Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington will proceed for 7 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, the Senator sent the amendment which will be offered as a side-by-side, the Santorum amendment, for tomorrow. I hope the amendment is printed and that interested Members and their staffs have a chance to take a look. We have copies available for the staff. There is no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we are going to follow the precedent from earlier of voting side by side. We had the opportunity to vote first on the Cantwell amendment and then the other amendment, with back-to-back votes. I think that is what is intended. I think the Senator from New Hampshire agrees with me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, so we will continue through this evening. If there are other Senators with other amendments, we will try to continue the process. We have made good progress during the day, and we have some remaining important amendments tonight, and particularly in the morning. We thank our colleagues for their cooperation. We can move ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no objection to the modification. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wants to proceed with her presentation, and then we will have an opportunity for the other side to review the modification. I am sure it is in order, and we can modify the amendment and dispose of this tomorrow. Amendment No. 630 As Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator proceed now, and we will have a chance to look at the modification and make the request for the modification perhaps later at the conclusion of her remarks? If I could suggest that to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Iowa is here. He was the proponent of the initial amendment that provided $1.2 billion which has been appropriated and now allocated to 50 States. The initial amendment of the Senator from Nebraska had a program that was previously funded at $10 million, and his amendment allocated that $10 million to Native Americans. That was the initial amendment. The Senator sent up a new amendment that was not even printed that effectively wipes out all of the money appropriated under the Harkin amendment a year ago and will deny the 50 States the funding to which they were entitled. The remaining 3 minutes goes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask to proceed for 2 minutes and give 1 minute to the Senator. The initial Hagel amendment was 549; what was called up was No. 797 and was not printed. This was $10 million which we understood was going to be perfected in some way, as we have been perfecting amendments all day long on the floor and granting that permission--although it takes consent to do it. We expected that perfection would be along the lines of the Hagel amendment, a drafting error. Instead, what was called up is a completely different amendment, 797, that was not even printed and otherwise would be out of order since it was not filed in time. Instead of $10 million, it is $1.2 billion. I think that is a gross misappropriation. I ask, therefore, that the perfecting amendment be withdrawn and that we vote on the initial Hagel amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are amendments which are filed to that effect and that are in order. I don't have the list as to that particular measure in front of me.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in that. The Senator has given me a good explanation of what his plans were and what his intentions were, and they were completely honorable--not that they are not always honorable. His explanations made a great deal of sense to me when he explained what he had intended to do. So we were caught up in a difficult situation. I am enormously grateful to him for this action. We are more than glad to accommodate Senators as we move on. We will have another opportunity. On the basis of the substance, if he wants to, I will certainly ask consent that we be able to consider the Senator's amendment at a time, if he chooses to do so, later in this debate. We will all have an opportunity to vote on it at some time. I will take the opportunity to discuss this with the Senator and other interested Senators at a later time. I thank him very much.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, I have 6 remaining minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair to remind me when I have 30 seconds remaining. Mr. President, I think we have had a good debate and discussion, and perhaps the best presentations of differing views on this matter during the last several hours. I want to summarize the reasons I am strongly opposed to this amendment. We are talking about scarce resources. The case is made that this really isn't money that is going to be used for education. That doesn't really stand. I think most of us who are opposed to this amendment believe that if we have public money, we ought to invest it in the areas where public school children can benefit. The theme of this legislation is to try to take tried and tested ideas and to make them available to the local communities and give those ideas that have been tried and tested some additional incentives with financial support in order to enable the most challenged children and the neediest children in our society to make progress. We are committed to it. This legislation is to use tried and tested techniques in order to enhance that possibility. I think over the period of this debate we have demonstrated that these voucher programs that have been tried, whether it was in Milwaukee, Cleveland, or other communities, have not really provided effective