Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield. My colleague is a great champion for afterschool programs and has an amendment adopted, a sense of the Senate, saying we ought to do this.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for those comments. I have heard this repeatedly over this debate in the last hour, that if this amendment is adopted, this destroys the straight A's program. This amounts to 5.7 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service, of the funding in the pilot Straight A's Program, title I, non-title I funds under that title I program. Not 40 percent. To say you cannot fund the block grant program with 94 percent of the money does not make any sense to me. Rather than stripping the program, we are taking the pilot program and setting aside afterschool in that pilot program. As we said earlier, we are talking about a program that includes 7 States and 25 districts. It could be more than 7 States over the 7 years of this entire bill. We don't debate this bill again for 7 years. Obviously, for children who are starting elementary school, they will have completed elementary school by the time we come back and revisit the issue. To say in a pilot program we will block grant everything made at the State level, and if a local school district wants to apply for funds for afterschool, they will depend upon a State educational authority or a Governor to say, yes or no, is totally up to the discretion of the State authority. There is no review process at all. They can apply, and for whatever reason, they can say no. Afterschool programs are the most highly sought after grants in the history of the Department of Education. This year alone there were almost 3,000 applications. They are going up each year. We only grant 300. There is only 1 chance in 10 of getting your grant approved. They are so popular because local community-based organizations see the value. I am saying, keep the Straight A's Program. We will have the pilot program for the block grants. It will be there for the 7 States and 25 districts--or maybe more--to try over the next 7 years. Don't make afterschool become a jump ball in that regard. What Straight A's is about is academic performance, trying to get better scores in math and reading. I don't argue that afterschool has some relationship to academic performance, whether or not kids are in trouble or not in trouble. This is primarily a safety issue. It is primarily a crime issue, as the chiefs of police have pointed out in overwhelming numbers when they look at the difficulties kids get into and the time of day the difficulties occur. They state with overwhelming numbers it is between 3 in the afternoon and 6 or 7 at night.

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, before he leaves, let me thank my colleague from New Jersey. He always brings a new level of eloquence to any debate in which he is involved. While we all from time to time bring our own natural experiences to these discussions and debate, his discussion of growing up in New Jersey in the home where both his parents worked is certainly a poignant remainder of what happens today with a lot of children throughout America. There are 28 million children in 12 million families struggling to make ends meet, and of that number a staggering number of these kids are home alone, or if not home, someplace else unsupervised. For those reasons, over 1,000 chiefs of police have written and beseeched in the strongest language one can imagine that this amendment be adopted, along with the 2,500 YMCAs across the country, an organization that has the longest record in history in providing afterschool programs. I underscore they did a survey on their own and the Senator from New Jersey pointed it out, but I repeat it because their findings corroborate what the Senator from New Jersey pointed out. Among the findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students. So there is an academic relationship here. They are twice as likely to get into a fight at school and are far more likely to miss school than young people engaged in stimulating, productive activities in afterschool hours. Every study and survey we have seen shows this. That is why the chiefs of police, who work with this problem every day, want this. If you want to know what local people think, obviously, afterschool is desired.

Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am not going to offer this amendment. I will ask unanimous consent the amendment be printed in the Record, the one I was about to offer on equity for Puerto Rico, amendment No. 458. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be printed in the Record. (The amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. DODD. I do not intend to offer this amendment, but I wanted to raise it as a subject matter that has been discussed both in the other body and here. As we all know, Puerto Rico is part of America. They do not have Senators here, so from time to time those of us who have been involved and care about the hundreds of thousands, millions of people who live on the island of Puerto Rico, and the 600,000 children on that island, and the quality of education they receive, take on the responsibility of trying to raise the issues that are important to these fellow Americans. This amendment I will not offer right now. The House has included some language to deal with title I education in Puerto Rico. I am hopeful in conference maybe we can work out some accommodation that will serve these children. Title I is very important to Puerto Rico because of the island's high concentration of low-income children. Mr. President, 93 percent of Puerto Rico's public schools participate in title I. More than 600,000 children benefit from the title I program. The cost of educating children in Puerto Rico is comparable to the cost of educating children in the 50 States. In fact, the cost of living in San Juan, Puerto Rico, its capital, is higher than the cost of living in most other major American cities. Failure to provide equitable treatment to Puerto Rico and its children who are American citizens, American children, perpetuates a system that denies those children the access to quality education that every child deserves. The President has articulated in his statements that we should be leaving no child behind in this country. The Puerto Rican children, as I said, have no Senators to represent them. They do have a very fine Representative in the other body, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, who represents the island of Puerto Rico in the other body. He does not have a vote, but he has a voice. He votes in committees. He has talked to me and other Members about the importance of title I funding in Puerto Rico. So on behalf of my colleague in the other body, on behalf of the 600,000 children in Puerto Rico and their families, I put this amendment in the Record. I raise the issue here to let them know we will continue to pursue this matter when it comes up in conference. Puerto Rico is working very hard to help its children compete. Over the last 5 years, it has increased its per pupil investment in education by 58 percent. That is more than any State in the United States and more than the national average, but because of the unfair treatment we give this group of Americans, Puerto Rican children receive only three-quarters of the resources they would receive were they to move to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or any other State. Even though they are American citizens, we do not provide them the full funding every other State gets under title I under proportionality, so these fellow citizens of ours are not treated as equally as others. On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I hope that situation will be corrected. We will fight very hard for it in conference, but recognizing the realities here on the floor, I am fearful such an amendment might fail. I think there is a better chance of working out something with the other body in conference that will accommodate these people. The 516,000 poor children in Puerto Rico should know we have not given up and we will carry on this battle in conference.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this morning I was not present during rollcall vote number 182, the Santorum amendment. I was attending a meeting in the Russell building. Unfortunately, the mechanism designed to alert Members of votes was malfunctioning. Therefore, I was unaware that a vote was in progress. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of the Santorum amendment. Amendment No. 634, As Further Modified

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.

Mr. DODD. I send a modification of the early childhood educator professional development amendment No. 456 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Hutchinson amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment which I believe will be accepted.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I had printed in the Record letters in support of my afterschool amendment, letters from Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, from 1,000 chiefs of police, prosecutors, crime survivors, and police organizations. Their letters are strong letters in terms of the value of afterschool programs. Seventy percent of the chiefs of police have said the best method for reducing the problems of afterschool violence is a good afterschool program. There have been almost 3,000 applications for 21st century learning centers since the concept was introduced a number of years ago. It has been the largest single request from local communities and community- based organizations in the history of the Department of Education. My point is simply this. I am willing to support, and I support the Straight A's block grant program. I want to take out, however, the 5.7 percent of funding--that is all it amounts to--for afterschool programs. That program ought not end up subject to the vagaries of what happens to a State education agency. We ought to let local communities decide whether or not they want an afterschool program. We are going to say in 7 States, in 25 school districts--that could comprise as many as 26 million children--for the next 7 years, that afterschool programs will be left to a jump ball, in effect. This is a program that is supported by Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs. I have strong letters from the YMCAs, YWCAs--the 2,500 across the country--that urge--in fact, beg in this letter--that we adopt this amendment. It isn't me asking for this. This is not D's and R's fighting with each other. These are people every day who are out there trying to make sure that kids can be in a safe environment after school. That is really what this amounts to. Chiefs of police say it is important. School administrators will tell you it is important. This does not destroy the block grant program at all. This idea that it does is not based on any independent analysis of it at all. So I urge this amendment be adopted. It means a lot to our local communities. We now have 11 million kids who are home alone at the end of each school day. We need to do better by these children. An afterschool program, based on the 21st century concept, certainly is deserving of that support. