Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I have cleared the modification with the manager and the ranking member. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Corzine of New Jersey. It is the early childhood educator professional development amendment. We have been talking a lot in the last few days about raising the quality of education for all children. Learning starts, as we all know, very early--earlier than most people imagined a few years ago. If we want to succeed with educational reform, we have to help those educators work with very young children. We know from research that quality child care makes a difference in children's readiness for school, their behavior, and their social and emotional development. A study following children in Chicago enrolled in the Child Parent Program and other early childhood programs over a 15 year period, reported in the May 9, 2001 Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that low-income children in high-quality, comprehensive early childhood education programs have lower rates of juvenile arrests and violent arrests. The National Academy of Sciences' report, Neurons to Neighborhoods, also stressed the importance of quality early childhood education to child development. And, many other studies confirm that children who attend early childhood education programs led by highly qualified educators are more likely to have better behavior skills, more enriched vocabularies and pre-reading skills, and to succeed in school. Yet we do not give the caregivers and teachers who nurture 13 million children outside of their homes every day the training that they want and need. Many child care and preschool teachers have only a high school diploma. And, often, preschool teachers receive only ten hours of training each year. Children who can't interact well with other children or their teachers are going to have a better chance at learning to read if we develop their reading skills in conjunction with their other developmental needs. For children to be ready for school and to learn to read, their early childhood educators must have the training to help them develop intellectually and socially. This amendment would provide for grants to local partnerships to train early childhood educators in children's social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development, including ways to identify and prevent behavior problems and children who are victims of abuse. Violence prevention must begin with very young children. With the skills and knowledge on how to effectively help young children deal with anger and conflict without violence and to support their learning, many more children will succeed in school and beyond. If we can deal with these issues early in life, we can help prevent negative, even violent, behavioral problems later. We must invest in the teachers of our young children. This amendment is supported by a long list of organizations representing the early childhood educator community, including the American Federation of Teachers, the Children's Defense Fund, the Departments of Education in Maryland, New York State, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, the National Association for the Education of young Children, the National Head Start Association, the YMCA, the YWCA, and many others. I ask my colleagues to join me in Senator Corzine in supporting this important amendment. I think the amendment is being agreed to.

Mr. DODD. I have a lot of time here. I reserve those 30 seconds for closing argument, Madam President.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, my time has about expired. I wonder if my friend from New Hampshire will offer to yield me time, and I ask unanimous consent that just prior to the vote, which I think is going to occur around 2 o'clock, that I be given a couple of minutes to make a final summation of my argument.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I withhold that for a minute.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire. I gather we have a unanimous consent agreement to have 4 minutes equally divided to make closing arguments.

Mr. DODD. That is correct. Again, here it is not a question of sort of dumping the money out there. Localities have to apply for it. You have to ask for it. If you ask for it, there is only a small chance you may actually get it. I would like to see us put in more resources. As my colleague from California points out, this program started as a $10 million program, but because of local mayors and county executives, the YMCAs, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the church-based organizations, the police, they said: Look, this works so well, we went from $10 million to $600 million. We are flattening that line out, and for 25 States and 7 districts we are dumping it all out on a roulette wheel. All I am saying is, in those pilot areas, carve this one out and let the localities apply directly. It reduces the amount of money in the pilot program by 5.7 percent. That is all. Those are not my numbers, those are numbers determined by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization that makes those calculations. So on the notion somehow that I am destroying the Straight A's Program, I am destroying this delicately balanced coalition here, I merely point out: I do not think 1,000 police chiefs, I don't think 2,500 YMCAs, I do not think Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs all across America are in the business of destroying here. I am looking at my good friend from Ohio over here, with whom I drafted Safe and Drug Free Schools. He knows the numbers I put up; 70 percent of the police chiefs say this works. As the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, we have done metal detectors, hiring more police, trying juveniles as adults in some areas--that is controversial--but in these 7 States and 25 districts we are reducing the number by 5.7 percent. That is not gutting Straight A's, that is just saying don't deprive these local communities for the next 7 years of the opportunity to do something that every community in this country believes has great value. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will just respond a little bit. Then we will go to the vote. I have a statement from Chaka Fattah. I will not read all of this, but I think the Congressman from Philadelphia makes a very strong point. He says: If students do not have comparable opportunities, they will not have comparable results. . . . There is no one anywhere who would say that rural and urban school districts receive comparable resources with our wealthier suburban districts; yet, we want to have the same standards. This is not logical. I am perfectly prepared to support testing where we measure the aptitude of young people who have the same opportunities to see if they have the same results. . . . The goal should be excellence for not just some, but all, of our nation's children. My hope is that some of [our] colleagues will understand the importance of educational comparability as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. If I could take 1 minute, I have some remarks.