enhancement of the children's ability to learn. Now, just finally, I have listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania. This isn't about a child's choice. We have to understand this. The voucher issue isn't about the choice of a child. It is the choice for the school. That is a major difference. To try to represent to families all over this country that if this amendment is adopted, and their child is caught in a particular school, that parent will be able to take that child out and go to another school is wrong. That child's school will make a determination based upon their own considerations whether to admit that child. The Senator from New Hampshire is going to modify his amendment to make sure children who have some disability or special needs will be able to be included, and that children can be selected on the basis of lottery. Still, it will be up to the school, but that is certainly an improvement. Let me read from the Department of Education's study about the private schools and accepting students with special needs: A policy of random assignment could mean that participating schools would accept any student who was assigned, including students with learning disabilities, limited English proficiency, or low achievement. However, when the private schools were asked specifically about a transfer program that would require participating private schools to accept such students, their interest in participating declined further. Under this circumstance, only 15 percent of the schools said they would be definitely or probably willing to participate. . . . There is the answer. Fifteen percent are willing to take children who have some kind of special needs. Secondly, in this report, in relation to participation in State assessments, 42 percent of the schools said they would be unwilling to participate. Listen to this: Permit exemptions from religious instruction or activities. Very few religious schools would be willing to participate in a transfer program if they were required to permit exemptions from religious instruction or activities. Eighty-six percent of the religious schools are unwilling to participate under this condition. There is no provision for that in the Gregg amendment, absolutely none. If a child is admitted, finally, on a lottery provision and goes to a particular school, they are going to have to attend the religious ceremonies in that school. At least 86 percent of the schools will require it. Milwaukee did not do it. They had a provision that excused it. Not in the Gregg amendment. This is not well thought through. The Senator says that hard-pressed parent out there, that single mom, is going to have a choice. That is baloney. That is not true.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend and colleague. As a school board member and a teacher of elementary school, Senator Murray brings a special insight into the education policy issues. I think we do well to heed her warnings and concerns. Whatever time the Senator needs to conclude her remarks, I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for 1 minute, on North Carolina, a recent Rand Corporation report found that between 1990 and 1996, students showed the highest average annual gain in the National Assessment of Education Progress, the NAEP, reading and math tests. Those are national tests. SAT scores have risen 10 years in a row. The scores have improved more than any other State--a 40-point gain between 1990 and 2000, 10 points higher than the three other States with big gains. Most recently, the States average SAT moved up as well between 1999 and the year 2000. This is a State that is doing it right. We tried to benefit from their experience. The Senator from North Carolina, who is now presiding, was a particular help to our committee in sharing the experiences of North Carolina and ensuring that many of those very important aspects that have been successful in North Carolina would be available to benefit local communities in this legislation. That is the kind of thing we ought to be investing in so that all children will benefit. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield myself 30 minutes. I would like to be reminded when I use 25. H.L. Mencken said at one time that for every complex problem, there is a simple easy answer, and it is wrong. That is what we have here, a simple, easy answer to all the problems we are facing in our troubled schools across this country, and it is basically and fundamentally wrong; it does not work. I will take the time to illustrate the flawed nature of this amendment, and those Members with further interest are welcome to contact our office, and we will provide a more detailed account of the state of education in each of the cities that host voucher programs. These programs have not worked. Vouchers do not work. Furthermore, this is not really a debate about true ``choice'' because, under this amendment, parents would not exercise a choice. Schools would exercise a choice. It is not a parent, it is not a 30-year-old mother with a single child who makes a decision to go to a private school. That is malarkey. That does not exist. Under this amendment, the decision is made by the school. I have listened to speeches time and time again state that approximately $130 billion has been expended on title I, but we haven't seen increased academic achievement among the nation's students in need. Meanwhile, America spends nearly $400 billion annually on elementary and secondary education. Those skeptical of increasing funding for education cite $130 billion over 20 years or 30 years. The real reason we have poor schools and low student achievement is that we have not yet stepped up