colleagues for their support, I would like to particularly thank Senator Domenici for his hard work in fighting for this money in the appropriations process. The initial appropriation of $455 million for this compensation fund will hopefully address most, if not all, of the damage caused by the Cerro Grande fire. The amount appropriated is a significant commitment by the federal government and by passing this legislation today, Congress has committed itself to compensating the victims of the Cerro Grande fire for the losses they incurred.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a moment to reiterate my hope that the conferees on the Appropriations Committee will consider restoring funding for the Smaller Learning Communities program under the Fund for the Improvement of Education. Last 7ear $45 million was appropriated for what has been a very important initiative an the President has requested $120 million for FY2001. I strongly believe that we must continue--and indeed increase--our support for this program. As this appropriations bill goes to conference, I hope that you and your fellow committee members will decide to meet the President's request. A number of research studies in recent years have documented the value of small schools and smaller learning communities, and the Bank Street College of Education just last week release a new study called ``Small Schools: Great Strides,'' which unequivocally confirms what we knew from earlier research--namely, that small schools help students succeed. This particular study examined the 150 or so small schools that were founded between 1990 and 1997 in Chicago, and tracks their progress through 1999. In these elementary schools of fewer than 350 students and these high schools of fewer than 400 students, the positive trends encompass everything from diminished violence to higher grade point averages and attendance rates. Of course, small size alone does not translate into these positive changes, but it certainly does foster the atmosphere of closeness and community that is conducive to the kinds of progress that our parents, teachers, and students are seeking. Based on studies of high school violence, researchers have concluded that the first step in ending school violence must be to break through the impersonal atmosphere of large high schools by creating smaller communities of learning within larger structures, where teachers and students can come to know each other well. We really cannot wait for more tragedies of students shooting students or teachers before we act to fix the situation. And just as important, particularly in our search for what works to improve student achievement, is that smaller school size also positively impacts learning. Research demonstrates that small schools outperform large schools on every measure of student outcomes, including grades, test scores, attendance, and graduation rates. In the Bank Street study, nearly twice as many students enrolled in smaller learning communities contained within larger high schools scored at or above national norms in reading compared to their peers. This impact is even greater for ethnic minority and low-income students. In addition, smaller learning communities enhance the school experience for both teachers and students--research shows that smaller schools generate greater community and parental involvement, and a more engaged and enthusiastic staff. Research also shows that students at smaller schools are more likely to participate in extracurricular activities, and in a greater variety of activities--because everyone is needed to fill out the teams, clubs, and offices, even shy and less able students are more likely to participate and develop a sense of belonging. Furthermore, contrary to what some may think, small schools can be created cost effectively. Larger schools can be more expensive because their sheer size requires more administrative support, and because small schools have higher graduation rates, the actual cost per graduating student is lower than at large schools. I certainly hope that we do not turn our backs on this initiative, which we already know from research is a worthwhile investment that has real impact on school climate and student safety, as well as on student morale and achievement.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also want to share my thanks for the Committee's attention to the benefits of Internet-based AP programs, particularly in rural and Native American areas of the country. As technological capacities at schools increase, there is every reason to utilize such tools to deliver high-quality programs like AP courses through distance methods, especially in schools where the student population is too small or location is too remote to sustain a great deal of variety on- site. I look forward to working with you and the Administration to expand support for these kinds of innovative means of advanced instructional delivery to our rural and Native American schools.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Senators Specter and Harkin, I'd like to express my appreciation to you and your committee members for agreeing on the importance of the Advanced Placement (AP) Incentive Program by recommending that it be funded at $20,000,000--a $5,000,000 increase over last year's appropriation. As you know, the AP program provides rigorous instruction to high school students by teachers who have had additional, intensive professional development. While historically it was the well-to-do elite that had access to these courses--which not only cover advanced material but enable students to gain college credit and advanced standing--today the AP program continues to expand its reach, so that over half of all high schools in the nation offer AP courses in a variety of subject areas. The fact of the matter is that in this era of focus on high standards and improving student achievement, the AP program offers proven impact on student outcomes in high school, and there is even research that shows that regardless of the grade attained, a student who has access to more rigorous course work in high school is more likely to complete college. As you know, the AP Incentive Program helps ensure that AP classes are within reach of low income students by subsidizing the cost of taking the AP test. These tests cost about $100 and many low income students would have to pass up the opportunity to take it due to expense. The program also supports activities designed to expand access to AP courses, particularly in low income areas. Many schools do not yet have AP programs and schools with large minority and low income populations are less likely to offer AP courses. This can be tragic for many students, as many colleges and universities consider whether a student has taken AP classes when making admissions decisions. Every student-- regardless of socioeconomic background--should have the opportunity to attend college and to take challenging curriculum in high school. This program helps to ensure both.