Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to amendments, No. 791 by Mr. Bingaman, No. 363 by Mr. Torricelli, and No. 356 by Mr. Corzine, be further modified with the changes at the desk in order to conform to the underlying Jeffords substitute amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are moving along. I am very appreciative of the cooperation we are getting. We now have a very important amendment by Senator Wellstone which is one of the most important that we will have during this debate. We have some good time allocated for a very good discussion. Senator Wellstone will open and, obviously, respond to questions. It is our intention, following Senator Wellstone, to consider the amendment of the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, dealing with dilapidated schools, and Senator Feinstein dealing with school construction. And Senator Kerry, my colleague, has two on principals and alternative placements. Those are listed in the list of amendments. I understand there may be amendments from the other side related to those. But we are trying to move this. Obviously, if there are amendments related to it, we will deal with them the way we have in the past, but I wanted to at least give our Members an idea about what is coming up this afternoon. We are hopeful to continue to make good progress through the course of the afternoon.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that. Senator Hutchison has a very important amendment. A number of our colleagues have been interested in that subject matter. That has been going on for a number of days. They have been very constructive resolutions. I hope perhaps after Senator Clinton we might be able to consider that amendment. We will be in touch with the Republican leader, and we will give her as much notice as we can, but we will try to see if we can't dispose of it after the Clinton amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I know the Senator will be here momentarily. I will request the absence of a quorum until he is here to present his amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield to no one in this body in my battle to seek full-funding for the title I program. I joined with the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine on the amendment to authorize full funding for title I. I have supported additional funding in this bill, in terms of professional development, bilingual programs, afterschool programs, school construction, and the other programs. We are going to make every effort to ensure that reforms are accompanied by resources. But I have to really take issue with some of the points that have been raised this afternoon, including the statements from my good friend from Connecticut. We are already testing. Forty-six States currently administer annual reading and math tests in two or more grade levels. Adequate yearly progress in current law, as well as in this legislation, will be based upon the tests that were held last year. That legislation is currently in place. It is happening in my State. I will spend some time later in my conversation to go through the scores of States that already test in grades 3-8. That is already taking place. No one argues with the point about ensuring that all students will be prepared to take these tests. However, it is not quite that easy, even with the full funding for title I. We are not providing full funding for the Head Start Programs--only 40 percent. We are not providing full funding for the Early Start Programs. All are enormously important for our children to progress. But a number of States are doing a very good job. On the idea that we were going to effectively end any assistance to those States after we accepted the amendments from the Senator from Vermont in terms of effectively saying if we don't get the funding for effective tests, that we are not going to be obligated to do it, we have accepted the Wellstone amendment in terms of quality; we have accepted the Wellstone amendment for increased funding; we are going to make the battle in terms of funding for those programs. But those tests which the States are using under this legislation are happening today in 46 States. The question is, How are we going to have those tests? What I think the Senators from Minnesota and Connecticut, and I think on all sides of the aisle, want is not punishment for students but instruments by which we can determine what children are learning and what they are not learning: We want tests that will be responsive to curriculum reform with well-trained teachers in those classrooms. It is going to take some time. But we have recognized that we are going to try to use quality tests in an effective way to enhance children's learning. I am not going to take a good deal of time, although I had the good opportunity in Massachusetts last week to appear at a conference sponsored by Mass Insight, and also to meet with Achieve--a nationally known organization that has been working on accountability for several years. When I met with Achieve, they reported that 22 schools in Massachusetts have made significant progress using tests and demonstrating, with measurable results, how students have been making progress. Those tests are being used well and effectively. No one stands to defend poor quality tests that may, in fact, be detrimental to children. But, the Senator from Minnesota's premise that if we do not get to the full funding for the Title I program within 4 years, that we cannot provide for high-quality tests and good school reforms, is flawed. Choosing not to commit to developing good instruments of educational assessment and high standards that will drive curriculum reform, teacher reform, educational reform, and accountability in those communities, I think, just misses the point. Our bill in the Senate requires States to develop assessments in grades 3 through 8 in math and literacy, with the understanding that those subjects are vital to the future educational success of children. If students do not know how to read, they cannot learn. If they do not know mathematics, they cannot continue their education, and they will not be able to survive in the modern economy. So, we have made a commitment in this bill to ensure that States develop and implement tests in those subject areas. But in the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, we required States to administer tests for school accountability at least