Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know my friend and colleague from Iowa wanted some time as well. I do not see him on the floor. Do I understand now I have up to 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 7 minutes. The end is in sight in terms of the completion of this legislation and this phase of the legislative process. It has been on the floor now for several weeks. We have had good debates on a number of very important measures. We still have some remaining items through the afternoon, hopefully recessing at a reasonable hour this evening. Then we will have a full morning and early afternoon tomorrow with a series of amendments by Senators Helms, Murray, and Sessions. Hopefully, we will be able to conclude the legislation by tomorrow at a reasonable time. It is appropriate, as we are coming into the final hours of consideration of the legislation, to take stock of where we are, to take stock of the legislation, and then to look down the road in terms of the future. We are going to be completing this legislation. We will move to the conference with the House of Representatives, which has a somewhat different approach than we have, but we have a fundamental agreement on what we are going to do. We will have an opportunity to address those issues and to find common ground with the House. Then we will come back here with a final product. I am strongly committed and will work very hard to make sure we are going to come back with a program that is going to, in this instance, include the funding for the IDEA programs, which make such a difference for children in my State and across the country. By that I mean the mandatory spending for the IDEA. We have had bipartisan support to include that in the legislation. It was reflected here during the discussion, not only on that amendment but on others, as well, by Republicans and Democrats. It is vitally important. It makes a great deal of difference in terms of the results on this whole program. When you take the funding of IDEA and also the funding in terms of title I, plus what we have done with other elements in terms of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and if we are going to move toward a real funding and investment in our children, I think we have the most unique opportunity we have had in recent times to make a major difference in terms of the neediest children in our country. We should not miss it. What we have seen over the period of these past several weeks is the attempt to try and get it right in terms of working to make sure that children in local communities are going to have available to them tried, tested, and proven programs that can provide academic achievement and advancement. That is what this legislation is really all about. We know what needs to be done. The question is, do we have the willpower to be able to do it? That is what this amendment of Senator Schumer and Senator Boxer really is all about--to put the Senate on record in the final hours of this debate that we believe we need the resources made available to the children in this country that otherwise would be denied it. Mr. President, we have to understand that this legislation isn't going to solve all of the problems. We will be back in another 6 years trying to deal with these issues again. But what the proponents of this amendment understand is that what is really essential is the investment in the early education of the children of this country, to invest in Early Start, Healthy Start, early learning, and children in terms of the Head Start Program. We are strongly committed to that. We are all strongly committed to the concept of having a child ready to learn when they go into school. That is a given. The funding is not there. The funding is not there for those programs. Many of us are greatly disappointed because when we are talking about the children, particularly the very small children and the children who will be affected by this legislation, we are defining the future of this Nation. We are defining the future of our democracy, the future of our economy, and the future of the relationships these individuals are going to have with their families. This is about America's future. For my money, there isn't a more important investment that we can make. This is about our children and about our future. This chart reflects the progress we have made in recent times in the elementary and secondary education budget increases. We have seen that over the period of the last 7 years it has gone up by 8.6 percent. We have heard it said that money isn't everything, money doesn't solve all the problems, and let's not just throw money at education. We understand that. The fact is, though, the investment here is a clear reflection about our Nation's priorities. As a matter of national priority, do we think investing in the neediest children in our country is a priority in which we ought to invest? This amendment says, yes, there is no higher priority. What we have had and what we are looking at is the budget that has been proposed by this administration, by this President, supported by this Republican Party and its Republican leadership. When you look at that record, the proposed ESEA budget increases that will be incorporated, this concept in the Domenici amendment, there is a 2.6 percent increase in 2002. That is a $1 billion addition for IDEA and $700 million for the title I program--$700 million for the title I program. We are only reaching a third of the children at the present time. And then if you look at this chart for the years 2003, zero; 2004, zero; 2005, zero; 2006, zero; 2007, zero; 2008, zero; 2009, zero; 2010 zero. The number of children at the end of the next 10 years is going to be the same number that we have at the present time. There will be no increase in the total number of children who will be there, in contrast to the amendment of the Senator from New York and the Senator from California, which says we are going to build to make sure that if we do have something in here, and the funding for the IDEA program, we are going to see an expansion in investing in those children. We are going to make sure that all of the children who are eligible--the 10 million children--will participate in the whole range of programs. Who wants to make the choice today about which child is going to get supplementary services and which will not, or which will get a summer school program and which will not, or which will get the afterschool program and which one will not? What are we going to say about that? This amendment says that our Nation's priorities are clear and they should be expressed on the floor of the Senate in a bipartisan way. Seventy percent of the Members of this body, Republican and Democrats alike, supported the idea for full funding for the title I program. We have brought about the reforms that many of the critics have stated. The real question is, are we going to be true to the concept that we are going to leave no child behind? Without this amendment, and without the resources here, we are leaving two out of three children behind, make no mistake about it. Finally, in our elementary and secondary education bill, we effectively guarantee that every child that is eligible for the title I program in the ESEA will reach proficiency by the time this legislation expires. That is an empty promise if we are only going to fund this program to reach one out of three. We should not represent to the American people that we are committed to not leaving children behind if we are not going to back that up with the kinds of American resources that we have available at this time and which should be invested in these children. That is the way I read this amendment. I thank the Senators for bringing this measure up. I hope it is going to get strong support because it is really a reflection of the kind of commitment that this body has for the future of our Nation and, most important, the future of the children of our country. Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time not to be charged.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair tell me when there are 30 seconds remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what this debate is really about is whether we, as a body, are going to be satisfied with the budget that has been proposed by the President and the Republicans that gives a $1 billion increase in IDEA and a $700 million increase for the title I program, or whether we are going to try to fund ESEA, the title I program, for the full funding, whether we are going to fund ESEA the way bipartisan votes over the last 3 days have indicated is the desire of this body. I hear a great deal about the budget, but the budget isn't law. Do we understand that? The budget isn't law. In this body, we have the ability and the power--if we believe in something--to pass legislation that is going to fund the programs the way they should be funded. That is what this battle is about. With all respect to my good friend from New Mexico, his proposal is a cop-out. It says: As much as possible. We know what is possible. He was the chairman of the Budget Committee. They are going to follow the Budget Committee, and that is going to be peanuts for educating the children of this country. You cannot educate children with a tin cup. You cannot do it on the cheap. You have to invest in them. That is what the Schumer amendment is all about. That is why, if we believe that education is important, and that we want to reach all of the children--not just a third--if you want to reach just a third in fiscal year 2008, you vote with Senator Domenici. That is exactly what you are going to do. But don't make any more speeches about ``we are not going to leave any child behind.'' Put those speeches away. Put those speeches away forever. That is what this vote is about. We have the opportunity of funding it so no child is left behind. It is as simple as that. One is just a cop-out. The other is a reaffirmation and statement of what has happened in the Senate Chamber over the period of these past weeks. And it is a statement and a comment that we are going to commit ourselves to work every single day for the remaining time of this session, and during the appropriations battles, and after that every single time, to invest in the children and the future of this Nation. That is what the Schumer amendment is all about. That is why it should be supported.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator be good enough to help me understand the Senator's amendment? Is it the Senator's position that if the child is disciplined and the discipline is a reflection of the form of disability, does the Senator agree there should be alternative educational services available to that child?

Mr. KENNEDY. If it falls under that category, you are still for providing the services, which I think is very important. As I understood the amendment, would the services be required to be provided in a school that was just for the disabled?

Mr. KENNEDY. Page 4 of the amendment suggests they have alternative educational services and that may be in some other setting, some alternative setting.

Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator has included ``is selected by the child's parents,'' so you have parental involvement. It is not the concern that many have, that the child might just be put in a setting which would be just for special needs children and then it would be the resegregation of disabled children. I see in this language you have ``selected by the child's parents.'' It is designed to serve children with disabilities, and if the place agrees to accept the child and it carries out a program that a local or State educational agency finds is appropriate and will benefit the child. The Senator can see the concern about whether that would be a dumbing down kind of a process in education. It would be a quality educational opportunity that would be suitable for that child. That is the concern. I don't know whether there are ways of addressing that.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is where the payment comes into effect because you would have to offset the expenses for that child and there would be the allocations of resources for offsetting the payment and for education for that institution; is that right?

Mr. KENNEDY. What happens to the child with a disability who has a behavioral problem that is not related to the disability?

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the experience in the Senator's own State as to how school districts deal with the children? Do they provide alternative educational experiences or not?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response to the questions. There are some others maybe I could talk about with the Senator in the morning. There is an alternative to the Sessions amendment. But we will look forward to the presentations in the morning. As I understand it, the Senator will have a half hour, Senator Harkin or his designee will have a half hour to get into the description of the alternative. Then we will make a judgment. I appreciate the response of the Senator to the questions. I thank him. Amendments Nos. 369 As Further Modified, 484 As Modified, 441 As Modified, 549 As Modified, 446 As Modified, 555 As Further Modified, And 609, en block, to Amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this evening we are in a position to clear amendments by unanimous consent. I therefore ask unanimous consent it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, any modifications where applicable be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. KENNEDY. These include amendments No. 369, Feinstein; No. 484, Bingaman; No. 441, Lugar-Bingaman; No. 549, Hagel; No. 446, DeWine; No. 555, Hutchison; No. 609, Feinstein. And I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on No. 555.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see none of my colleagues here to make further comments and statements on this. We will resume the debates tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I thank all our colleagues for their help and their cooperation. We have made good progress and we look forward to a final passage sometime tomorrow afternoon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we resume consideration of the education authorization bill, we have 40 minutes of debate on the Santorum and Hollings amendments concurrently, with two rollcall votes at approximately 9:40 this morning, and votes throughout the day, as well into the evening, as the Senate works to complete action on the education bill this week. If the bill is completed on Thursday, there will be no rollcall votes on Friday.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand correctly the Senator from Minnesota has the time from Senator Hollings?