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the Chairman yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. It is clear that as we seek ways to assist resource- poor and failing schools, we should increase support for research-based proven programs like Success for All. The House bill included the amount requested by the Administration--$240,000,000--for this program and I know that Senators Specter and Harkin are supporters of the program. So, I'd like to encourage the Senators to include funding for it as the bill moves to conference. Funding at this level would allow approximately 2,250 schools to receive new grants and continue support for 1,025 schools currently using such funds to carry out research- based school reforms. It is my hope that we can work together as the bill moves through the appropriations process to fund this successful program.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The notion of systematic, comprehensive reform is inherently appealing because rather than piecing together discordant or incompatible pieces of change, these approaches provide a holistic and coordinated plan of action to improve student achievement and outcomes. I know that a number of research-based models of comprehensive school reform have been developed in recent years, and one that I am familiar with and which has spurred great progress across New Mexico is the Success for All program. Success for All is serving about 1550 elementary schools in 48 states, and is also assisting related projects in five other countries. Fifty schools in New Mexico have adopted this program with great results.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Lugar, I know you're aware of the tremendous good that the Comprehensive School Reform program (CSRD) has introduced to many struggling schools with high proportions of disadvantaged students, and the potential that the program offers for the numerous schools that desire to implement comprehensive reform in their buildings. While I recognize the considerable task of Chairman Spector and Ranking Member Harkin in accommodating the great number of priorities funded in the FY'01 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, it concerns me that the bill before us provides no funds for the CSRD-- a tremendously popular and effective program.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the cosponsors of this amendment I thank Senators Specter and Harkin for dedicating $5,000,000 from the Fund for the improvement of Postsecondary Education for desperately-needed construction and renovation projects at the 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities that comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. These institutions serve students from over 250 federally recognized Tribes in some of the most impoverished parts of the country. Anyone who has ever visited one has seen the overcrowding and the poor condition of the facilities; crumbling foundations, leaky roofs, exposed wiring, and many other safety hazards were in fact recently estimated to require $120 million in repairs. The $5,000,000 supplemental to the Title III Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities funding recommended by the committee will provide some relief to the inadequate and unsafe conditions at many of the Tribal Colleges and Universities and hopefully will help the institutions leverage additional private funds. However, we know the needs are extremely great, and hope that the Congress will sustain and expand this commitment of federal resources to aid these schools which play such a key role in the education of our Native American populations.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank Senators Specter and Harkin for agreeing to include my amendment dedicating $10,000,000 from the Fund for the Improvement of Education to support proven dropout prevention programs in the managers' package. As my colleagues know, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Reid, Collins, and DeWine seeking $20 million for this purpose. While both of these amounts fall short of the $150,000,000 level authorized in an amendment passed by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to the ending ESEA reauthorization bill, this $10,000,000 is an important first step in supporting local efforts to develop, implement, and disseminate effective dropout prevention programs. It is my hope that in future years we will be able to grow the funds for this crucial effort in order to ensure that all schools with high dropout rates have the resources and information that they need to curb the high incidence of students dropping out of school. Today, the lack of a high school education is a greater barrier than ever to employment, income, and advancement opportunities; though we frequently talk about how strong the economy is in the United States, we simply cannot overlook the fact that there are millions of working Americans who have never finished high school, and they earn less than a third of what their peers with a college degress earn. High school completion rates remain distressingly low in many locales around the country--over 3,000 young people drop out of our high schools and middle schools each school day. Not surprisingly, the problem is disproportionately great along racial, ethnic and socioeconomic lines; Hispanic youth for instance, are nearly three times more likely to drop out than their white classmates, and African American students are still dropping out at a rate higher than their white peers as well. As The Hispanic Dropout Project found, widespread misunderstandings of the underlying causes of dropouts, combined with a lack of familiarity with effective programs, has prevented increased school completion for some groups. It is my hope that when ESEA is reauthorized, we will be able to further extend the critical support that is needed to help our at-risk students complete high school with the skills necessary for the workplace or continued education. In the meantime, this commitment to funding is an important step towards ensuring that all students who are at risk of dropping out of school receive the appropriate attention and support they need to further their learning and graduate from high school. I thank my colleagues for working with me on this important effort.