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. He brings a great deal of passion and understanding. So much of what he is talking about bears directly on the subject matter to which he has dedicated a good part of his service. I thank him for it and look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island, and then I will go to my colleague from Arkansas.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my friend from Tennessee. I am unclear--I don't expect this to be resolved in this amendment-- as to how long these actual block grant applications will be in existence. It is unclear in the bill. That is why I said it could be 7. It could be 14. It could be 21 States, if the grants are for shorter periods of time. That is an open-ended question. But the important point I want to make and the distinction here is that the decisions within the State are not made locally. That is a big difference. They are made by the State education authority, or the Governor. We had that debate the other day as to who would dominate in that discussion. But the idea that the local town or some community in Delaware or Connecticut can make the decision about an afterschool program is not the case. I wish it were. That decision, and whether or not you are going to get any afterschool programs, will be made by a higher authority. They are the ones who will make that decision. Under the existing program, the town or the county can apply, and they can receive it or not. But it is a local decision. If you have football programs locally and you don't need it, you don't apply for it. There are many communities who need the help, so they apply directly. Some are not communities, they are community-based organizations, which are expanding tremendously. That is why YMCAs and other organizations, even some that involve churches and synagogues, are allowed to apply here, which does not mean the State has to make that decision. So all I am saying under the Straight A's Program is, just on those afterschool programs, leave it to the local communities to decide whether or not they think afterschool programs are worthwhile. I do not believe that is that great a difficulty. By the way, on the percentages taken out--this has been said over and over again--I asked the Congressional Research Service to give me their financial interpretation of what my afterschool program would mean in the context of the Straight A's Program. If you exclude title I, yes, my colleague from Tennessee is right, it is 40 percent. But I do not think you can pick and choose here. Under all of the Straight A's Programs, the afterschool program amounts to 5.7 percent. That leaves roughly 94 percent of the dollars under Straight A's that is still there to do all the other things for academic performance. So if you are going to define Straight A's as eliminating all non- title I funds, of course you get a higher percentage. But that is not what this is. Under Straight A's, it the entire pot of money, it is 5.7 percent, not 40 percent or 50 percent, as has been argued by some. So I make those two points particularly. The rest, as my colleague has said very candidly, would like to have all 50 States under this, with no strings attached, to just go out and do what they want to do. That is why there is an Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Why did the Federal Government, 36 years ago, pass this law? It passed the law because there was a growing concern that the neediest of children in the United States--28 million of them who grow up in poverty, and 12 million working families in poverty, and others--that there was a need to step in and try to do more to see to it that the neediest children would be served. That is why there is a Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, because there was a concern across the country that these neediest kids' needs were not being met. Over the years, we have contributed about 6 cents. It has gone up from 4 cents to 6 cents of an education dollar; that is, 94 cents comes from the State and local property taxpayers, and 4 cents or 5 cents or 6 cents of the education dollar comes from the Federal Government. So what we are trying to do in that 6 cents is just to make sure that in certain areas the neediest of our children are going to get served, not that we have a right to guarantee anyone's success. We do not. There is no obligation to say to Americans: You ought to count on your Government guaranteeing you success. That is out. What we try to do-- all people at all levels in our society--is to create equal opportunity for people. That is the beauty of America. That has been such an attraction to people all over the globe and why people every morning get up around the world and line up around U.S. Embassies to try to come here, either as citizens or as green card holders. There are a lot of reasons why they come, but I think the most important one is that this is a place of equal opportunity. We are not perfect. We have not arrived at perfection, but we try very hard to see to it that, regardless of where you come from, if you are a citizen of this country, regardless of ethnicity or background or religion, you have an equal opportunity to succeed. That is America. There is no guarantee of success, but an equal opportunity to succeed. That is what this is all about. That is the beauty of America, more so than our wonderful natural landscape or the economic wealth of our country. As important as those things are, I have always believed that the great beauty of America, the great magic of it, is this notion of equal opportunity. How equal can the opportunity be if your education isn't equal? I have told the story in this Chamber, when my great grandmother came to America, at age 14 or 15, with her husband--Thomas and Catherine Murphy--from the west coast of Ireland, she could not read or write. That was not uncommon for immigrants in the 19th century and early part of the 20th century. The first thing she did was she got herself elected to the Voluntown, CT, school board. She understood that education was going to be the key for the nine children she was about to have--my grandfather being the ninth--and that was the way you were going to get ahead. No guarantee of it, but if you had a decent education, you had an opportunity to get ahead. We are at the beginning of the 21st century, not at the end of the 19th century, and I happen to believe that principle my great grandmother intuitively applied to her own family. It is something we ought to apply to all families. At least give