Mr. KENNEDY. So Senator Hollings has the 10 minutes. In his absence, the control of the time should be with the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time if the Senator wants it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, on the Santorum amendment, I hope all of our colleagues will vote in support of it. It talks about using good science to consider the teaching of biological evolution. I think the way the Senator described it, as well as the language itself, is completely consistent with what represents the central values of this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it intelligently with the best information that is before them. I think the Senator has expressed his views in support of the amendment and the reasons for it. I think they make eminently good sense. I intend to support that proposal. On the Hollings-Wellstone amendment, I listened, as I always try to do, to my friend and colleague from South Carolina. There is so much he says that makes very good sense, but I have to oppose the amendment. When he talks about the preparation of children, he makes a great deal of sense. In fact, if the children are denied the Women's, Infants', and Children's Program--the WIC Program--if they are denied the early nutrition, which is so important for the development of the mind, if they are denied the early learning experiences, which are absolutely instrumental in developing and shaping the mind, they lose opportunities. If we are only funding the Head Start Program at 40 percent, we are leaving 60 percent out. The Early Head Start Program is only funded at about 10 or 12 percent. If we take children who are denied all of those kinds of opportunities, unless they are enormously fortunate to have other kinds of sustained enforcement of educational experience and stimulating experience in terms of their home life, or other circumstances, we can ask whether children are arriving in school ready to learn. Some may be but many others may not. One of the most important developments over the period of the last 10 years has been the knowledge of what happens in the development of the brain. We had ``The Year of The Brain.'' It was on the front pages of magazines and newspapers and on television programs. We found that the early development aspects of the brain are absolutely essential where the neurons connect with the synapses and we have the development of the mind. One of the key aspects, that at least many of us have believed, is that not only is it important to leave no child behind in terms of the support of this bill to reach all 10 million children who will be eligible but also the investment in children at the early age, to which Senator Hollings spoke. But if we are going to continue to make that battle and struggle, we are going to have to, on the floor in the Senate and in appropriations, try to invest for the children so they are ready to learn. A number of States responded to the requirements of the title I program in 1994. We require testing in the elementary schools, middle schools, and in the high schools. Fifteen States are meeting that requirement at the present time. But most of the tests which exist in the States are more attuned to national standards rather than State standards. Forty-nine States have established their own standards. The purpose of this legislation is to try to develop a curriculum that will reflect those standards and have well-trained teachers who will use that curriculum and then examination of the students with well thought out tests that are really going to test not only what the child learns but the ability of the child to use concepts. That is why the average test that is being used at the State level is $6 or $7. The test we are trying to develop here, the provisions which are strengthened with the Wellstone amendment and the other requirements, averages $68 a test versus $6. Money doesn't answer everything in terms of being sure you are going to get a quality test, but part of the requirements we have for the use of the test is to be able to disaggregate it. At the current time, there are only three States that use disaggregated information. So you know in the class that there are various groups of students who aren't making it rather than just the test that uses the whole classroom. It is also important to disaggregate information so that you know more completely where the challenges are in terms of the students themselves in order to make progress and tie the curriculum into these types of features, and also to make sure we are going to have the development of the test developed by the States, in the States, for the States' standards. That is our purpose--not that they take off-the-shelf tests. Most of the States using the tests now are using the off-shelf-tests that are focused on national standards rather than State standards. That happens to be the reality. I don't question that in a number of States there are superintendents and school boards who think they are getting adequate information. But this is a much more comprehensive way of finding out what the children know and then hopefully developing the kinds of methodologies to equip the children to move ahead. That is really our purpose. We may not get it right, but that is certainly the purpose we intend. Finally, if the States are developing their own tests, and if they meet the standards which are included in this legislation and they conform with them, then they obviously meet those requirements. Then there is nothing further they have to do. Three States, as I said, disaggregate information and have a number of the items that are included in this bill. But by and large they are not in existence in other areas. If that is the case, and we believe assessments are a key aspect of all of the efforts we are trying to develop in this legislation--I know there are those who don't agree with that as a concept--we know that children are tested frequently. I can give you some cases in Lancaster, PA, where they test actually every 9 weeks in terms of what the children are