Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, May 17. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Warner, in introducing this proposal. Senator Warner deserves credit for focusing our attention on the selfless efforts of teachers, and on the financial sacrifices they make, to improve their instructional skills and the classrooms where they teach. As President Bush has put it, ``Teachers sometimes lead with their hearts and pay with their wallets.'' Our amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should pass legislation providing teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket, unreimbursed expenses they incur to improve the education of our children. Our amendment is targeted to support the expenditures of teachers who strive for excellence beyond the constraints of what their schools provide. Yet our amendment is broad enough to embrace a number of different approaches to supporting our teachers through the tax code. Earlier this year, I introduced the Teacher Support Act of 2001, which is supported by good friends, Senators Kyl, Landrieu, and Cochran. Our bill has two major provisions. First, it would allow teachers and teacher's aides to take an above-the-line deduction for their professional development expenses. Second, the bill would grant educators a tax credit of up to $100 for books, supplies, and equipment that they purchase for their students. According to a study by the National Education Association, the average public school teacher spends more than $400 annually on classroom materials. This sacrifice is typical of the dedication of so many teachers to their students. So often, teachers in Maine and throughout the country spend their own money to better the classroom experiences of their students. I recently met with Idella Harter, president of the Maine Education Association, who told me of the books, rewards for student behavior, and other materials that she routinely purchased for her classroom. One year, Idella saved all of her receipts from purchases of classroom materials. She started adding up all the receipts and was startled to discover that they totaled over $1,000! She said that she decided she better stop counting at that point. And Idella is not alone, Maureen Marshall, who handles education issues in my office, taught public school for several years in Hawaii and Virginia. In her first year as a teacher, she spent well over $1,000 of her own money on educational software, books, pocket charts to assist with language arts instruction, and other materials. And yet, because of her tax situation, she could not deduct these expenses from her taxable income. The ultimate beneficiaries of efforts to provide financial assistance to our teachers are our students. Other than involved parents, a well- qualified teacher is the most important prerequisite for student success. Educational researchers have demonstrated the close relationship between qualified educators and successful students. Moreover, educators themselves understand how important professional development is to maintaining and extending their levels of competence. When I meet with teachers from Maine, they repeatedly tell me of their need for more professional development and the scarcity of financial support for this worthy pursuit. I greatly admire the many educators who have voluntarily financed additional education to improve their skills and to serve their students better and who purchase books, supplies, equipment and other materials that enhance their teaching. By enacting modest changes to our tax code, we can encourage educators to continue to take formal course work in the subject matter that they teach and to attend conferences to give them new ideas for presenting course work in a challenging manner. I hope that, by adopting this amendment, which is particularly fitting on National Teacher Day, we will pave the way for passage of meaningful tax relief for teachers later this year. I think we should make it a priority to reimburse educators for a small part of what they invest in our children's future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``Tissue Banks: Is the Federal Government's Oversight Adequate?'' The upcoming hearing will identify and describe alleged problems in the tissue industry and assess the current adequacy of current and anticipated federal oversight. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 24, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Christopher A. Ford of the subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I first commend the Senator from Connecticut for his extraordinary efforts. He has such a commitment to improving the education of disadvantaged children. He has been a leader in this effort, and I am very honored and pleased to join him tonight as his principal cosponsor of a very important amendment. We talked a great deal during the past few days about what the proper role is for the Federal Government with regard to education. We all agree that States and local communities have the primary responsibility for education, but since the mid-1960s, when the Federal Government first passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the role of the Federal Government has been to promote educational equity, to try to narrow that persistent and troubling achievement gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. That is the reason the Federal Government is involved at all in education. It is to help with the education of the poorest children in this country, to help ensure they have the same opportunities as children from more affluent families. Title I authorizes Federal aid to State and local education agencies for the education of these disadvantaged children. Title I grants are used to provide supplementary educational and other services to low- achieving children attending schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. Much has been made of the fact that more than $120 billion has been poured in to title I programs over the past 35 years with not much to show for results. I understand that argument, and I am concerned that we have not made more