three times: one in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 10-12. Some States have done a very good job of developing these assessments. Some have not done so well. But this bill seeks to build upon the progress made by those States who have developed high-quality assessments, and ensure that the additional assessments developed by States are of the highest quality. I question the logic of discouraging high-quality assessment that will provide data to help improve education, if in Congress may not be able to secure 100 percent of the resources for reforms across the board in Title I. I cannot understand this, as much as I fight for increased funding for enhanced professional development, afterschool programs, technology, literacy programs, and scores of other reforms essential to improve student achievement. There are not many Members of the Senate who like increased funding as much as I do. However, we should not use tests as a scapegoat if we are not able to achieve all that we advocate for. We should not take out our frustrations that stem from insufficient funding for Title I, on what have been recognized as effective instruments that measure student achievement, and help teachers tailor instruction to meet the needs of students. That should not be our goal. I respect the opinion of my friend from Minnesota, and understand that he does not regard assessments as having a critical role in school reform. I know that he feels too many teachers teach to the test, and that too many tests are used punitively, rather than constructively. I believe that his concerns are at the heart of this amendment. However, good tests can play an important role in school reform. Earlier in our consideration of this bill I mentioned examples of assessments working in tandem with efforts to reform schools, as has occurred in my own State of Massachusetts, at the Jeremiah Burke High School. The Burke school lost its accreditation 6 years ago because of the low-level of education that was being offered at that school. This year, the school has one of the lowest dropout rates in the city of Boston. And every single student has been accepted to college. High expectations, high standards, and the assessments needed to measure progress. At the Burke school, they use tests to identify student weaknesses, and develop what is almost an individualized curriculum and academic program for each student in need of extra help. This is not a school that has great financial resources, but to the credit of the principal, the Burke school was received with great excitement by parents and the local community for the academic progress that has been made in the school. I am not prepared to accept an amendment that would propose to throw away meaningful and important tools to gauge student achievement if Congress cannot secure full-funding for all of the reforms included in this bill. I do not think that is wise education policy. I think such an amendment effectively undermines this legislation. I take a backseat to no one in the fight to increase funding for Title I and other programs. But no member in this body thinks we'll meet the rate of increase for Title I called for in this amendment. We should not discard the tools that can help promote school success. I think that we should accept the basic assessment provisions in this legislation, and take steps to monitor and watch State's progress toward fulfilling the promise of those provisions. We are going to have to ensure that States develop and implement effective, quality tests. We have taken steps, with the Collins amendment, to review and financially evaluate the costs associated with producing effective tests. I can commit that as long as I am chairman of the Education Committee, we will have vigorous, vigorous oversight on this particular issue. We will take the steps that are necessary to alter and change this situation if States do not have the resources to effectively develop or use assessments. But to eliminate provisions to provide for instruments that are being used as tools for reform by teachers throughout the country would be wrong. We should promote teachers' understanding of what children are learning, and we should promote parents' understanding of what children are learning. Denying parents the opportunity to understand how their children's school is performing makes no sense. At the appropriate time, I intend to vote no.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes from the opposition.

Mr. KENNEDY. I indicated my opposition to the Wellstone amendment, but I take a moment to correct the record of my good friend from Arkansas. We spend $400 billion a year in K-12; and $8 billion on title I. The fact that some students have not made progress is not the fault of the Title I program. Instead, it is a reflection of the fact that States have not provided the leadership in terms of assistance and resources. That is where accountability comes in. No one is saying money is the answer to everything, but it is a clear indication of a nation's priorities. Although we have a difference in terms of this particular legislation, I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Senator from Minnesota and others who say we ought to work for the full funding because we are only reaching a third of the students. I remind my friend from Arkansas what happened in Texas. Look what has happened in school funding from 1994 to 2001. Texas has increased their funding for education statewide by 57 percent. Look at the student achievement. Student achievement has increased by 27 percent. Resources have been expended in developing standards and assessments, academies that assist low-achieving students, professional development, and smaller class sizes. That is how the resources have been spent. They have been getting results. I agree what we want to do is, with scarce resources, give the tried and true policies which have demonstrated effectiveness in the past and make them available to local communities so they make decisions and hold them accountable within that community. That is what this legislation will do. The testing is also a part of this process. I agree it should be. I am not prepared to put it at risk because we don't reach the actual dollar figure included in the Senator's amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Minnesota, we could dispose of the amendment on a voice vote now. Would that be agreeable to the Senator?