people a good education in this country, a good starting block--that is what this is really all about--and see to it that kids can be safe. As you can see from the chart, when you have between 7 million and 11 million children home alone--if you take 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds, and you have 9 percent of 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds alone for hours after school, and you have 10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds, where about 60 percent of those kids are home alone, you have a problem on your hands. You do not need a Ph.D. in child psychology to tell you that. You ask any parent who is working what they worry about at 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Sometimes in rural communities--not so much today with cellular phones, but before the arrival of cellular phones, it was sometimes hard to get a call through because parents who were working were calling their houses at 2:30, 3, 3:30 to see whether or not their child was home safely. There isn't a parent in America who does not worry about where their kids are when school lets out. That is why there are almost 3,000 applications for afterschool programs. That is why 1,000 police chiefs have begged us to adopt this amendment. Because they understand it as the most important issue when it comes to preventing crime and juvenile problems, and kids who become victims. This isn't about liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. That is not what this is about. You go ahead and ask these people. Ask the YMCAs what party they belong to. Ask those 1,000 police chiefs what party they belong to. Ask crime survivors, are you a Democrat or Republican? That is not what they said in the letter. They said: We are people who know what we are talking about, and we think afterschool programs make sense. Academic achievement is important. I have said I would support this pilot program. I have my concerns about it. I am not the first to admit that. But I am willing to try it, provided there is adequate funding. I doubt the funding may be there, but if the funding is there, let's try this over the next 7 years. If your child ends up in one these States and is a guinea pig for the next 7 years, that may be another matter. But that is not the case. So we will try the pilot program. But why would you throw afterschool programs into the guinea pig area when we know it works? When every community in the country will tell you they need it? When you have people who have dedicated their lives to this, who understand it, why are you going to throw this into that situation where some State authority is going to decide whether some rural county or some urban community ought to have some money for after school? That is what this bill does. You take away local authority when it comes to applying for the grant applications. They have no authority to apply for them. It will be a decision made at the State level. The local authority is gone. So that local YMCA, that local Boys Club or Girls Club out there, they will not have the right to apply to the Department of Education to ask for an afterschool program and assistance. They are going to have to rely on someone in their State capital to decide whether it is OK. I say to the Presiding Officer, as a former Governor, you understand as well as anyone how difficult that can be. We all know it. It is hard to work the different battles that go on, and so forth. Sometimes it isn't just how this works. For the 3,000 who apply and the 300 who get some help--if you want to help them, increase the funding for it instead of throwing it into a block grant where it is a jump ball over whether or not this program is going to be funded. We heard my colleague from Tennessee say this is a great program, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Everybody who stands up says this is a great program. Then why are you throwing it into a roulette wheel for the next 7 years to see whether or not communities might get some help? If it is such a great program, if the communities are telling us it is a great program--and I will repeat what I said at the outset, there has never been a grant program that has been sought after as widely in the history of the Department of Education as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. We are about to take it and dump it into a Las Vegas environment where you are shooting craps on whether or not you may end up with a good afterschool program, despite the fact every organization you can think of that works in this area is asking us to do otherwise. I am not suggesting that Straight A's eliminates all categorical programs. I realize that. There was some negotiation that went on, and so some made it, some didn't. I accept that. That is politics. That is how it works. Don't try to convince me it was done on the merits. It was done on who could get in the room, who couldn't, what deal was going on. Afterschool got left out. That is all. I am here today to say: Look this does not directly relate to academic performance. It has some impact. As we heard, kids who are in afterschool programs do better academically. Those who are not do worse. A lot of other things happen to them. Academic performance is very important. I don't question that at all. But it is not the most important or the only thing. There are other things that are important as well. A kid's safety is important. Ask a parent whether or not they think their child is safe after school has any value or any importance. I think we know the answer. If you ask them if academic performance is important, of course, they will say it is. But they don't believe you ought to make it a choice between academic performance and a kid being unsafe. I am suggesting we can do both. You can test academic performance through this pilot program, but you can also, as part of the Federal Government's commitment to education, provide some small resources to community-based organizations that desire them. It is their decision to apply. I am not dumping the money out to them. They have to apply. They have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting it, even if they do apply. Of the 3,000 that apply, 300 make it. So even if you have a strong desire for one, under present funding levels, you have a very small chance of getting it. But why eliminate any chance at all or leave it to the whims of what happens at the State level where a lot of other issues are going to be in play? I apologize for getting wound up. Obviously, I care about this. I see my colleagues from New Jersey and Rhode Island here. I also see my colleague from Arkansas who I presume wants to be heard on this. I will yield some time to my two colleagues if they are interested.