progress in providing educational opportunities to disadvantaged children, but I firmly believe that is about to change. We are not talking about putting considerably more money and doing things in exactly the same manner. We are not talking about pouring more money into a failed system. Instead, what we are putting forth with this bill is a new approach, a reformed system, a system that sets forth the goal of leaving no child behind, including and especially those children from disadvantaged families. We are talking about having accountability, of holding schools responsible for what really counts, and that is improving student achievement. We are changing the focus from regulations and rules to results. We are asking the right questions. We are asking the question, ``are our children learning?'' And not, ``Was that form filled out correctly?'' That is a fundamentally different approach to education policy. With the leadership of President Bush and the Members on both sides of the aisle, the Senate has produced landmark legislation, the BEST Act, legislation that I believe may well be the most important bill we consider this year. It is legislation that I believe will help turn around many failing schools across America. With this act, we are making a fundamental change in our expectations for our schools. We are rejecting what President Bush has so eloquently called the soft bigotry of low expectations. But along with reforming the system, as we are imposing these new requirements and holding schools accountable for improved student achievement, we need to provide some assistance with the financial aspects of reform. The amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Dodd will do just that. Our amendment authorizes the Federal Government to provide the poorest schools in our country with significant additional funding over the next 10 years. Our effort would set the goal of fully funding title I programs by the year 2011. We may not be able to do it. We may not be able to produce the appropriations over the next 10 years that match these authorization levels, but shouldn't we set forth the goal of doing so? Shouldn't we challenge ourselves, just as we are challenging schools, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, and students all over this great Nation to increase their standards, to set high standards for our children, and to hold schools accountable for improving student achievement? Shouldn't we, too, set high standards for ourselves? Shouldn't we challenge ourselves to meet the goal of fully funding title I? That is what our amendment proposes. We should be troubled by the growing achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. Recent test results suggest we are going in the wrong direction, that the students who are performing the worst are actually getting worse. We cannot accept that. We have to make the difference. The system has failed to narrow this persistent and troubling achievement gap over the past 35 years. That is why we need the fundamental reforms included in this legislation. But it is also why we need to put more resources into the system to support these new reforms. We have set these challenging goals for the schools of America. Let members set an equally challenging goal for ourselves to fully fund title I. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to join with the Senator from Connecticut and with me in setting this goal for America's schools. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk as a substitute to the amendment that is before the Senate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first let me start by commending the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking minority member, Senator Kennedy, for their extraordinary work on this important legislation. They have shown real leadership in pulling the Senate together on what I believe may well be the most important legislation we consider this year; that is, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. My amendment would make a series of improvements to an extremely important component of the bill, and that is Reading First. I have worked with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle as well as with the administration, the Secretary of Education, and the President to ensure that both the Early Reading First and the Reading First initiatives are truly focused on our goal of helping every child to learn to read. We can do so much more to ensure that every child learns to read. Reading First is based on the principle that the best way to ensure that no child is left behind is to teach every child to read. Reading First encourages States and school districts to take a preventive role when dealing with reading programs. It would provide assistance to States and school districts to establish reading programs for students in grades kindergarten through the third grade to better ground specifically based reading research in order to ensure that every student can read at or above grade level by the end of the third grade. It would provide assistance to States and school districts to better prepare our teachers who are on the front line and who are so important in this crusade. It would give them professional development and other support so that teachers can identify specific reading barriers facing the students and have the tools that they need to assist their students in learning to read. Reading experts tell us that children learn to read in many different ways. This isn't a case where one approach serves the needs of every student. Some students may need to put their fingers on their mouths when they say certain words to understand the sounds that make up those words. Others may need to clap out the syllables to understand how words are constructed. These are examples of the kinds of teaching tools that Reading First will promote and that will assist teachers in learning. The program would also provide assistance to States and school districts in selecting and developing diagnostic reading assessments that document whether children are learning and will also help us to assess the effectiveness of