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chairman for his response.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In hearings before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee we heard expert testimony regarding the contribution to increased safety made by human factors research in industries such as defense and aviation. This field of research maximizes the efficiency and accuracy of the interface of humans with equipment, technology and the workplace environment. Does the Chairman view human factors as a field of research that could make an important contribution toward reducing medical errors?

Mr. BINGAMAN. First, I want to compliment the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on their hard work in producing this bill for the consideration of the Senate. I would also compliment the Committee for addressing the medical errors issue. Medical errors account for as many as 98,000 deaths each year making it the 5th leading cause of death in America. It is therefore appropriate that the Committee has recommended an allocation of $50 million to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to focus on ways to reduce medical errors.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and others, to recognize we are passing S. 1515, which makes long overdue improvements to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990. Mr. President, RECA was originally enacted in 1990 as a means of compensating the individuals who suffered from exposure to radiation as a result of the U.S. government's nuclear testing program and federal uranium mining activities. While the government can never fully compensate for the loss of a life or the reduction in the quality of life, RECA serves as a cornerstone for the national apology Congress extended to those adversely affected by the various radiation tragedies. In keeping with the spirit of that apology, the legislation the Senate is passing today will further correct existing injustices and provide compassionate compensation for those whose lives and health were sacrificed as part of our nation's effort to win the Cold War. While this bill does not go as far as the bill I originally introduced in the Senate this Congress, I am pleased that we have been able to take these important steps to begin to compensate our citizens for the sacrifices they made. During the period of 1947 to 1961, the Federal Government controlled all aspects of the production of nuclear fuel. One of these aspects was the mining of uranium in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Wyoming and Utah. Even though the Federal Government had adequate knowledge of the hazards involved in uranium mining, these miners, many of whom were Native Americans, were sent into inadequately ventilated mines with virtually no instruction regarding the dangers of ionizing radiation. These miners had no idea of those dangers. Consequently, they inhaled radon particles that eventually yielded substantial doses of ionizing radiation. As a result, these miners have a substantially elevated cancer rate and incidence of incapacitating respiratory disease. The health effects of uranium mining in the fifties and sixties remain the single greatest concern of many former uranium miners and millers and their families and friends. In 1990, I was pleased to co-sponsor the original RECA legislation to provide compassionate compensation to uranium miners. I believe that our efforts in 1990 were well intentioned but have not proven to be as effective as we had hoped in providing redress to those individuals who suffered the effects of working in uranium mines or mills or transporting the ore. The government has the responsibility to compensate all those adversely affected and who have suffered health problems because they were not adequately informed of the risks they faced while mining, milling, and transporting uranium ore. Now we are getting ready to pass this comprehensive amendment to RECA to correct omissions, make RECA consistent with current medical knowledge, and to address what have become administrative horror stories for the claimants. With passage of this bill, we're now a Presidential signature away from offering compensation to thousands more uranium workers than ever. Mr. President, the success of this bill is due in large part to Paul Hicks, who stood up for uranium workers, and strongly encouraged Congress to do the right thing by passing this bill. Paul was President of the Uranium Workers of New Mexico, and his passing just two months ago makes today's action bittersweet. But I hope his family can take comfort in the fact that he made a tremendously positive impact on the lives of thousands of uranium workers. Mr. President, I am appreciative of all the hard work done on this bill by Senator Hatch and others, and I hope the President will sign this bill as soon as possible so that justice will be delayed no longer.