Mr. DODD. I am prepared to at that point.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I raised this amendment a week or so ago. We spoke on it on several different occasions. It was interrupted at various times, other amendments were offered, and this amendment was laid aside. I say to my colleagues, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Biden, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. This is an amendment that was first offered in the other body by the distinguished Member of the House, Congressman Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia. This amendment is strongly endorsed by the Council of Great City Schools, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Education Association, the National PTA, a coalition of 180 national organizations including AARP, AFL-CIO, American Veterans Committee, Catholic Charities, Children's Defense Fund, the Congress of National Black Churches, the League of Women Voters, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Council of La Rasa, the YWCA and YMCA, just to name some. Chaka Fattah made an eloquent argument in the other body about the value of this amendment. Basically what it does is the following: Since 1965, for 36 years, we have written into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act language that says that in each school district in America there must be a comparable educational opportunity for every child. For 36 years that has worked rather well. We improved education--but there are still gaps in it. Nonetheless, 36 years ago we said for those school districts we believe that all children, regardless of their circumstances of birth, ought to have a comparable education. Some school districts have student populations vastly in excess of what some States have. The school districts of Los Angeles and New York individually have school populations in excess of the student populations in 27 States. Those school districts are highly diverse, in terms of the number of children from various economic backgrounds within those school districts. My amendment says we ought to apply that same standard to the States. Why do I say that? This bill asks that children do a better job, be more accountable, be more responsive. To do that, we are going to require a test in this bill. The underlying bill says that every third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grader is now going to have to take a test. Prior to the adoption of this bill, we had mandates from the Federal Government that said there would be three tests in that age group. So we have mandated that there be accountability already. We are not breaking new ground. We are extending it. Also in this bill we say the teachers need to be more accountable and more responsive. We say school districts need to be accountable and more responsive. We say parents do, school boards do. We say we, at the Federal level, need to be more responsible and demand greater accountability. The one missing element in this entire chain, from the infant child in school to the Federal Government, where I have named virtually everybody from the child to Uncle Sam--one element is missing in that litany. The one element is the States. There is nothing in this bill that requires that the States be accountable or that the States be responsible. Remember, title I was written 36 years ago because we thought, at the national level, not enough was being done to serve the most needy children in America. That was the rationale behind the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--to provide Federal moneys to the States, to help them serve the most needy children. Over the years we provided a lot of money, about 6 cents on every dollar. Madam President, 94 cents for educating children comes from States and localities. If we are going to demand greater accountability, and that students do better in school, that there be higher standards that are to be met, how do we exclude one of the elements here responsible for at least a part of that 94 cents? It is certainly more than the 6 cents the Federal Government supplies. Is it really that radical to say: Mr. Governor or State education board, will you see to it, or work towards achieving comparability of educational opportunity within your State? I am not mandating success. I don't think you ought to do that. We cannot do that. But to say to a child in Connecticut or a child in the State of Washington or New Hampshire or wherever else they may be, that because of the accident of where you are born, being born in that State should not mean you can end up with an entirely different educational opportunity. My bill says over the next 6 years--not right away--within 6 years, you will write to the Secretary of Education, under this amendment, if it is adopted, providing assurance that you have such a plan and that you have begun to implement it. And by the way, if 6 years is not long enough, I will give you 2 more under this amendment. That is 8 years. If you do not do it, what happens? It is left to the discretion of the Secretary to withhold some of the administrative funds under title I--not title I funds. The idea is to urge the States to join with us. Many States, Madam President, as you know and I know, are working hard at this already, just as most school districts are working hard, just as most parents are working hard, and most school boards are working hard. We are not demanding greater accountability in this bill of every school district, parent, child, and teacher because we think they are all failing. We do not believe that. We believe some are. I believe some States are not doing enough. If I can demand accountability and responsibility of a child, a parent, a teacher, a school board, a school district, and the Federal Government, is it too much to ask that we seek at least an effort on the part of our States to improve the quality of educational opportunity? I do not think I need to go back and lay out all the arguments. We all know the days of saying this ought to be exclusively, totally a local effort are gone. That may have had great value in the 19th or most of the 20th century when our economic future and success depended upon a child from Connecticut competing with a child from New Hampshire or Massachusetts, or one from Illinois competing with someone in the State of Washington. But we have entered a global economy. We better have a national vision when it comes to education and national standards. Leaving no child behind means just that. That is why the President has raised this subject matter with the priority he has. The American public wants to see our public schools do better. The President said leave no child behind and he is enforcing this bill because he believes that by testing children, testing teachers, putting real stringent requirements on school districts, on parents and on ourselves, we are going to raise those standards. I did not hear the word ``States'' there. That 94 cents that goes to the education of a child, a substantial part of it comes from the States. I know my State is working hard at this. We have had court cases pending. I know the Governor and the State legislature work at this. I have no problems whatsoever with States that are trying to get this job done. But unfortunately, as I said a moment