the Reading First Program. Reading First would require us to make a real commitment. We should not require students to fail before providing assistance. And, yet, that is often what we do. The most common intervention is placement in special education which for most children is simply not a solution. Special education services are not designed to solve a children's reading disability, and for the most part they do not. Our Early Literacy Program is well documented. Approximately 2.8 million students in the United States have been identified as having a learning disability. Of those, 90 percent have trouble reading. The good news is with proper, effective, and early intervention a learning disability can be treated, and children with reading disabilities can have the potential to achieve their full potential. The bad news is that most States do not now have the resources to establish the kinds of reading programs and early interventions that are most effective. Reading First would address this problem. It provides a national focus on early reading intervention. It simply does not make sense to wait until the third grade to test a child's reading ability, find out that that child's reading skills are far below his or her peers', and know that the chance of that child learning to read by grade level by the end of elementary school is less than 25 percent. By contrast, if a child is tested and receives help in kindergarten or first grade, that child has a 90- to 95-percent chance of becoming a good reader. Since reading is researched more easily and effectively during the early years, identifying children who have problems with reading and providing them with the help they need early on is very effective. Reading First is a comprehensive approach to promoting literacy in all 50 States. It will support the efforts of States such as Maine that have already made great strides under the Reading Excellence Act in promoting reading and literacy. The Reading First initiative would provide $1 billion per year--that is triple our current commitment--to States and school districts to establish and enhance reading partnerships and to develop early literacy professional development programs for teachers. We know that other than involved parents, a good teacher, with proper literacy training, is the single most important prerequisite to a student's reading success. We also know that reading is the gateway to learning other subjects and to future academic achievement. That is why it is so important that this bill make such a national commitment to reading programs. The amendment I have proposed improves upon the Reading First section of the bill in a number of ways. First of all, it would improve the targeting of funds so that more would be allocated to those local schools that have the most schoolchildren who are reading below grade level. Second, it would clarify that each State's educational agency would be responsible for administering the program. Third, it adds greater detail to the criteria that will be used to award competitive grants to States by specifying that a State must be able to demonstrate improved reading achievement in those schools that are receiving Reading First funds. It would require the Secretary to minimize the amount of new paperwork for States that have already applied for and received a grant under the current Reading Excellence Act. It would increase accountability by requiring States and local school districts to demonstrate improved reading achievement in schools that are receiving Reading First funds. And it would require that, in carrying out the evaluation of this program, the Secretary assess whether it is having an impact on the identification and referral of young students to special education services under IDEA. Let me just elaborate on this latter point. I firmly believe if we invest in early reading programs, and identify children who are having difficulty in learning reading early on, that many of those children will not need special education. The reason this is important is, once a child becomes part of special education, the chances of that child ever leaving special education are less than 5 percent. We know that if we intervene early, 90 to 95 percent of children with learning disabilities can be helped. But if those children become part of the special education system, the chances of their leaving special education are less than 5 percent. This is an investment that makes sense. President Bush deserves enormous credit for placing reading at the top of our education agenda and for being willing to work with us--with Members on both sides of the aisle--to hammer out the best possible legislation. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island wanted 5 minutes to comment on this legislation. My statement is quite lengthy. What I would like to do is ask unanimous consent to be able to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island and then reclaim my time so that I can complete my statement, if that is acceptable to the managers of the bill.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, now that the ranking Democrat on the HELP Committee has joined us, I once again repeat my praise of his efforts as well as those of the chairman of the committee. Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy have done incredible work in bringing us together on this important issue, as has the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist. I thank them for their efforts on what I believe to be such an important initiative. To reach our goal of helping all children, of ensuring that every child knows how to read, the reading programs authorized by this bill draw on 30 years of research on reading and reading instruction. These programs will enhance our ability to help every child succeed. We know that we have a lot of work to do. By way of background, I will share with my colleagues some of the troubling statistics about reading in this country: 20 million children are at risk for reading failure; 75 percent of children with reading difficulties who are now helped by the time they reach the age of 9 will still have poor reading skills at the end of high school. That is why early intervention is so important. Eighty to 90 percent of children identified with learning disabilities have their primary deficits in reading and language-based processes. We know that fewer than a third of our fourth graders can read at grade level. We know that the reading scores on the national tests for reading have been flat for 30 years, and the recent release of the NAEP scores for this year would continue this flat line. We need to do things differently. We need to increase the Federal investment. That is what this bill would do, by tripling funding for reading programs. We also need a fresh approach. Fortunately, research provides reliable ways to determine whether children as young as age 4 are developing the necessary skills to learn to read. Early identification and effective early intervention can dramatically reduce the numbers of students who fail to learn to read. Teachers have told me of the excitement they feel when they watch a child learn the strategies needed to crack the reading code. For some students it is a mysterious code, but teachers have proven over and over again that there are strategies and solid research that can bring techniques into the classroom to help children discover that they can, indeed, become good readers. The ability to read unlocks the doors to all other areas of the curriculum. Children who can't read don't excel in other subject areas. In fact, nonreaders pull away from other academic subjects if they don't experience success in reading. I find it so exciting that this country is now focused on reading. Reading is finally getting the attention, the support, and the resources it deserves. It has taken years for the importance of reading to rise to national attention. I give our President and the First Lady tremendous credit in focusing national attention on the importance of reading. I believe we are about to take a great leap forward for this Nation toward increasing literacy. The amendment I put forth merely strengthens the provisions of the reading initiative in this important legislation. It will ensure that we have access to the information we need to determine whether this program is a success. The bottom line: If we act swiftly and effectively to teach reading in the early grades, we will provide our children with the solid foundation they need for future academic success. The Reading First initiative gives meaning to our commitment to leave no child behind by making certain that every child can read. This is critical because our Nation is in the midst of a monumental global change. Unlike previous generations who came of age when the United States was primarily an agricultural or manufacturing based economy, this generation coming to age now will need reading skills more than ever. Information processing has become a required skill for so many jobs. That is why reading is so important. It is the basic building block for participating fully in our society. In this country of opportunity and promise, we owe it to our children to make sure they learn to read and learn to read well. In closing, I thank the leaders of our committee and the National Center for Learning Disabilities, as well as the Department of Education and White House officials for working together with us to improve the Reading First initiative in this legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the committee for drafting this very important amendment to the bill. I have been concerned that we could be imposing an expensive new mandate on State and local governments through the testing requirements of this bill. Testing is very important, but I think we need to provide support. The chairman's amendment will ensure that the funding is provided to help States and local school districts develop the very best possible tests in order to assess the performance of their students and that we will be providing a good chunk of the money to do so. I commend the Senator for his amendment and for understanding that we need an assurance that that funding will be forthcoming before imposing this requirement. Again, I thank the Senator from Vermont for coming forth with this important amendment.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold hearings entitled ``Cross Border Fraud: Improving Transnational Law Enforcement.'' The upcoming hearings will examine the nature and scope of cross-border fraud problems and the state of binational U.S.-Canadian law enforcement coordination, and will explore what steps can be taken to fight such crime in the future. The hearings will take place on Thursday, June 14 and Friday, June 15, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., each day, in room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Christopher A. Ford of the Subcommittee staff at 224-3721.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my good friend and colleague from Texas for her kind comments and for her leadership in this area. I have enjoyed working with her on a number of educational issues. We will be bringing one up later this week. No endeavor is more important to our Nation's future than ensuring that all children receive a good education. In a real sense, the future of our country rests on the shoulders of our Nation's educators and depends upon the decisions we make today on how best to educate our leaders of tomorrow. I believe that this comprehensive education reform bill may well be the most important legislation the Senate debates this year. I am hopeful that we will pass a bill that keeps the inspirational promise made by President Bush ``to leave no child behind.'' In many cases, education is the difference between prosperity and poverty, hope and despair, dreams fulfilled and lost opportunities. Between Silicon Valley and Wall Street, many Americans still live in the shadows of the new prosperity. Education is the best, perhaps the only way, to close the every-widening economic gap in America. Indeed, the economic gap in America is largely an education gap. And, education is the best way for us to stoke the fire of our nation's economic