Mr. DODD. Can there be any more eloquent argument that whatever else we do with Straight A's and academic performance, we should not take a program for which there is such need in this country, where the overwhelming evidence is that police officers and people who provide afterschool programs are begging us not to jeopardize the millions of kids who could be in a pilot program affecting literally millions of children--we should not exclude this valuable tool for keeping kids safe and providing some safe harbor for them in the afterschool hours. With that, I promised my good friend from Tennessee, because of other obligations he has, to provide him with whatever time I have remaining to respond to these eloquent, persuasive arguments--maybe he will endorse the amendment at this point--and then I have unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, their endorsement is not fainthearted. They believe this may be the single most important issue of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Because we are leaving out under the pilot program--and I want to make this argument so people can understand it; this bill can get a little confusing with all the various pieces of it. One of the major pieces of this bill is called the Straight A's Program which is called a pilot program. When we think of pilot programs or demonstration programs, our mind immediately draws on a number that represents a relatively small fraction of the larger group. It will be a pilot program or a demonstration program. Certainly, this program, when it was announced, sounded relatively small. It is a pilot program that would be in 7 States out of 50, in 25 school districts. That sounds pretty small. One cannot imagine that being any great threat as a pilot program. I am not sure whether it is a pilot program for 1 year, 4 years, 5 years, or 7 years. This bill is a 7-year bill. I am not sure how long the pilot programs on the grants are supposed to run during the life of this bill. That is rather vague in the underlying bill. It could end up being 14 States or 21 States over the 7-year life of the bill, or is it just 7 States in 7 years? I am not sure of the answer. In seven States and 25 districts, exclude the 25 districts, I can get you to 44 percent of the entire student population of the United States. If this pilot program that is going to be awarded by the Secretary of Education goes to the 7 largest States and the 25 largest school districts in America, you are at 51 percent of the entire student population of the United States--hardly a pilot program or a demonstration program. I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest that may be the case. I expect every State in the United States to apply for the Straight A's Program. Why? Because it eliminates all the categorical programs. It says to the States, you can basically do anything you want with this money. It says you have to serve the neediest kids, but we know under title I how broad a definition that is already under law for 36 years. I cannot imagine a jurisdiction not saying: I would like one of those; I will take Federal money without any strings attached. It is not any great leap of logic to assume that all 50 States and virtually every school district will probably apply for the Straight A's Program. I don't think it is any great leap if, in fact, you believe this program ought to be national policy and not a pilot program--which is the view of the administration; they only call it a pilot program for the purpose of this bill because if they said they want this to be the national program, there would be a lot of resistance to it. If they call it a pilot program, a lot of people are willing to say they will try a pilot program. The fact is, this could affect a lot of children for a long time. Seven years may not seem like much in the life of a bill in Congress, but if you have a child in kindergarten, the first grade, the second or third grade, that is the entire elementary education your child will get. So afterschool--I will get to the particular program--is important. This could affect a lot of children. It is why the YMCAs, it is why police chiefs, it is why all the other organizations are concerned about this: because of the potential exposure it could mean to an awful lot of children around the country. There are reasons why this particular program is important. Let me explain it in context. What happens under the Straight A's Program, all of a sudden community-based, local-based grant applications get eliminated in these 7 States and 25 districts. It would now come from the State education authority or the Governor as to whether or not there would be an afterschool program. This is why people are concerned. We are moving away from local decisionmaking. We are saying in these States: You are out. That YMCA, the community-based organization, and some of the church-based organizations, you are out. It depends on what happens at the State level. They watch the program grow because of the value. There has never been, in the history of the Department of Education, a grant program that has been sought after as much as this grant. Let me demonstrate the point with this chart. In this year alone there have been 2,762 grant applications. Of that nearly 3,000, only 300 will be funded under existing resources. There have been an average of 2,000 applications a year since the program started, and the numbers are going up. So we are looking at a tremendously popular program. People see afterschool care as critically important primarily to the safety of their children. There is an academic achievement element to this, but it is primarily an issue of safety. In the history of the Department this has been the most sought after grant of any in the United States. That is how popular it is with people all across the country. We increased the funding for this over the years, but not very much. According to the most recent Mott/J.C. Penney poll, nearly two-thirds of voters report difficulty funding quality, affordable afterschool programs. The Census Bureau reports that