ago, there are jurisdictions in this country which have not been as responsive or have not been as accountable to the desire to see to it that all children will be given an equal opportunity to succeed. It has been 47 years since the Supreme Court of the United States, just across the street here, passed Brown v. Board of Education, almost a half century ago. When they said separate and unequal schools can no longer be permissible, it was almost a half century ago. There is not one of us in this Chamber who does not know as a matter of fact, even in the States that are trying harder, that Brown v. Board of Education, that 9-0 decision, has yet to provide the kind of relief of the problems that too many of our children are facing. They are separate and they are in unequal educational opportunities. I do not care what State you go to, that is the case. Some States are working at it and some are not. Madam President, almost 50 years later I do not think it is too much to ask that State education authorities or our Governors should also be asked to join in this effort. We cannot do it without them. This is not some peripheral organization here. This is about as critical as it gets. If we are going to be looking for better results and excluding the States from stepping up to the plate and becoming a part of this assessment, then we are missing a major part of the equation necessary to achieve that success. I do not point an accusing finger at any Governor, State agency, or board. We don't tell them how to do it. We don't lay out in some excruciating detail of micromanaging how each State ought to try to achieve it. We don't say identical at all. We say comparable. I know I will hear from my friend from New Hampshire suggesting that I am using a cookie cutter--that every jurisdiction within a given State is going to have to develop an identical plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are talking about comparability. The word was chosen because it is in existing law. It has been there for almost four decades--comparable educational opportunity at a district level. I am expanding the concept to include the States. We are expanding and doing a lot of things new. The Federal Government is not new to having mandates. We shut off all Federal funds if States don't do a better job on school violence. We mandate that there be testing done at the elementary level in America. We have done that for years. We are mandating that districts offer comparable education. These are all mandates. We are not breaking new ground by insisting that States join in this effort. My colleague from New Hampshire said this is a deal breaker. What deal breaker? We deal with this bill once every 6 years. How do you exclude the States? How do you go home and say to people we have done a great job here? We are going to see much better results. By the way, a substantial portion of that 94 cents that goes to the education of a child is going to be excluded from any accountability or any assessment, in effect. It seems to me that if you are asking some impoverished school district to do better, or some kid growing up in a ghetto or in a rural part of America to do better, you ought to try to provide the resources to achieve those goals. And you ought to have some measurement by which you can judge whether or not everybody is pulling their fair share to see to it that we get the best results possible. That is all this amendment is designed to do--to just add one other word to district student, district teacher, school board, Federal Government: add the word ``State.'' However, you want to make it accountable, whether it is the educational authority, or the Governor, or whoever it is, whatever means you choose to try to achieve comparability, that is up to each State. I don't believe the Federal Government ought to be telling States how to do that. It is not identical. It is comparable. As I have said, there are many school districts that embrace a great diversity within their boundaries. They have lived with this law for 36 years. Certainly, for school districts that have student populations in excess of the populations in 27 States--more than half of the States in this country--asking the States to step up and provide some assurance and at least making themselves open to the assessments that we ought to be requiring, I don't think is too much. I thank Chaka Fattah, the Congressional Black Caucus. La Rasa, the Latino/Hispanic group, places this at a very high priority. Chaka Fattah said the other day that this is the No. 1 priority for the Congressional Black Caucus in their consideration of this bill. Again, groups like the YMCA, YWCA, the Children's Defense Fund, American Veterans Committee, AARP--I give great credit to retirees for supporting this effort--the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National PTA, and the National Education Association are supporting this amendment. I thank them for their support. Again, it is 6 years down the road. This doesn't go into effect next month, or next year, or the year after, if this bill is passed. We are providing more than half a decade for States to try it and at least get themselves in a position to offer these assurances, and then a 2-year waiver beyond that and penalties to be imposed by the Secretary only to administrative funds and not to the title I funds that go to the needy children in this country. Again, I hope our colleagues will see fit to support this amendment. I will be happy to yield the floor at this point.

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope we will consider seriously this pending amendment and the implications. To clarify some of the record in terms of statistics that have been thrown about during this debate, there was mention on the floor early today that 63 percent of the American people support vouchers. The exact number is 63 percent support public school vouchers. The implication that this is 63 percent supporting vouchers to private schools is not an accurate figure at all. The national exit polls in November showed by nearly an 80-percent margin Americans prefer investments in public schools to vouchers. The State of California rejected its voucher referendum 71-29. Latinos rejected it by a higher margin, 77-23. Michigan rejected its voucher referendum 69-31. African Americans rejected it by a higher margin, 75-25. The notion that this is a concept that is supported by the American public or that has gone on trial is not the case. Normally, one might ask, what is wrong with a demonstration program, with a budget of multibillions of dollars; why not take $50 million and put it into a demonstration program to determine whether or not something like this works? First of all, I suppose, only in Washington would a person consider $50 million an insignificant amount of money. Particularly when we are trying to get funding for title I and special education and a variety of other needs out there, $50 million may make a significant difference. Putting aside the size of the amount being asked for, this is not a new idea. It is not an untested idea. Every place it has been tested it has not worked. Those are the facts. States, counties, cities, have tried vouchers. There is no research that voucher students outperform public school students or that voucher