engine. The President deserves tremendous credit for making education his top priority and for setting a goal that inspires us all. This should not be, and I hope will not be, a partisan debate, but rather a bipartisan discussion on how we can best achieve the goal of leaving no child behind. I am convinced that, working together, we can help states, communities, local school boards, educators, and parents improve our public schools significantly. The Better Education for Students and Teachers, or BEST, Act is an excellent start. The BEST Act demands a great deal from all of us. It would require parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school board members, state legislators, governors, and federal officials to work together to ensure that our children reach high standards of academic excellence. It would give our schools more flexibility in spending federal funds while holding them accountable for what really counts: improved student achievement. The legislation requires schools to answer the fundamental question: ``Are our children learning?''-- rather than, ``Was that federal paperwork completed correctly?'' It changes the focus from paperwork and process to results and accountability. During the past four years, I have visited more than 60 schools all over the State of Maine, from Kittery at the southern tip, to Jackman in the west, Rockland on the coast, and Fort Kent in the north. I have seen firsthand the excellent work of Maine dedicated teachers. The quality of instruction taking place in Maine schools is impressive, and it is producing results. Maine's scores on national tests prove that our State's public schools are among the best in the nation. Moreover, Maine's public schools strive to provide a good education for all of our children regardless of their family income or where they live in our State. A report issued last year by the Council of Chief State School Officers shows that, low-income students in Maine are performing nearly as well as the average of public school students in our state. Yet even in Maine, nearly one in four students has not acquired a level of literacy that is acceptable by most standards. Even in our strongest states, too many children are being left behind! Eighteen years ago, the landmark study, ``A Nation at Risk,'' warned of declining performance in American schools and turned the nation's attention toward reforming public education. Today, however, too many schools, particularly in our inner cities, continue to fail to provide a solid education to their students. Although the United States spends more than $660 billion a year on education, nearly 60 percent of our low-income fourth graders cannot read at a basic level. The Federal Government takes a secondary role to States and communities in terms of funding and overseeing our public schools, and that is how it should be. The Federal role is, nevertheless, important, particularly for helping disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, Washington has not always been helpful, nor has it been successful in achieving that goal. After spending $125 billion of title I funding for disadvantaged students over 25 years, there is little to suggest that we are making progress in narrowing the achievement gap. Fewer than a third of fourth graders can read at grade level. If you look more closely at test scores, over time, you will notice the better students improving their performance while the worse students are getting worse. You also see a persistent achievement gap between students from a disadvantaged families and their more affluent peers. Although title I was created to put economically challenged students on even ground with their peers, recent data from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) prove that the program has not achieved the goal of narrowing the gap in achievement. A state-by-state analysis of scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only test to measure student achievement nationwide, reveals troubling statistics that should give us pause, and that should cause us to ask what we should do differently. Many of us believe that more money and more resources are needed, but we can't pour more money into a failed system. We need to increase the dollars, but we also need to demand change. For example, let's look at the scores. There has been virtually no change since 1992 in fourth grade reading scores. As you can see from this chart, the line is flat despite the increase in expenditures over this 30-year period. The analysis found that only two states--Georgia and Massachusetts-- reduced the gap between white students and black or Hispanic students in fourth-grade math. No state did so in eighth grade, leaving gaps as wide as 56 points in Washington, DC, and 35 points in New Jersey. In reading, only Delaware reduced the gap. Overall, only 32% of fourth-graders were deemed to be ``proficient'' or better in reading in 2000. Nearly four in 10 students nationally continue to read below a basic level, meaning they have serious problems understanding even simple texts. Sixty-three percent of African-American fourth-graders, 60 percent of children in poverty, and 47 percent of children in urban schools fell ``below basic'' in their skills, meaning they have less than even a ``partial mastery'' of the material. Again, look how flat these scores are, whether you are looking at the 4th graders, the 8th graders, or the 12th graders. This is the system that cries out for change. We have increased the amount of money we are spending. I support more investment in education. But we need to face the reality that what we have been doing in far too many cases has not been working. It has not focused on improving student achievement or on ensuring that every child gets a good education. The Federal Government has spent a great deal of money on education programs over the past 35 years without a great deal to show for it. These statistics show that a new approach is needed, and a part of that new approach needs to be an increased focus on reading and literacy. These results are particularly distressing given that researchers in