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself just 3 minutes on the amendment of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to join in thanking the Senator from Texas. This issue is one of enormous importance. We have heard very eloquent comments and statements about the opportunities that this type of amendment can provide for young Americans. We want to take advantage of those opportunities. As one who has been here for some time, I have often seen where there appear to be opportunities, and where there has also been discrimination against individuals. That has been true in a variety of different circumstances. None of us wants to see this. We know that that is not the intention of any of us who is supporting this particular program. The Senator was enormously helpful and positive and constructive, as was the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, and others, in making sure that we were, to the extent possible, not going to see a reenforcement or a return to old stereotyping which has taken place at an unfortunate period in terms of American education. They have done that, the Senator has done that with the amendment. That has been enormously important. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wanted to yield the time back, I would urge my colleague from New Hampshire to yield his time back.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator make a very impassioned plea for funding the program, and I am all in agreement with it. I feel, however, as if we are describing two different bills. The pending Senate bill already includes accountability. The bill already includes testing. And, at the present time, under current law there are already 15 States that are testing students every year, in grades 3 through 8, in math and reading. There are 46 States that are testing their students annually in at least two grades. States are complying today with the 1994 law, and are being held accountable for their progress, under provisions that describe adequate yearly progress in Title I. This is nothing new. The amount that those 15 States are spending on their statewide tests is low. Many States are not investing the resources that they really need to ensure high-quality assessments. According to the Education Commission of the States, those 15 States only spend between $1.37 and $17.16 per student annually on their assessments. Under our legislation, the Jeffords amendment would ensure $69--do we hear that?--$69 per student for States to develop their annual assessments by the 2005-2006 school year, in reading and math for students grades 3-8. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, it takes between $25 and $125 per student to develop such assessments. $69 should be sufficient. Not $1, as exists now, not $5, but $69. The Wellstone amendment essentially eliminates requirements to develop those assessments, and eliminates the promise that those high- quality assessments may hold to produce the data that can drive school reform. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. Senator Wellstone is thinking that, sometime in the future, we will eventually begin this process of assessment. In reality, assessments are in place now. To say if we do not get full funding, if we miss it by $500 million, what happens? We are not going to provide any of the accountability. If we miss it by $300 million, we are not going to get it. With all respect to my colleague from Connecticut, their amendment for full funding was for 10 years. This amendment calls for full funding in 4 years. I am all for full funding in 4 years, if Senator wants to offer an amendment that does not compromise essential reforms in the underlying bill. I have spoken with the President about this very subject. We ought to increase funding for Title I, and double our present commitment to cover two-thirds of the children, and the other third during his administration. I have said it publicly, and I said it to the President within the last 3 days. I am going to continue to fight this fight, because I believe in the Title I program. However, to say that at the end of the day we are not going to be able to implement high quality tests that help us in the reform process I do not understand. I just do not understand it because tests are nothing new, we are currently assessing student progress for accountability today, and more and more States are implementing a plan similar to that which is in this underlying bill. Many States are not implementing tests that are of high-quality. They are not doing very well. We have seek in this bill to address that point. We are not talking about the future. We have addressed the issue of quality in the assessment process with the amendments that we have taken. We want to improve upon States' current practice. We have tried to accomplish that with the amendments to date, but that goal will not be met by the pending amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. On page 43 under ``Assessments,'' this bill spells out the tests which I mentioned earlier are statewide. There are currently 15 States that are testing reading and math annually in grades 3 through 8. Accountability in current law is based, at least partly, on these tests that are currently being administered. Not all, but many of these tests are not of the highest quality. They are not aligned with standards. They are not valid and reliable measures. I want to make them better. We have in place in this legislation, with the amendments that have been accepted--the Jeffords amendment, the Wellstone amendments, the Collins amendment. The best estimate has been provided by the National Association of State Boards of Education. They estimate that the cost of developing high quality State tests, aligned to standards, in grades 3-8 ranges from $25 to $125 per student. Our bill provides $69 per student. If States do not receive the funds provided by the Jeffords amendment under this bill for testing, they may suspend the development or implementation of their tests. The fact is, S. 1, when the President signs it, will contain accountability provisions that will be driven by, as it says on page 43, existing tests under requirements that mirror current law. Many of those tests are not of high quality. Some States are doing better than others. I can understand why the President and our committee both want to do better. To eliminate the possibility to do better, by warding off assessments, does not make any sense to me.