programs improve public schools at all. Instead, vouchers take scarce resources from public schools that desperately need them. Remember, as we debate this issue, 55 million children went to school in America today; 50 million went to a public school; 5 million went to a private or parochial school. The idea that we will take every desiring public school student and put them into the structures that accommodate private school students is ridiculous on its face. Although this is a pilot program, there are those who would make this a full-scale program if they could. This is, of course, to get $50 million in the door to demonstrate in a sense that we ought to try this as a national scheme and underwrite people's desires to send their children to private or parochial schools. So the 50 million kids who are going to schools need to know whether or not we will be doing what we can to improve the quality of public education. That is where our primary responsibility is when it comes to elementary and secondary education needs. What will help public schools, in my view, is not vouchers but better qualified teachers, smaller class size, safe and modern facilities, programs to increase parental involvement, and more afterschool programs. Even if every available space in private schools were filled by a transfer student from a public school in America, only 4 percent of the public school students would receive a voucher under the maximum set of circumstances. Which 4 percent will it be? Who makes that choice? It will not be a kid who can be a bit of a problem. Unlike a public school, a private school can cherry-pick who they want to have, who they don't want to have, who they want to reject, who they like or don't like. That is their right. I never fault or suggest that a private or parochial school ought to accept everyone who applies. So when you are setting up a private school program, many of which, by the way, cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars--the idea that somehow we are going to have a meaningful voucher program for some desperately poor black child growing up in a ghetto somewhere to go to the Taft School in Connecticut or some private institution is foolish, in my view. We are talking about a fraction, even if you had a national program here, a fraction of the students who would qualify. Vouchers do not even provide a choice for many of the students who are eligible for them. Unlike public schools, private schools are not required to accept all students, nor is there any evidence that the few students who are able to use vouchers to attend private schools outperform public school peers. The most comprehensive study of the first 5 years of the Milwaukee voucher program showed no achievement differences between voucher students and public school students, not any after 5 years. I ask for 2 additional minutes, if I could.

Mr. DODD. I may use less than that. We have talked a lot about it already. The Senator from New Hampshire has spoken eloquently and at length in opposition. I presume we could get done prior to that. We say ``half an hour.'' Then we think we have to use it. If not, we could get done before. With the admonition of the Senator from Nevada, we will try to move this along.

Mr. DODD. I understand we have half an hour of time to debate this amendment. Is there a time agreement?

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 459, the Dodd amendment, be before the Senate.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. In fact, this is why I made the statement I did at the outset. This is not uncharted waters at all. Mr. President, 30 years of research suggests that when background conditions and other factors are taken into account there are no significant differences in achievement between public and private school students. Supporters of vouchers also suggest that competition from vouchers will improve public schools; that competition will shake out the bad schools. I am all for business models in a lot of areas, but education is not widgets. The business model starts with a premise that there are winners and losers. An educational model that starts with that premise is not consistent with leaving no child behind. We cannot afford for any school or any child to be a loser. We cannot guarantee there will be winners, but we ought to be able to guarantee an equal opportunity to win. The idea that some are just going to fail and that's the way life is is not the way we ought to be dealing with elementary and secondary educational needs. I do not think we can afford for any school or child to be a loser in America. Just as there is no reliable research suggesting that voucher students outperform their peers, there is no reliable research that suggests that voucher programs improve public schools either. We know what does improve them: additional resources, better teachers, smaller class size, curriculum, model schools. Those are the things that make a difference. We do not need a Federal demonstration program to learn about voucher programs or about what is necessary to improve public schools. We already know that we do not improve public schools by draining away desperately needed resources and undermining public support for those schools. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to look at what the record has been on this issue. It has been developed. It is not new. I have great respect for what private and parochial schools do. They make a significant contribution. But the idea somehow we are going to fund two school systems in America is unrealistic. We do not do a very good job at the one we have. The idea somehow we are going to underwrite two is terribly naive and detracts from the resource allocation we need in order to try to make those schools that are in trouble receive the kind of support they ought to be getting. For those reasons, I urge our colleagues to reject the Gregg amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DODD. To add to my colleague's point, this is not telling the States how the State system should be structured. It is not saying that if one district offers Japanese as a language, because there is an interest, they have to offer it to everybody in the State. That is not common sense. Comparability of educational services is about comparability of educational opportunity. I cannot see why this is a controversial issue. I hope, again, our colleagues can support the amendment. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his patience and yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last year 26 Senators cosponsored legislation to help the Cuban people and American farmers and businesses by allowing sales of food and medicine to Cuba. Later, with passage of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the 106th Congress approved the issuance one year licenses for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, but placed restrictions on the financing of these sales. This was a beginning, and now we need to expand on this small success by continuing to move forward in constructing bridges to the Cuban people. Toward that end, I am today joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing the Bridges to the Cuban People Act, an expanded version of the legislation that was passed last year. Among those joining as original cosponsors are Senators Chafee, Leahy, Lugar, Roberts, Baucus, Levin, Boxer, Jeffords, Kennedy, Akaka, Wellstone, Dorgan, Bingaman, and Durbin. This bill comprehensively updates U.S. policy toward Cuba by increasing humanitarian trade between Cuba and the United States, increasing our people-to-people contacts, and enhancing the flexibility of the President with respect to our foreign policy towards Cuba. I would like to take a few moments to outline the various sections of this bill, and to explain to my colleagues the reasons why enactment of this legislation is so vital. First, let me be clear. This new legislation will not end the embargo on Cuba. Rather, this bill creates specific exceptions to the embargo that will allow American farmers and businesses to sell food, medicine, and agricultural equipment to Cuba without the burden of securing annual licenses and will allow our farmers and businesses to use American banks and American financing to conduct these sales. Both of these changes, along with the lifting of shipping restrictions, are designed to allow sales to move forward in a way that is less burdensome to American farmers and businesses. Additionally, this bill would mandate that the President submit a report to Congress each year describing the number and types of sales to Cuba so that we will have some official record of these sales. The Building Bridges to the Cuban People Act would also lift the embargo on the exports of goods or services intended for the exclusive use of children. No embargo should include children as its victims, and this provision would allow us to give special attention to children in Cuba. This bill also modernizes our approach to Cuba's medical exports. Cuba is currently involved in the development of some medicines that are not available in the United States, such as the Meningitis B vaccine, but that could save American lives. This legislation would allow Cuba, with the approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to export to the United States medicines for which there is a medical need in the United States, provided the medicine is not currently being manufactured in our country. In this way we can build on the strong tradition of medical research in Cuba and encourage the free exchange of ideas and experiments between scholars. In addition, this bill will lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. Cuba does not now pose a threat to individual Americans, and it is time to permit our citizens to exercise their constitutional right to travel to Cuba. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit the island Nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, the Sudan, Burma, Yugoslavia, and North Korea, but not to Cuba. This is a mistake. American influence, through person- to-person and cultural exchanges, was one of the prime factors in the evolution of our hemisphere from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian and military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba limits the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarianism, and that is our own people. They are some of the best ambassadors we have ever sent anywhere, and the free exchange of ideas between Americans and the Cuban people is one of the best ways to encourage democracy and build bridges between the American and Cuban people. Another provision in this new legislation would allow us to reach out to Cuban students. Under this legislation, scholarships would be provided for Cubans who would like to pursue graduate study in the United States in the areas of public health, public policy, economics, law, or other fields of social science. Throughout our history, educational and cultural exchanges have proven to be valuable tools that lead to understanding and friendship. This scholarship program is a concrete example of the true people-to-people dialogue we should be trying to foster with Cuba. Nor does this legislation ignore the struggle of the Cuban-American population in the United States. Cuban-Americans here have always had the ability to send money to their families in Cuba, but the government imposes restrictions on the total amount of money that can be sent. This legislation would lift these limitations so that Americans would be free to provide whatever assistance they wished to their loved ones. And, finally, this bill would modernize the way our policies toward Cuba are codified. At the present time, the President has the authority to waive Title III of the Helms/Burton Act. This legislation would extend the President's authority so that he could also waive Title I, Title II, and Title IV of the Helms/Burton Act, at his discretion. When Helms/Burton was enacted it contained a provision that codified all existing Cuban embargo Executive Orders and regulations, but did not provide for presidential waivers. This lack of waivers severely ties the hands of the Administration if a decision is made to make changes in our policy towards Cuba. The President should have the tools he needs to conduct and modify our foreign policy, and this legislation would give the President the flexibility to shape our relationship with Cuba in a more positive way. In conclusion, I believe that this bill will streamline our Cuban policy so that it deals with the realities of the modern age, addresses the needs of our American farmers, patients, and children, while imposing the fewest restrictions on American citizens who wish to have contact with the people of Cuba. The people of Cuba are not our enemy. Our government's quarrel is with Fidel Castro, and our policies should reflect that reality. Without doubt, the Castro regime has denied rights to its citizens, but in our efforts to isolate him, we have built walls that are hampering our goal of bringing democracy to the Cuban people. As a measure that tears down those walls and replaces them with bridges, this legislation is a good starting point for a serious debate about how we can change U.S. policy in order to foster a peaceful transition to democracy on the island of Cuba while alleviating the hardship that our current policy has caused for the 11 million people who reside there. I hope to hold hearings in the near future and will be discussing with the committee leadership dates for the markup of this important legislation. Congressmen Serrano, Leach and more than eighty of their House colleagues have introduced a companion bill in the House today as well. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last year 26 Senators cosponsored legislation to help the Cuban people and American farmers and businesses by allowing sales of food and medicine to Cuba. Later, with passage of the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the 106th Congress approved the issuance one year licenses for the sale of food and medicine to Cuba, but placed restrictions on the financing of these sales. This was a beginning, and now we need to expand on this small success by continuing to move forward in constructing bridges to the Cuban people. Toward that end, I am today joined by a bipartisan group of my colleagues in introducing the Bridges to the Cuban People Act, an expanded version of the legislation that was passed last year. Among those joining as original cosponsors are Senators Chafee, Leahy, Lugar, Roberts, Baucus, Levin, Boxer, Jeffords, Kennedy, Akaka, Wellstone, Dorgan, Bingaman, and Durbin. This bill comprehensively updates U.S. policy toward Cuba by increasing humanitarian trade between Cuba and the United States, increasing our people-to-people contacts, and enhancing the flexibility of the President with respect to our foreign policy towards Cuba. I would like to take a few moments to outline the various sections of this bill, and to explain to my colleagues the reasons why enactment of this legislation is so vital. First, let me be clear. This new legislation will not end the embargo on Cuba. Rather, this bill creates specific exceptions to the embargo that will allow American farmers and businesses to sell food, medicine, and agricultural equipment to Cuba without the burden of securing annual licenses and will allow our farmers and businesses to use American banks and American financing to conduct these sales. Both of these changes, along with the lifting of shipping restrictions, are designed to allow sales to move forward in a way that is less burdensome to American farmers and businesses. Additionally, this bill would mandate that the President submit a report to Congress each year describing the number and types of sales to Cuba so that we will have some official record of these sales. The Building Bridges to the Cuban People Act would also lift the embargo on the exports of goods or services intended for the exclusive use of children. No embargo should include children as its victims, and this provision would allow us to give special attention to children in Cuba. This bill also modernizes our approach to Cuba's medical exports. Cuba is currently involved in the development of some medicines that are not available in the United States, such as the Meningitis B vaccine, but that could save American lives. This legislation would allow Cuba, with the approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to export to the United States medicines for which there is a medical need in the United States, provided the medicine is not currently being manufactured in our country. In this way we can build on the strong tradition of medical research in Cuba and encourage the free exchange of ideas and experiments between scholars. In addition, this bill will lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. Cuba does not now pose a threat to individual Americans, and it is time to permit our citizens to exercise their constitutional right to travel to Cuba. Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit the island Nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, the Sudan, Burma, Yugoslavia, and North Korea, but not to Cuba. This is a mistake. American influence, through person- to-person and cultural exchanges, was one of the prime factors in the evolution of our hemisphere from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian and military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba limits the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarianism, and that is our own people. They are some of the best ambassadors we have ever sent anywhere, and the free exchange of ideas between Americans and the Cuban people is one of the best ways to encourage democracy and build bridges between the American and Cuban people. Another provision in this new legislation would allow us to reach out to Cuban students. Under this legislation, scholarships would be provided for Cubans who would like to pursue graduate study in the United States in the areas of public health, public policy, economics, law, or other fields of social science. Throughout our history, educational and cultural exchanges have proven to be valuable tools that lead to understanding and friendship. This scholarship program is a concrete example of the true people-to-people dialogue we should be trying to foster with Cuba. Nor does this legislation ignore the struggle of the Cuban-American population in the United States. Cuban-Americans here have always had the ability to send money to their families in Cuba, but the government imposes restrictions on the total amount of money that can be sent. This legislation would lift these limitations so that Americans would be free to provide whatever assistance they wished to their loved ones. And, finally, this bill would modernize the way our policies toward Cuba are codified. At the present time, the President has the authority to waive Title III of the Helms/Burton Act. This legislation would extend the President's authority so that he could also waive Title I, Title II, and Title IV of the Helms/Burton Act, at his discretion. When Helms/Burton was enacted it contained a provision that codified all existing Cuban embargo Executive Orders and regulations, but did not provide for presidential waivers. This lack of waivers severely ties the hands of the Administration if a decision is made to make changes in our policy towards Cuba. The President should have the tools he needs to conduct and modify our foreign policy, and this legislation would give the President the flexibility to shape our relationship with Cuba in a more positive way. In conclusion, I believe that this bill will streamline our Cuban policy so that it deals with the realities of the modern age, addresses the needs of our American farmers, patients, and children, while imposing the fewest restrictions on American citizens who wish to have contact with the people of Cuba. The people of Cuba are not our enemy. Our government's quarrel is with Fidel Castro, and our policies should reflect that reality. Without doubt, the Castro regime has denied rights to its citizens, but in our efforts to isolate him, we have built walls that are hampering our goal of bringing democracy to the Cuban people. As a measure that tears down those walls and replaces them with bridges, this legislation is a good starting point for a serious debate about how we can change U.S. policy in order to foster a peaceful transition to democracy on the island of Cuba while alleviating the hardship that our current policy has caused for the 11 million people who reside there. I hope to hold hearings in the near future and will be discussing with the committee leadership dates for the markup of this important legislation. Congressmen Serrano, Leach and more than eighty of their House colleagues have introduced a companion bill in the House today as well. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend and colleague from Minnesota and express my appreciation to him for raising this amendment. This is not a unique approach. We have taken on matters where we linked financing with obligations. One of the constant complaints we receive as Members when we return home to our respective States and speak with our mayors and Governors, our local legislators, we often hear, regardless of the jurisdiction--Minnesota, Connecticut, Michigan, New Hampshire, Massachusetts--you folks in Washington like to tell us what we need to do, but you rarely come up with the resources to help us do what you tell us we have to do. We have gone through an extensive debate as part of this discussion on special education. We made a commitment as the Federal Government years ago that said every child ought to have the opportunity for a full education, as much as they are capable of achieving, and that special education students would be a part. We promised we would meet 40 percent of the cost of that as a result of a Federal requirement. That commitment was made 25 years ago. It took 25 years, until just recently, as a result of the efforts of the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, Senator Collins, my colleague from Minnesota, and many others, who said we were going to have to meet that obligation, financially supporting the special education needs of the country. As a result of their efforts, we have included in this bill a mandatory spending requirement to meet those obligations. I raised the issue about 12 years ago in the Budget Committee and lost on a tie vote. Why do I bring that up and discuss it in the context of this amendment? If we fail to adopt this amendment that the Senator from Minnesota has suggested, in 5, 10, 15 years, we will have a similar demand made by the very people asking us today to fulfill the financial obligations that we owe as a result of mandating special education needs. People may not like that comparison, but that is a fact. We are saying to these students, across the country, disregarding States and in a sense localities, here are some standards we expect you to meet. We are willing to authorize, as we did by a vote of 79-21, some substantial sums of money to allow for full funding of title I as a result of the heroic efforts of my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, along with 78 others in this Chamber. We went on record, with a rather overwhelming vote. This was not a 51-49 vote. Almost 80 Members of the body said full funding of title I is something we ought to do. If this bill is going to work, we ought to fully fund this program. We said over 10 years. I would have preferred if it was a more brief period of time, but we have to accept the realities. I think it is important to note that it occurred. It is a true expression of the desire of Members here, regardless of party or ideology. As a result of the demands we will make in this legislation, we are fully prepared to do something that kids on the corner often say to each other: Put your money where your mouth is. We have had a pretty good mouth when it comes to telling the country what they ought to do. The question is whether or not we will put the money up to back up and support the demands we are making here. I think the amendment offered is one that is important. It says, obviously, if you want to live up to those commitments--we are asking schools to be accountable, to be responsible--then we should as well. We cannot very well demand a third grader be responsible or fourth grader or fifth grader or some impoverished rural district or urban district--as we demand accountability from a superintendent of schools, a principal, a teacher--and then we duck our responsibility here. There is a long and painful history where demands have been made by this government on our localities and our States and then we have failed to back up those demands by failing to provide the resources to accomplish them. This is about as critical an area as can be, education. I do not want to see us coming out of this with a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. I don't want us to know going in, as a result of the paucity of resources, that young children living in some of the toughest areas of the country are deprived of the resources necessary so they can maximize their potential. As we begin this testing process, year in and year out, as we watch the scores not improving because the title I funds are not there--and by the way they work. Title I funds work as we know based on all sorts of examinations and studies that have been done. Therefore, it seems to me we want to have funding. My colleagues and I were at recent meetings at the White House. I don't believe we should go into the details of those meetings. The President was gracious enough to invite us to those. He cares about education a lot. I have no doubt that President Bush cares about it. He made that point when he was Governor. He provided evidence of it. He has spoken out about it numerous times and gone to schools all across the country. So the fact that we are of different political parties or persuasions is not the point, obviously. I am willing to believe that his slogan that he used a lot during the campaign of ``leave no child behind'' is sincerely and deeply felt. All I am suggesting, as are the Senator from Minnesota and others who support this, is to see those achievements. I believe this President wants to see these kids do better. That is what we all want. We spend less than 2 percent of the entire Federal budget on elementary and secondary education--less than 2 percent. I think that would probably come as a shock to most Americans who send their tax dollars to Washington to discover that less than 2 cents on every dollar the Federal Government spends actually goes to elementary and secondary education. I am excluding higher education. We have all heard the speeches given around the country of how important this is, that any nation that ever expects to improve or grow has to have an educational system that creates the opportunities for its people. So this is about as important an issue as there is. When you talk about economic growth, economic stability, education is about as important an issue as you can discuss. If we fail to have an educated generation, all the rhetoric, all the decisions by the Federal Reserve Board, all the decisions by the Treasury, all the decisions made by Wall Street, will not mean a lot if we do not have an educated population able to fill the jobs and perform the work needed to keep this economy and our country strong. This is the first step. If we get this wrong, then the likelihood we will succeed at every other point is reduced dramatically, in my view. I do not think that is a unique perspective. I suspect if you were to ask the 100 Members of this body whether or not you could have true economic development and true economic stability and success without a strong educational system, I do not know of a single Member of this body who would accept that as a likely conclusion. What we are saying is, if that is the case, then should we not link this issue of providing the resources necessary to the title I program, which has proved to be so successful, and to say that before we start demanding these tests and so forth we are going to see to it that these young people, and these communities, are going to have the resources to get the job done? That, it seems to me, is only fair and right. If the resources are not going to be there, does anyone doubt, can anyone stand up and say if the resources are not there, that these children, the most needy in the country--in rural and urban America, most of them--are going to be able to do better on these tests? If you do not have the resources to make these environments better, there is no doubt about the outcomes. You are not going to hire the teachers who are qualified. You are not going to have the tools necessary. That is just a fact. There is more empirical evidence to support that statement than anything I know of. Over and over again we are told it will not work if you do not have the tools. No matter how strong the desire, no