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the amendment my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has offered to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill to restore critical funding to skills training programs at the Department of Labor. Mr. President, I appreciate the work that Senators Specter and Harkin have put into this bill. Finding the appropriate balance in this bill is particularly difficult. And, while I am disappointed with the funding levels for many of the programs at the Department of Labor, I do understand that Senator Specter and Senator Harkin care deeply about the programs affected by this amendment. There are several components of the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy but I would like to take a minute to discuss one in particular that is of critical importance to my state of New Mexico. Mr. President, the amendment calls for an additional $181 million for dislocated worker assistance This additional funding would meet the President's request for fiscal year 2001. When Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act a couple years ago, an important component was the funding stream for dislocated workers. While much of the Nation has prospered over the past eight years, many in my home state have not. I have seen plant closing from Roswell and Carlsbad in the east, to Las Cruces in the south, Albuquerque in the north and Cobre in the west. Thousands of high paying jobs have been lost, and especially hard hit has been the extractive industries. I don't need to tell my colleagues how devastating a plant closing can be on a community and families. The Workforce Investment Act authorizes grants to States and local areas to provide core, intensive training and supportive services to laid off workers with the aim being to help them return to work as quickly as possible at wages as close as possible to those received prior to the layoff. These funds are critically important as the nature of our economy has changed over the last decade from an industrial base economy to a technologically based one. Workers who are laid off today, particularly those who have been with the same company for a number of years, are often unprepared to reenter the work place or for the new economy they face. Training and retraining is critical to develop the skills they need to quickly find a decent paying job and get back on their feet. Under President Clinton, dislocated worker funding has tripled from $517 million in Program Year 1993 to $1.589 billion in Program Year 2000. Yet despite these increases, the need for these services has unfortunately kept pace with, and in some cases exceeded, the availability of funds. The President's budget for year 2001 continues the commitment to dislocated worker programs by providing adequate funding levels that will give dislocated workers the tools to compete in the new economy. This is the second installment of a five-year Universal Reemployment Initiative. Under the Universal Reemployment Initiative, dislocated worker funding was to be increased each year to ensure that by 2004 every dislocated worker would receive training and reemployment services if they want and need it, every unemployment insurance claimant who loses their job through no fault of their own would get the reemployment services they want and need, and every American would have access to One-Stop Career Centers. However, and unfortunately in my opinion, unless the level of funding in the Senate's Labor/HHS bill is not increased, this will be the first year since 1994 that there will be no increase in these funds, and our commitment to universal reemployment will be in serious jeopardy. Specifically, this bill cuts over $181 million from the President's request which will mean the Department of Labor will be able to serve 100,825 fewer recipients. While the bulk of this cut would fall on State/local formula funding, it is important to note that 20 percent of the cut--over $36 million, would be in the Secretary's reserve funds, reducing her capacity to make National Emergency Grants to respond to disasters and large scale layoffs. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, New Mexico has been through a couple rough months. These funds for dislocated workers are extremely important and I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment to bring the level of funding for this, and many other important programs, up to the level of the President's request. Finally, Mr. President, I would also encourage my colleagues to support this amendment because of the increased funding levels for Youth Opportunity Grants, the Summer Jobs Program, and for Job Corps, among others. These programs, and the funding levels contained in this amendment are likewise critical to meeting the needs of young people in my state. Again, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and commend my friend, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership on issues that are so important to families and working men and women throughout this country.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we do have one other Senator who I believe is on his way to the floor and wishes to speak. If there are any Senators wishing to speak in opposition, we will be glad to hear from them. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed there is no time agreement; is that correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since the Senator has withdrawn his request, I don't agree to it. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, the cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I believe that letter summarizes very well the thrust of my argument. We have the Federal Government now spending over $8 billion this next year--almost $9 billion--to assist disadvantaged students through the title I program. But the accompanying accountability provisions in the law have not been fully implemented. That is, we have not seen the results we would like to see in all cases--in the case of these failing schools in particular--due to a lack of dedicated funding that would be necessary to develop improved strategies and create rewards and penalties that hold schools accountable for continuous improvement in their student performance. The bill before us does not identify any specific funds for accountability enforcement efforts. We need to ensure that a significant funding stream is provided so that these accountability provisions are in fact enforced. The amendment I have offered seeks to ensure that $250 million, which is a small fraction of the total amount appropriated under title I, is directly spent on this objective. This money would be used to ensure that States and local school districts have the resources available to implement the corrective action provisions of title I by providing immediate and intensive interventions to turn around low-performing schools. What type of interventions am I talking about? What are we trying to ensure that States and school districts can do by providing these funds? Let me give you a list. First of all, ongoing and intensive teacher training. If you have a failing school where the students are not