nearly 7 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 go home alone unsupervised each week. Let me show a graph with the number of children, showing the growing numbers of grade-school-age children in self-care in the United States: 2 percent of 5-year-olds have no afterschool care and are home alone; 3 percent of 6-year-olds; 4 percent of 8-year-olds; and 11-year-olds-- these are children, not teenagers--10- and 11-year-olds, 1 in every 4 is home alone. The second chart points out what police chiefs say about the program, and why dumping it into a block grant and eliminating community organizations from asking for help is wrongheaded. Police chiefs were asked in a survey: Which of these strategies do police chiefs choose as the most effective for reducing youth violence in the country? ``Afterschool,'' almost 70 percent chose that. Then it drops way down for ``try juveniles as adults,'' ``hire more police,'' with ``metal detectors'' at 1 percent. Is there any doubt where those people, who deal with these issues every day believe this program has value? Is there any doubt whether or not it ought to be taken out of this block grant and left to local community organizations such as the YMCAs, such as our community organizations that find these programs worthwhile, to apply for these dollars? I can only, with the money, grant 300 out of almost 3,000 a year that apply. But eliminate this, and these 7 States and 25 districts for 7 years, left totally to the discretion of a State agency or a Governor, may cut a lot of these programs. Why? Because a lot of the kids come from some of the poorest rural and urban districts and don't have the local clout to be applying for this assistance and carrying it off. This is very important. If you talk about basic safety, it is critical. Again, listening to me is one thing, but listen to people who work every day in this area. They are the ones behind this. Listen to the police chiefs across the country. Let me read their letter: As an organization led by more than 1,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders of police organizations, and crime survivors, we urge you to support a Senate floor amendment to S. 1 to remove 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) from the Straight A's Block Grant. We are concerned that if 21st CCLC is folded into a block grant with many other educational programs the investment that the Federal government has finally begun to make in expanding after-school programs will wither. After-school programs are different than many of the other programs included in the block grant. They support and enhance academic performance but they are not necessarily direct academic programs. Therefore, in a block grant where the accountability provisions measure only academic performance, after-school programs will likely lose out to regular school- day academic programs. In addition, as law enforcement leaders and crime survivors we feel strongly that one of the most important aspects of after-school programs is the crime-prevention impact. The Straight A's block grant accountability provisions do not measure crime-prevention outcomes and therefore do not completely recognize the unique nature and importance of after-school programs such as 21st CCLC. In the hour after the school bell rings, violent juvenile crime soars and the prime time for juvenile crime begins. The peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. These are also the hours when children are most likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, have sex, smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs. After-school programs that connect children to caring adults and provide constructive activities during these critical hours are among our most powerful tools for preventing violent juvenile crime. For example, in a five- city study, half of a group of at-risk high-school kids were randomly assigned to participate in the Quantum Opportunities after-school program. The boys left out of that program had six times more criminal convictions in their high-school years than the boys who attended the after-school program. Yet roughly 11 million children go home from school regularly to an empty house. With such a large unmet need, now is the time to be strengthening the Federal government's commitment to after-school programs, not weakening it. That is 1,000 police chiefs talking about this. Forget about the Senator from Connecticut talking; will we listen to the people who work on these issues every day? Let me read a letter from the YMCA. This is the largest program, celebrating its 150th year of existence this year. These people know what they are talking about. These are some of the best programs in the country. This is a letter from Ken Gladish, national executive director: A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. According to census figures, more than seven million school- age children are left home alone and on the streets, unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth to place in danger of academic failure and much worse. As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. Many other community-based organizations in this country also have decades of experience operating quality afterschool programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program better by making sure funding is available for programs operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool programs and to make it available to community organizations, Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall positive impact afterschool programs can have on local communities. I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in the Record. Thee being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: YMCA of the USA, Washington, DC, May 4, 2001. Hon. Chris Dodd, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the YMCA of the USA, I would like to thank you for offering your amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to remove the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program from the ``Straight As'' demonstration