recent years have reached a consensus on the best practices to teach reading. The research, however, has yet to find its way into many classrooms. This is one reason why the Reading First Initiative in S. 1 is so very important. We need to put proven teaching methods into the hands of our educators. We know that if our classroom teachers are not offered extensive training in the area of literacy, then many of our children will not learn to read to the best of their ability. The Reading First Initiative makes professional development a top priority and it establishes an early reading intervention program that, I believe, will make a real difference. I have worked extensively with the President and the Department of Education in this area, and I am very pleased with the results that we have come up with. Earlier this year, I introduced the Early Reading Intervention Act to address the urgent need to improve reading skills. The reading portion of the BEST Act is a synthesis of the President's plan and my legislation. It simply does not make sense to test a child's reading ability for the first time in third grade and discover the child's reading skills are far below his or her peers, when, at that point, the chances of the student learning to read at grade level by the end of elementary school are less than 25 percent. Yet, that is what occurs far too often with far too many of our children. By contrast, if a child is tested and receives help in kindergarten or first grade, that child has a 90 to 95 percent chance of becoming a good reader. Since reading is learned more easily and effectively during the early grades, it makes sense to identify reading problems and language-based learning disabilities early when intervention can make a difference. Our goal--the goal set forth by the President--must be for all students to read by the third grade. By achieving this goal, we can decrease the number of students who will need special education and ensure that every child--all of our students--have the necessary tools to handle the curriculum in the future years. An investment of $5 billion to ensure that every child in America can read by the third grade is a serious and long-term commitment. It is a significant first step toward improving our Nation's failing report card for the best way to ensure that no child is left behind is to ensure that every child knows how to read. I am also very pleased that the BEST Act contains the Rural Education Initiative, which I introduced with my colleagues, Senators Conrad, Gregg, Enzi, Hutchinson, Roberts, Dorgan, Burns, Hagel, Allard, and Thomas. This important legislation will give small rural school districts more flexibility by allowing them to combine small, categorical grant programs into a single grant that can be used to target local needs. It will also provide these rural schools with supplemental funds to compensate them for their inability to compete with larger school districts for a number of Federal education grants. As I look forward to the important education debate ahead, I see great opportunity. I see a constructive debate not about whether the Federal Government has a role to play in educating our youth but about how it can best promote excellence in all of our public schools and for all of our children. I see a President with a vision for how we can reshape and reinvigorate our educational system and a commitment to doing what it takes to help our students succeed. And I see Senators, all of whom have listened to those who know best--our parents, our teachers, our school board members and our administrators back home who have ideas on how to make the BEST Act even better. Now is the time for us to lay a new foundation for the education of America's youth. It is time for us to seize this tremendous opportunity and to unite behind the inspiring goal the President has set forth of leaving no child behind. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 560, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements pertaining to the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and will immediately have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1, the education reform bill. Following that vote, it is expected that the 30 hours of postcloture debate will begin. However, it is hoped that time will be yielded so the Senate can begin full consideration of the bill as early as tomorrow afternoon. Numerous amendments are expected to be offered to this important legislation, and therefore Senators may expect votes throughout the week.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from the hour of 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 1. I further ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1 as under the previous order.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to provide fair reimbursement to state and local law enforcement organizations for additional costs incurred by them in providing frequent assistance to the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States. Of course, the Secret Service has the principal responsibility for protecting our Presidents. Without the assistance of state and local law enforcement organizations, however, providing that protection would be more costly and more difficult, if not impossible. For the most part, state and local law enforcers provide this assistance with no need for or expectation of reimbursement from the Federal government. In some cases, however, reimbursement is appropriate. It is appropriate, for example, when state and local law enforcement organizations are required to incur substantial expenses on a frequent basis in localities that are small and thus does not have adequate financial bases to provide the necessary services without reimbursement. This is not a new idea. Dating back to at least the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, the Federal government has provided reimbursement to local and sometimes state organizations where sitting Presidents maintain a principal residence. In the early 1990s, reimbursement was provided for services provided for then-President Bush's visits to