performing better than they did last year, it is likely that the problem comes back to the teachers. We need better training of some of our teachers in that school. These funds would make that possible. Second, extended learning time for students, afterschool programs, Saturday, and summer school to help students catch up. Again, a failing school, in many cases, needs those kinds of resources. Third, provision of rewards to low-performing schools that show significant progress, including cash awards and other incentives, such as release time for teachers. Fourth, restructuring of chronically failing schools. In many cases, you need a restructuring of a school. You need to replace some of the people in the administration. You need to have a restructuring so that the school can start off on another foot. Fifth, intensive technical assistance from teams of experts outside the school to help develop and implement school improvement plans in these failing schools. These are teams that go into the school and determine the causes of the low performance--for example, low expectations, outdated curriculum, poorly trained teachers, and unsafe conditions--and assist those schools in implementing research-based models for improvement. Here is one example of what I am talking about. A program with which many of us have become familiar--I certainly have in my State--is called Success for All. This is a program which is called a whole school reform program for the early grades, elementary schools. It was developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, and it has been implemented in over 2,000 elementary schools throughout the country. There were over 50 schools in my home State of New Mexico this last year that implemented the Success for All Program. The program is a proven early grade reading program which, if implemented properly, can ensure better results. All of the studies demonstrate that it can lead to better results. At the end of the first grade, Success for All schools have average reading scores almost 3 months ahead of those in matching control schools, and by the end of the fifth grade, students read more than 1 year ahead of their peers in the controlled schools. So the program can reduce the need for special education placements by more than 50 percent and virtually eliminate the problem of having to retain students in a grade more than a year. The funding contemplated in this amendment I am offering is authorized under both the old version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the proposed new version, on which we just had a debate about how to get that back up for consideration in the Senate. Under section 1002(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act currently in effect, Congress is authorized to provide such sums as may be necessary to provide needed assistance for school improvement under sections 1116 and 1117 of the act. That is the current Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Last year, we did provide additional assistance in this bill--this exact appropriations bill we are debating today. We provided $134 million for this purpose, and we need to follow through on that commitment this year. We also agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these funds were necessary during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the bill which was reported out of the committee. Under S. 2, the chairman's bill, there would be an automatic setaside of increased funds for title I for this purpose. Unfortunately, as has been discussed here at length, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act appears to be in limbo, and we are having great difficulty getting back to it on the Senate floor. It is simply irresponsible for us to invest $9 billion--or nearly that--in the title I program and, at the same time, still fail to provide necessary resources to ensure that the States, districts, and schools are held accountable for how that $9 billion is spent. Title I requires the States and districts to implement accountability and assist failing schools. But we in the Congress have failed to give the States and districts the resources necessary to carry out those mandates. Title I authorizes State school support teams to provide support for schoolwide programs, to provide assistance to schools in need of improvement through activities such as professional development, identifying resources for changing and instruction, and changing the organization of the school. In 1998, only eight States reported that school support teams have been able to serve the majority of schools identified in need of improvement. Less than half of the schools identified as needing improvement in the 1997-1998 school year reported that this designation led to additional professional development or assistance. Schools and school districts that need this additional support and resources do five things: Address weaknesses quickly soon after they are identified; second, promote a progressively intensive range of interventions; third, continuously assess the results of those interventions and monitor whether progress is, in fact, being made; fourth, implement incentives for improvement; and, fifth, implement consequences for failure. I think many in this Senate would agree that a crucial step toward improving the public schools lies in holding the system accountable for student achievement and better outcomes. I hope everyone is able to demonstrate with their vote on this amendment that they support these positive initiatives toward establishing that type of accountability. Unfortunately, our debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was prematurely ended. As I indicated, it is not clear when that will come back. I continue to hope it will come back to the Senate floor so we can complete that bill and send it to the President. I think that is a high priority that the American people want to see us accomplish before we leave this fall. When we resume consideration of that bill, I intend to offer an amendment that would address the area of accountability in all education programs. This amendment will enhance the existing accountability provisions in title I. As you know, this is the largest Federal program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and it has been discussed before as to the great good this program does. We made some