provision. Dedicated funding for afterschool programs and the ability of community-based organizations to compete fairly for this funding would be severely restricted without passage of your amendment. A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school. According to census figures, more than seven million school- age children are left home alone and on the streets, unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth to place in danger of academic failure and much worse. As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing programs to young people during non-school hours. More than 2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over 10,000 communities through partnerships with schools, businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities. Many other community-based organizations in this country also have decades of experience operating quality afterschool programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program better by making sure funding is available for programs operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool programs and to make it available to community organizations, Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall positive impact afterschool programs can have on local communities. As we celebrate our 150th anniversary in the United States in 2001, YMCAs remain committed to doing what it takes to build strong kids, strong families and strong communities. Thank you for your efforts to increase opportunities for all our kids. Sincerely, Kenneth L. Gladish, Ph.D., National Executive Director.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the committee; Senator Gregg, and other Members, my friend from Tennessee with whom I have worked on many issues and for whom I have the highest regard and respect. I appreciate their efforts. I have enjoyed working with them on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is not a surprise amendment. My colleagues have known for some time I have been deeply interested in afterschool programs. Going back, in fact, I offered some of the earliest amendments to support afterschool programs as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, and then as the ranking member, working very closely with my good friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Barbara Boxer from California has been very interested in afterschool programs. Most Senators have been interested in afterschool programs. Afterschool programs--in a sense, I am preaching to the choir addressing the Presiding Officer as a former Governor of the State of Delaware. He understands the tremendous value of having good, strong afterschool programs and how important they are. In a sense, I am offering this amendment not just on my behalf and those who support this, but I do so on behalf of Fight Crime Invest in Kids, which represents a thousand police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders, police organizations, crime survivors; on behalf of the YMCA and YWCA, which are the largest afterschool providers in the United States-- literally there are some 2,500 YMCA and YWCA programs that provide afterschool programs--National PTA, National Network for Youth, Afterschool Alliance, National Community Education Association. I will provide a list. I ask unanimous consent that the long list of education groups, police groups, prosecutors, and others supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I ask that the Chair notify me when 15 minutes of my time have expired. I will then ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, be recognized for 15 minutes, and at the expiration of his 15 minutes, I be rerecognized to complete my opening statement.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for raising the point. It is a very good point she raised. Before my friend from California arrived, we heard our good friend from Tennessee talk about how much he supports, as most Members do, the 21st Century Learning Centers. Senator Jeffords of Vermont is the principal author. I joined him with that several years ago. This is an overwhelmingly popular program at a local level. Now grant applications are made at a local level for funds which leverage, by the way, United Way, funds for nonprofits, churches and so forth. Without this seed money and what we do in the grants, it is difficult to get the other organizations to support it. Now for those 7 States and 25 school districts, which, by the way, I happen to believe are probably going to comprise a significant percentage of the 50 million kids who go to school each day, if you take the 7 most populous States and 25 school districts, I can get you to over 50 percent of the student population of the country. I presume every State is going to apply because what Governor--and I am looking at our Presiding Officer, who knows more about Governors, I suppose, than either my good friend from California or I do--when States get a chance to get Federal money with no strings attached would not take that deal. I presume every State will apply. The Secretary of Education wants to get the maximum number of students under this pilot program. Obviously, they will choose one of the largest States and largest school districts, which means for the next 7 years we will take a significant percentage of kids into a pilot program, a demonstration program, and we will say that afterschool is part of that. We are not going to provide a separate pot of resources for which localities can apply. We are going to say, no, now as a locality if you are within those 7 States or 25 districts, you have to go up to the State education authority or the Governor, whichever it is, and they may or may not accept it. They can reject it out of hand. When you are competing for scarce dollars in poor areas, in many cases, of course, where the working poor live, how well do they do in that competition? The Presiding Officer knows how difficult those decisions can be. Her late husband was a great Governor of the State of Missouri. How difficult those decisions may be.

Mr. DODD. I have 2 minutes.