Kennebunkport, Maine. Reimbursement is similarly available now to Crawford, Texas. The bill I am introducing will extend this authority to localities and states other than the place of principal residence when the sitting President so designates. I envision that it will help, for example, the Kennebunkport Police Department and associated law enforcement organizations in my home state. I expect that the allure of summer in Maine will draw President George W. Bush to the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport for several visits in the coming months. My bill will help ensure that the town, with a population of only 3,720, will not have to shoulder alone the substantial financial burden associated with these visits. In addition, however, I anticipate that in the future other localities will benefit, for this bill has been carefully drafted to provide reimbursement to localities and states designated by future Presidents. This bill will not result in an unlimited ``windfall'' to local and state law enforcement organizations. It requires that the organizations requesting reimbursement first incur the expenses and therefore will likely discourage excessive expenditures. It also limits the number of days for which reimbursements may be sought to not more than 60 days per fiscal year. In addition, it provides reimbursement only for services provided in conjunction with visits to small localities with a population of no more than 7,000 residences. Finally, the total amount of reimbursement is limited to not more than $100,000 per fiscal year. I encourage my colleagues to support this modest, yet important and equitable provision of support to local and state law enforcement organizations.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to provide fair reimbursement to state and local law enforcement organizations for additional costs incurred by them in providing frequent assistance to the Secret Service to protect the President of the United States. Of course, the Secret Service has the principal responsibility for protecting our Presidents. Without the assistance of state and local law enforcement organizations, however, providing that protection would be more costly and more difficult, if not impossible. For the most part, state and local law enforcers provide this assistance with no need for or expectation of reimbursement from the Federal government. In some cases, however, reimbursement is appropriate. It is appropriate, for example, when state and local law enforcement organizations are required to incur substantial expenses on a frequent basis in localities that are small and thus does not have adequate financial bases to provide the necessary services without reimbursement. This is not a new idea. Dating back to at least the Administration of President Jimmy Carter, the Federal government has provided reimbursement to local and sometimes state organizations where sitting Presidents maintain a principal residence. In the early 1990s, reimbursement was provided for services provided for then-President Bush's visits to Kennebunkport, Maine. Reimbursement is similarly available now to Crawford, Texas. The bill I am introducing will extend this authority to localities and states other than the place of principal residence when the sitting President so designates. I envision that it will help, for example, the Kennebunkport Police Department and associated law enforcement organizations in my home state. I expect that the allure of summer in Maine will draw President George W. Bush to the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport for several visits in the coming months. My bill will help ensure that the town, with a population of only 3,720, will not have to shoulder alone the substantial financial burden associated with these visits. In addition, however, I anticipate that in the future other localities will benefit, for this bill has been carefully drafted to provide reimbursement to localities and states designated by future Presidents. This bill will not result in an unlimited ``windfall'' to local and state law enforcement organizations. It requires that the organizations requesting reimbursement first incur the expenses and therefore will likely discourage excessive expenditures. It also limits the number of days for which reimbursements may be sought to not more than 60 days per fiscal year. In addition, it provides reimbursement only for services provided in conjunction with visits to small localities with a population of no more than 7,000 residences. Finally, the total amount of reimbursement is limited to not more than $100,000 per fiscal year. I encourage my colleagues to support this modest, yet important and equitable provision of support to local and state law enforcement organizations.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I want to take a moment to commend and thank my distinguished colleagues for their insight and leadership on this critical issue. The use of advance appropriations would provide our federal agencies the flexibility to alternatively fund large capital investments. Specifically, I am aware that the Navy is currently studying advance appropriations as a means to reform the way it acquires its ship in an effort to stabilize the shipbuilding program, flatten out budget spikes, and potentially reduce costs through economic order quantity buys of ships and their systems. I believe that this funding alternative should be pursued, and I hope to see the Senate provision sustained in Conference.