learning during that period of time; and they alter and change the curriculum to try to give focus and attention to groups of students in those classes who are not making measurable progress. They have seen the absolutely extraordinary progress the schools have made in Lancaster as a result of it. If it is done right, done well, done effectively, it is a very important, positive instrument in terms of children's development. If it is not, then it can have the kind of unfortunate results that have been mentioned in this Chamber. It is our intention to try to do it right. We have built in enough legislation to do it. I think this is the way to go. I think we have a good bill. We have had good authorization. We are going to have the difficulty and challenge of getting the funding. That is an essential aspect of the continuing process as we move through the legislative process. We want to make sure that we are going to do it right. But I do not believe the Hollings-Wellstone amendment is consistent with the whole central thrust of this legislation. I, regretfully, oppose the amendment. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today in tribute to one of the great cultural treasures of Massachusetts, Victor Rosenbaum. Mr. Rosenbaum is the President of the esteemed Longy School of Music and has been an important figure in Boston's musical life for more than a quarter century, excelling as a pianist, teacher, conductor, composer, writer and administrator. As a pianist, Victor Rosenbaum is critically acclaimed for his performances as a soloist and chamber musician. He has performed throughout the world and has appeared as a soloist with the Boston Pops, Pro Arte Orchestra, Boston Classical Orchestra and the Boston Philharmonic. His chamber music collaborations have been with such distinguished artists as Leonard Rose, Joseph Silverstein, Roman Totenberg, and the Vermeer and Cleveland Quartets. In addition to teaching at Longy, Mr. Rosenbaum is also a member of the faculty at the prestigious New England Conservatory where he was the former chair of the Piano Department, and a current member of the faculty of Musicorda. Since Mr. Rosenbaum's appointment as President in 1985, Longy has become a major performance center in the greater Boston area, and has greatly expanded its curriculum for children, avocational students, and aspiring professional musicians and teachers. In 1994, the Schools work with low-income school children from Cambridge came to the attention of the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, the Nation's largest private arts funder. Selecting Longy as one of the six non-profit cultural institutions nationwide to expand their youth programs, the Fund awarded the School $355,000, the largest of the six and the largest single gift ever made to the School at that time, to provide private music instruction to students from Boston and Somerville as well as Cambridge and to develop an in-school music enrichment program. Victor Rosenbaum has had an immeasurable impact on Boston's cultural life. He has elevated the quality of music in our city and expanded its reach to new audiences and music-lovers. I commend him for what he has accomplished and extend congratulations to him as he retires from Longy at the end of his 16th year as its venerable President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join so many of my colleagues in sponsoring the global school lunch legislation proposed today by Senators Leahy and DeWine. This bill is the product of much hard work by our former colleagues Dole and McGovern, and also by officials at all levels of government, the World Food Program, and the many non-governmental agencies that have pioneered international school feeding programs. Much has already been accomplished. Under a trial program, the Department of Agriculture is preparing to ship 630,000 tons of wheat, soybeans, rice, dry milk, corn, and other food to nine million children in 38 nations throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. This legislation will be an important incentive to strengthen the worldwide effort. Bob Dole and George McGovern worked well together in the Senate to promote child nutrition in America. The results of their landmark National School Lunch program have been impressive--improved nutrition and health, and increased academic performance as well. Their successful school lunch idea can benefit children in need throughout the world. Hunger remains a painful reality every day for over 300 million children across the globe, and we can do more--much more to combat it. We know the cure for hunger, and I hope that Congress will move quickly to enact this needed legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am proud to join so many of my colleagues in sponsoring the global school lunch legislation proposed today by Senators Leahy and DeWine. This bill is the product of much hard work by our former colleagues Dole and McGovern, and also by officials at all levels of government, the World Food Program, and the many non-governmental agencies that have pioneered international school feeding programs. Much has already been accomplished. Under a trial program, the Department of Agriculture is preparing to ship 630,000 tons of wheat, soybeans, rice, dry milk, corn, and other food to nine million children in 38 nations throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. This legislation will be an important incentive to strengthen the worldwide effort. Bob Dole and George McGovern worked well together in the Senate to promote child nutrition in America. The results of their landmark National School Lunch program have been impressive--improved nutrition and health, and increased academic performance as well. Their successful school lunch idea can benefit children in need throughout the world. Hunger remains a painful reality every day for over 300 million children across the globe, and we can do more--much more to combat it. We know the cure for hunger, and I hope that Congress will move quickly to enact this needed legislation.