important changes to title I. I indicated that the chairman's mark has some provision for a significant increase in the amount of funds that could be used for these accountability purposes. But under current law, States and the school districts are not able to spend the money they need in this area. That is why the amendment I am offering today is so important. I hope very much that Senators will support the amendment. In my home State of New Mexico the need is enormous. In 1994, fourth grade reading data showed that an average of 21 percent of fourth graders in my State were reading at a level that was considered proficient. There is a tremendous need for additional resources in this area. The fact is that many of these students are minority students, and many of these students require the assistance that title I was intended to provide. We need to be sure that the accountability is there so these funds are spent in an effective way. I know that Senator Reed is also here on the floor and is a cosponsor of this amendment. He would like to speak to it. Let me indicate also, if I failed to do so at the beginning of my comments, that the amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senators Reed, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, and Wellstone. Exhibit 1 Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC, June 21, 2000. Member, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: On behalf of the state commissioners and superintendents of education, I write to comment on the FY2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill (S. 2553), which the Senate Appropriations Committee passed last month. While the Council is extremely pleased with the bipartisan effort to significantly increase the overall funding level for education programs, we have several concerns with education policy issues reflected in the bill, as well as programs which are underfunded. The Council applauds the Committee's decision to increase funding for education by over $4.6 billion, which is higher than the President's request. We are grateful that the Senate recognizes the need to substantially invest in education, and S. 2553 is responsive to recent polls that show 61% of the public believe that the federal government does not invest enough in education. Specifically, we are pleased that the bill increases funding for programs such as Title I, IDEA, and vocational education, although these programs still remain critically underfunded. Despite the high total funding level, there are several elementary and secondary education issues included in the bill which greatly concern the Council. We urge adoption of amendments to address these issues. Amendments are needed as follows: (1) restore and increase resources to assist low- performing Title I schools; (2) continue development and implementation of aligned state and local standards and assessments; (3) provide separate, guaranteed funding streams for class size reduction and school modernization; (4) increase funding for teacher quality in Title II, ESEA and Title II, HEA; (5) restore and increase funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program; and (6) delete provisions that would allow community based organizations to operate the 21st Century Community Schools program. The Council urges adoption of the following amendments to S. 2553: Support the Bingaman amendment to restore and increase funding for Title I accountability grants to assist low- performing schools. Last year Congress appropriated $134 million in Title I accountability funds to help aid over 7,000 schools identified as low performing. While CCSSO supports providing assistance to low-performing schools through an increased state set-aside, the accountability grants are essential to help turn around our nation's most troubled schools. Several of our states have already expressed reluctance to undertake the new grants due to uncertainty over future funding. It is critical that the accountability grants be sustained and funding increased to the President's request of $250 million, so states and districts can continue to help improve these schools. Provide guaranteed funding to allow SEAs to continue the key functions of Goals 2000. This funding is necessary for states and districts to continue development and implementation of high standards for student achievement with aligned assessments to measure progress of students, schools, and systems. Goals 2000 has been the leading source of funds for localities and states to develop standards and innovative improvement strategies. Funding for continuing these purposes must be included in Title II or Title VI, ESEA. Support the Murray and Harkin amendments to provide separate, guaranteed funding streams for class size reduction and school modernization. S. 2553 contains provisions for the use of a $2.7 billion block grant within Title VI, ESEA to allow funding for any programs that a LEA determines are ``. . . part of a local strategy for improving academic achievement''. While CCSSO strongly supports a substantial increase in funding for Title VI, Innovative Strategies to enable states and districts to continue development and implementation of challenging standards and assessments, we oppose block granting of education programs such as Class Size Reduction and School Modernization. Block granting of federal education programs leads to reduction of federal funding, as evidenced by the 1981 consolidation of 26 federal education programs with appropriations of $750 million. Today, the appropriation for these programs is $375 million. When adjusted for inflation, the current appropriation is only one-fourth of the $1.5 billion value these programs would have today if the programs prior to block granting were kept at 1980 levels. To be sustained at effective levels, federal education funds should be targeted to educational priorities that serve America's neediest students. Separate programs for reducing class size and school modernization are essential. We urge the Senate to guarantee separate funding streams for these two critical programs and to fund School Modernization at $1.3 billion and Class Size Reduction at $1.75 billion in FY2001. Support the Kennedy amendment to increase funding for Teacher quality by providing substantial new funds for Title II, ESEA, and Title II, HEA. S. 2553 reduces funding for teacher