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have just talked to the majority leader. And I see our deputy leader and our Republican floor manager. We had been talking during the course of the afternoon, and hopefully we will have a pathway which will lead us to two votes, I believe, on Monday night and then hopefully set the stage for our Tuesday deliberations. I heard from our leader, if we are able to work that out, there might not be further votes this evening. But this is underway. I just hope the membership can give us a minute or two to see if that can be put in a unanimous consent agreement. We will do that just as rapidly as possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for giving focus to two extremely important issues. One deals with the inefficiencies in many of the older schools, in urban and rural areas. This is something that should be done. It is not being done. It is particularly important to consider since we have been unable to accept a school construction amendment that would deal with the modernization of our schools. With all the challenges we are facing in energy efficiency, having visited so many of the schools in many of the older communities in my own State, this is something that can make an enormous difference. I do not know whether the Senator has had the experience, but in Massachusetts we had an energy expert come in and look at our home down on Cape Cod. The recommendations they made and the savings that could be achieved were truly remarkable. We are not getting that kind of evaluation which is available in the private sector in the school districts. We hope school districts will go ahead. The Senator's amendment recognizes there are other priorities for school boards, and there is a national interest in having greater efficiency. In the area of health, this is enormously important. I think all of us--I know the Senator has--worked in the area of lead paint poisoning and the impact that has particularly on smaller children, situations where older children bring the lead paint dust back to their homes, and they can be consumed by infants and the potential health hazards to these children is dramatic. There is asbestos, radon, and new chemicals which we all know about in the industrial areas that are being given attention in OSHA. The schools are increasingly exposed to these challenges. It is having an impact. I commend the Senator for bringing this up. In Woburn, MA--the Senator probably read the book ``A Civil Action,'' or saw the movie on it. We had the greatest concentration of children's leukemia in the country. It was in a very narrow area. This was adjacent to conditions which were illustrated in ``A Civil Action.'' The families who were involved were similar in situations. We knew a certain distance upstream from where the wells were they were dumping these old wooden casks which had been filled with acids used in tanneries in Lynn where they process it, and some magnificent leather products were produced there. But they were dumping, and these wells were anywhere from 10 to 15 miles downstream. There were open wells, and families were using the wells, and the children were getting leukemia. It was as certain as we are standing here, it was related to these chemical problems. We had the best toxicologists in the world examine the water, and they could not find anything wrong with it-- nothing. The best from CDC, the best universities and toxicologists, have never been able to detect a particular ingredient that caused it, but we knew it was happening. The Senator is pointing out what I have seen. We know it is happening in some schools. The children are getting sick, it is affecting their ability to learn. We can benefit from this effort. I thank the Senator and look forward to supporting this amendment when we have a chance. I urge our colleagues to accept it. I thank her for bringing it to the floor this evening.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of S. 1 on Monday, June 11, at 2:30, and Senator Bond be recognized to call up amendment No. 476, with 30 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order; following debate, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Landrieu be recognized to call up amendment No. 475 regarding title I, with 2 hours equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order. Further, that at 5:15 the Senate vote in relation to Landrieu amendment No. 475; and, following the disposition of the Landrieu amendment, there be 4 minutes for closing debate to a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 476. Further, on Tuesday, June 12, the Senate resume consideration of the education bill at 9:30, and Senator Gregg be recognized to call up amendment No. 536, and there be 4 hours of debate equally divided, with no second-degree amendments in order. Further, following the disposition of the Gregg amendment, Senator Carper be recognized to call up amendment No. 518, with no second- degree amendments in order, and there be 2 hours of debate equally divided; that upon the use of the time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. In light of this agreement, there will be no further rollcalls this evening. There will be two rollcall votes beginning at 5:15 on Monday, June 11. Amendments Nos. 557, as modified, 483, as modified, 404, as modified, 556, as modified, 624, as modified, 548, and 415, en bloc, to amendment 358

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We have been making important progress. I am not sure we can say yet tonight that the end is quite in sight, but hopefully we can say that at the early part at the end of the day on Tuesday we might be able to see a glimmer of hope for reaching a final disposition of this legislation. I thank all colleagues for their cooperation, and I thank my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and, as always, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need for a positive national strategy for youth. Our goal in introducing the The Younger Americans Act is to establish a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that assure that all youth have access to the skills and character development needed to become good citizens. In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school- age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start. It's time to do the same thing for adolescents. Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in 1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth development programs at the community level produce powerful and positive results. In his report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin, professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet the needs of today's youth. Effective community-based youth development programs build on five core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for community service and community participation. The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide $5.75 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth development programs that recognize the primary role of the family, promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community, and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates an Office on National Youth Policy and a Council on National Youth Policy which includes youth and ensures their participation in finding solutions to their own problems. Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families. The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the resources to implement positive and practical programs effectively without creating duplicate programs. It is important that we tie together all publicly funded existing youth development programs and build on their success. This bill complements other existing programs, like the Work Force Investment Program, in helping young people become productive members of society. Investing in youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and our country. I urge all Members of Congress to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this important legislation and it is a privilege to join him as a cosponsor on this legislation. I also commend the thirty-four youth organizations that comprise the National Collaboration for Youth and the more than 200 young people who have worked on this bill. They have been skillful and tireless in their efforts to focus on the need for a positive national strategy for youth. Our goal in introducing the The Younger Americans Act is to establish a national policy for youth which focuses on young people, not as problems, but as problem solvers. The Younger Americans Act is intended to create a local and nation-wide collaborative movement to provide programs that offer greater support for youth in the years of adolescence. This bill, modeled on the very successful Older Americans Act of 1965, will help youths between the ages of 10 and 19. It will provide assistance to communities for youths development programs that assure that all youth have access to the skills and character development needed to become good citizens. In other successful bipartisan measures over the years, such as Head Start, child care, and the 21st century learning communities, we have created a support system for parents of preschool and younger school- age children. These programs reduce the risk that children will grow up to become juvenile delinquents by giving them a healthy and safe start. It's time to do the same thing for adolescents. Americans overwhelmingly believe that government should invest in initiatives like this. Many studies detail the effectiveness of youth development programs. Beginning with the Carnegie Corporation Report in 1992, ``A Matter of Time--Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours,'' a series of studies have shown repeatedly that youth development programs at the community level produce powerful and positive results. In his report this last March, ``Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development,'' Milbrey McLaughlin, professor of education at Stanford University, calls for communities to rethink how they design and deliver services for youths, particularly during non-school hours. The report confirms that community involvement is essential in creating and supporting effective programs that meet the needs of today's youth. Effective community-based youth development programs build on five core resources that all youths need to be successful. These same core resources are the basis for the Younger Americans Act. Youths need ongoing relationships with caring adults, safe places with structured activities, access to services that promote healthy lifestyles, opportunities to acquire marketable skills, and opportunities for community service and community participation. The Younger Americans Act will establish a way for communities to give thought and planning on the issues at the local level, and to involve both youths and parents in the process. The Act will provide $5.75 billion over the next five years for communities to conduct youth development programs that recognize the primary role of the family, promote the involvement of youth, coordinate services in the community, and eliminate barriers which prevent youth from obtaining the guidance and support they need to become successful adults. The Act also creates an Office on National Youth Policy and a Council on National Youth Policy which includes youth and ensures their participation in finding solutions to their own problems. Too often, the focus on youth has emphasized their problems, not their successes and their potential. This emphasis has sent a negative message to youth that needs to be reversed. We need to deal with negative behaviors, but we also need a broader strategy that provides a positive approach to youth. The Younger Americans Act will accomplish this goal in three ways, by focusing national attention on the strengths and contributions of youths, by providing funds to develop positive and cooperative youth development programs at the state and community levels, and by promoting the involvement of parents and youths in developing positive programs that strengthen families. The time of adolescence is a complex transitional period of growth and change. We know what works. The challenge we face is to provide the resources to implement positive and practical programs effectively without creating duplicate programs. It is important that we tie together all publicly funded existing youth development programs and build on their success. This bill complements other existing programs, like the Work Force Investment Program, in helping young people become productive members of society. Investing in youth in ways like that will pay enormous dividends for communities and our country. I urge all Members of Congress to join in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 7, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., in open session to receive testimony regarding Navy and Marine Corps equipment for 21st century operational requirements, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2002 and the Future Years Defense Program. The PRESIDING Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 6, 2001, at 10 a.m., in SD226.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.