matter how ambitious these parents or these children may be, they have to have the tools. You cannot be in a classroom with 40 kids and learn. A teacher cannot teach. You cannot get ready for the 21st century economy without a wired school and the ability to access the technology available. You cannot have teachers who know nothing about the subject matter teaching math, science or reading. They cannot do it. Don't expect a child anywhere to learn under those circumstances. The fact is, in more schools around the country, those are the realities. I wish I could magically wave a wand and automatically guarantee that there will be these tools available. But none of us possesses that kind of power. You have to have the resources to do it. So to go out and test a bunch of kids who have not had the support and backing necessary for them to be accurately tested has structured a very cruel arrangement for this Congress and this administration to impose. It is going to produce predictable results. So I think the Senator from Minnesota has properly asked us to do what any mayor, any Governor, any school board or principal or superintendent would ask of us. I think what they are saying to us--my colleague from Minnesota can correct me--they are saying: Look, we accept the challenge you imposed on us. I know my friend from Minnesota and I have heard from a number of people who have questioned the wisdom of this annual testing idea as a way of somehow proving whether or not kids are doing better. I get very uneasy about what teachers are going to be teaching. It is what I call turning our schools into test prep centers where you spend half the year or more of it getting the kids ready to do well on the tests because the teachers, the superintendent, the principal, the Governor-- everybody wants to look good and pass the test. I don't know whether you learn anything or not, but you pass the test. I get nervous about an educational system that is more geared to passing some test so more of the ``political'' people can have bright stars attached to their names. I think testing is valuable, but your educational system is geared toward those testing requirements rather than educating children. I certainly think math and reading are very important--but I also think science is important, I think history is important, I think geography is important, I think languages are important. My fear is in some ways we are going to get so focused on a couple of disciplines which are critical--very critical, essential, Madam President--but at the expense of a lot of other areas which are also critical for the full and proper development of a child's educational needs. You do not have to be an educational genius to know what can happen if you are just geared to getting the class to pass the Federal test in order to keep the school open. I am very worried about that. But I will put that aside. I will put my worries aside for a minute. I am not the only one worried. This is not just Democrats and Republicans who are worried. I think parents out there who may not know all the nuances of this bill are worried. People who work hard in school every day will tell you they know what they are going to end up doing. But we will put that aside for a second. At the very least, if we are going to demand this in tests, it seems we have to have the kid prepared, at least give them a chance to do well. If the resources are not there for them to do well, then I think we all know what the results are going to be. That is really what this amendment is all about. Maybe it is more complicated than that. But I don't think it is. Take the environment, or transportation, or any subject you want. No one would suggest that you can anticipate high performance without the resources being there to help you achieve it. Yet in the education field we seem to be indulging in a fiction that somehow we can set the standard and demand the test, hold back the resources, and expect the students to reach it. I don't know where else you could ever imagine that kind of result to occur. We seem to be anticipating 50 million children around America, if the bill is passed and signed by the President shortly thereafter, having to meet these tests. It is fewer than 50, because we are talking about grades 3-8. Whatever that number is of kids in elementary and secondary school--perhaps it is 30 million who are in our elementary schools. So 30 million kids will start to be tested. You are not going to have the resources necessary to help the hardest hit schools in America ensure that the children are well prepared. I realize this amendment is troublesome to people. They prefer that we don't demand this. But just as we demanded special education for children without resources, until finally people were banging on the doors of Washington and saying, ``You people promised to help us do this,'' I suggest we get ahead of their argument and provide the resources as a result of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, and then go forward with it. I am prepared to support this. But I say to my friend from Minnesota, as hesitant as I am about supporting testing in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades--by the way, if it were one test, I wouldn't mind. This is Federal. Forget about the State and local. On average, there are about five tests that kids have to go through during a year. I am willing to accept that. But I have the outrageous demand that we provide the resources to these schools so these kids have a chance to demonstrate what they are capable of. If you are telling me that I can't have the resources to at least give them a chance to prove how bright they can be, don't ask me to require a kid to take a test that they can't possibly pass and set them up for failure in life. We only debate this bill once every 6 years. I suspect many of us on the floor today may not be here the next time the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is debated. If it were debated every year, I might wait until next year to try it. But if we don't provide the funding in the language here that provides for it, a half a decade or more will go by before we are back again discussing this. I don't want in this last debate for the next 5 or 6 years, where we mandate this testing and mandate these standards from Washington to every school district in America, to then stick our hands in our pockets and walk away and tell them we are not going to give them the resources necessary to achieve success. I am confident they can achieve. We have no obligation to guarantee any American success. But we do have an obligation to guarantee every American the opportunity to achieve his or her potential. That is a responsibility that I think I bear as a Member of this body. I am going to be hard pressed to vote for a piece of legislation that demands success without giving these kids the opportunity to prove what they are capable of. The Senator from Minnesota has offered us an amendment which would complete the circle by requiring the tests but providing the resources that will allow us to judge fairly whether or not these children, their parents, and their schools are meeting their obligations. I thank my colleague for offering the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the nays and yeas.