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that will create a reserve fund for the improvement of veterans' education benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. I am delighted to be joined by my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in this effort. This amendment will set aside funding for S. 131, the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act, which Senator Johnson and I introduced earlier this year. Our legislation would provide a much- needed increase in the basic monthly benefit under the GI bill, a benefit that over the past 15 years has failed to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of higher education. Our legislation is very simple. It establishes a benchmark by which the basic Montgomery GI bill benefit will be calculated, allowing the benefit to increase as the cost of higher education increases. Endorsed by the Partnership for Veterans Education, a broad coalition including over 40 veterans service organizations and education associations, our legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical, fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our veterans. While the Montgomery GI bill has served our country well since its passage in 1985, the value of the educational benefit assistance it provides has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps most important, the program is losing its value as a means to help our men and women in uniform readjust to civilian life after military service. The basic benefit program of the Vietnam era GI bill provided $493 per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Before the reforms of last year, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a mere 8 percent increase over a time period when inflation has nearly doubled, and dollar buys only half of what it once purchased. While we made progress last year in increasing stipend levels under the GI bill, the reforms fell short of allocating sufficient funds to cover the current cost of higher education. Moreover, the increase failed to establish a benchmark, the reform most needed to ensure that the GI bill provides sufficient funds for the education of our Nation's veterans long into the 21st century. Our new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for GI bill benefits. The benchmark sets GI bill benefits at ``the average monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' This commonsense provision would serve as the foundation upon which future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education promised to them at recruitment. Today's GI bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational goals. This amendment would provide the budget authority necessary to ensure that GI bill benefits reflect the true cost of higher education. I am very pleased that our amendment has been agreed to by both sides of the aisle and that it will become part of this budget resolution.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold, in introducing the Teaching Children to Save Lives Act which will help train a generation of potential lifesavers by providing funding for programs to teach children the basic lifesaving skill of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or CPR. Approximately 220,000 Americans die each year of sudden cardiac arrest. The American Heart Association estimates that about 50,000 of these lives could be saved each year if more people implemented what it calls the ``Chain of Survival,'' which includes an immediate call to 911, early CPR and defibrillation, and early advanced life support. The Teaching Children to Save Lives Act, which we are introducing today, will help strengthen the second link in this chain by providing grants to schools to implement CPR training programs. Schools could use these funds to work in conjunction with community organizations such as local fire and police departments, hospitals, parent-teacher associations and others to provide CPR training. The legislation authorizes $30 million over three years for the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to States to support these community partnerships and to help schools train teachers and purchase materials such as mannequins. Those schools that are fortunate enough to have CPR programs will be able to apply for funding to help train students in the use of automated external defibrillators, a life-saving device that shocks a heart back to its normal rhythm when it stops beating. We have all heard stories about situations where a school age child or teenager has been the witness, perhaps the only witness, to a heart attack or other health emergency. Many kids, and adults for that matter, simply don't know what to do in the face of such an emergency. Given the proper training, however, our young people are perfectly capable of responding to calmly and appropriately to a life-threatening situation. For example, the Red Cross in Maine recently honored Sara Boyorak, a student at Bangor High School, for her quick response when her 22-month old nephew Blake, suddenly stopped breathing. Sara was riding in the car with Blake and her parents to a family get-together. It was a miserably hot day and Blake was suffering from a terrible ear infection. Sara was entertaining Blake in his car seat when he suddenly stopped responding to her. She then noticed that his face was turning a bluish color. Evidently, the heat of the day combined with the fever from his ear infection had caused Blake to stop breathing. Sara had taken CPR in a Red Cross class at her school so she was prepared and knew just what to do. She immediately leaped into action and initiated the ``Chain of Survival.'' She directed her father to stop the car and her mother to call 911 on the cell phone. She then placed Blake on the back seat of the car, and, when she had determined that he was not breathing and had no pulse, she started performing CPR, just as she had learned in her class. As a consequence of her quick action, Blake regained consciousness before the ambulance arrived, and will soon be celebrating his third birthday, thanks to his Aunt Sara. The Teaching Children to Save Lives Act will enable more school children like Sara to learn the CPR skills they may need to save the life of a family member or loved one. Moreover, teaching CPR to our children and teens will not only improve their confidence in responding to emergencies, but it will also encourage them to update and maintain these skills into adulthood. The Teaching Children to Save Lives Act is supported by coalition of groups including the American Heart Association, the Red Cross, the National Education Association, and the School Nurses Association, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the legislation.