quality by over $500 million below the President's request. This funding is necessary since schools will need additional resources to recruit and train the 2.2 million new teachers needed in the next decade, as well as to strengthen the skills of current teachers. Restore and increase funding for the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program. This highly successful program has been in existence for 3 years and has provided critical assistance to our nation's neediest schools and students. By eliminating funding for CSRD, more than 3,000 schools in need of improvement will be denied the opportunity to receive funding for research-based models of schoolwide improvement. Delete the Gregg amendment adopted during Committee markup to allow community-based organization (CBO's) to apply for and operate the 21st Century Afterschool program. This innovative program should be continued to be based at schools with orientation toward academic success through after-school enrichment program targeted to disadvantaged youth. Current law has successfully promoted LEA-CBO partnerships to expand learning opportunities for youth during non-school hours, weekends, and summers. Authorizing CBO's to operate the programs alone would completely alter this partnerships and undermine the focus on academically-related extended learning. Additionally, the funding level for this program is $400 million below the President's request, which would result in 1.6 million fewer children receiving services. We urge the Senate to address these issues during floor action. These changes together with the commended strong bipartisan increase in funding for education programs would provide an important new appropriation for education. However, if the above issues are not addressed, we cannot support the bill. We look forward to working with Members of the Senate to increase federal education support which connects with state and local efforts to strengthen classroom quality and access to education excellence for all students. If we can be of any assistance to you or answer any questions, please call me or Carnie Hayes, our Director of Federal State Relations, at (202) 336-7009. As always, thank you for considering our recommendations. Sincerely, Gordon M. Ambach, Executive Director.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have indicated to the majority that I would take a half hour to discuss the amendment on our side. I know Senator Reed also wishes to speak about the amendment, and perhaps others. If the Republican side will take the same limited amount of time, I believe that is the arrangement. This is an amendment to address the central issue that has been part of the education debate all along, and that is the issue of accountability. On the last amendment Senator Wellstone proposed, I know the discussion back and forth between Senator Wellstone and the Senator from New Hampshire. The position of the Senator from New Hampshire was that he could support increases in title I if there was proper accountability for how the money was spent, if we could be sure the money was spent for the purpose it was really needed. The amendment I am proposing would try to put into place the mechanisms to ensure that accountability. That, I believe, is a reason the amendment should be supported by everyone. Let me indicate what current law is. Current law says that of the title I funds a State receives, they can spend a maximum of one-half of 1 percent of those title I funds in order to ensure accountability in the expenditure of those funds. That is, if you have a failing school-- for example, take my State. If one of our school districts in New Mexico has an elementary school that is not doing well and is not showing improvement in student performance, then the State has one-half of 1 percent of the title I funds it can spend in trying to assist that school to do better. That is all it can spend, and that is for the entire State. It is clear to anybody who has worked in education that this is an inadequate amount of money. I have here a letter that has been sent to me by the Council of Chief State School Officers. I want to read a section from that where they indicate their support for this Bingaman amendment to restore an increase in funding for title I accountability grants to assist low-performing schools: Last year, Congress appropriated $134 million in title I accountability funds to help aid over 7,000 schools, to help low-performing schools that were identified. The Council of Chief State School Officers supports providing assistance to low-performing schools through an increased State setaside. The accountability grants are essential to help turn around our Nation's most troubled schools. Several of our States have already expressed reluctance to undertake the new grants due to an certainty over future funding. It is critical that the accountability grants be sustained and funded and funding increased to the President's request of $250 million, so that States and districts can continue to help improve these schools. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter, dated June 21, 2000, be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for consideration of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is a straightforward amendment to add $250 million to the title I part of the bill and provide that that funding has to be spent to ensure accountability in the expenditure of the remaining nearly $9 billion. One of the problems we have had in the past--and it has been referred to by many Senators--is that we haven't had funds available to States and local school districts to ensure that title I funds are spent to accomplish their purposes. We need to enable States to assist failing schools. They have not been doing that effectively. The Council of Chief State School Officers supports this. I have a letter from them that I have printed in the Record. Last year, we put $134 million into this effort on this exact bill. This year, the President has requested we put $250 million into it. That is what my amendment proposes to do. Otherwise, current law limits them to one-half of 1 percent of the title I funds. They cannot ensure accountability unless we add this amendment. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Caroline Chang, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this bill.