to the plate. Federal dollars provide only 7 cents of every dollar spent on education in this country. The remainder of the responsibility rests with States and local communities. It is the responsibility of States and local communities to provide local schools with the help that they need to succeed. We are trying to address this issue at the federal level, but cannot do it alone. I think we have a good bill that can make a difference if it is adequately funded. With all respect to my colleagues, they have spoken about about leaving no children behind, yet they leave two-thirds of the children behind with the funding currently provided for Title I. In the past, we have shed crocodile tears all over the Senate floor about leaving children behind. They are already being left behind, and that is wrong. As the allocations of current funds demonstrate, and under the current budget proposed by the President, 3.7 million children will be provided funding. Under the Dodd-Collins amendment, we have proposed funding for 5.7 million children, building up to full funding. That amendment has now been accepted to this bill. Along with an oratory on leaving no child behind, let's also ensure that we truly do not leave children behind. Let's commit to securing the funds so that no children are left behind. And with that, we really need to dismiss this voucher argument. If we really are interested in no child being left behind, then let's make sure that we aren't going to leave them behind. My friends and colleagues again provide the same talking points on failing schools. They are good talking points. But they are only good. They are not terribly good. We currently have approximately 10,000 schools. It would cost $1.8 billion to turn these schools into high- performing schools. But are those funds in the budget? Are those funds requested by the President? No. If we are serious about turning those schools around, we know how to do it. It takes reforms and it takes investment. We are on the road to success with the reforms, but we have not yet seen the investment. Supporters of this amendment also claim that the $50 million to fund this program will not come from Title I. If not from Title I, then from where? This investment in vouchers has been portrayed as an investment that would not siphon funds in the federal budget away from education. Where in the world is this magic $50 million coming from? I don't know where it is. It is out here. They keep referring to it. I think we ought to take that magical pot with a never-ending fountain, invest it, and try to do something that is going to make a difference; that is, address the problems of failing schools. That is what we ought to be doing. But that is not the proposal here. This $50 million is, of course, money that could otherwise be spent in terms of helping and assisting schools. Under this amendment, schools in need of assistance would lose. First of all, all of us understand the importance of the public school system and what a difference it has made in the hopes and dreams of families all over this country. I went to private school. I have a grandchild going to a public school, and nieces and nephews who go to public schools. Most of them are going to private schools. But I was able to go to a public school with good teachers. I was able to go to a school that had a curriculum that was a good curriculum. I was able to benefit from those. We are trying to say let's try to do what we know works, and do that for children all over this country. We know what works in education. But vouchers don't. I will come to that. We know what works. We have invested in what works--not completely the way I would like. But it isn't completely the way that I know my friend, Senator Gregg, would like, or that President Bush would like. It is a compromise. But it is one that we can defend, if it is funded and invested in, because we are going to make sure that we are going to get better trained teachers and have opportunities to have smaller class sizes. And there are going to be evaluations on that. I don't know how many times I have listened to my friends and colleagues over here talk about why this is different. You know why this is different. It is because in the old days, we just provided the resources but we didn't have the accountability. In the old days, we provided funds to States to use to build swimming pools and purchase football uniforms. States did not target funds to the neediest children with block grants. We will continue to provide funding for our neediest children, but we are going to have accountability. That is the President's proposal, and that is our proposal. He wants annual assessments in the third grade and the eighth grade. Those assessments will help States measure progress. If schools don't measure up with annual yearly progress, States will take action. They will provide the resources to reform schools, and reconstitute them if necessary. Hello. Not with the schools to which Mr. Gregg wants to permit these children to go. No, no. There is no guarantee in this amendment with that plea about that matter. I want to talk to that matter. If that matter happens to be limited English speaking, forget about going to these schools. Do you understand that? Forget about it. They do not have to take your child. And they don't, more often than not. If your child has a disability, forget about going because they do not have to take your child. IDEA doesn't apply to this. There is reference in here that IDEA applies. But it doesn't apply to private schools. If they are disabled, forget about going. If they have a disability, forget about bringing your child in. If you are a homeless or migrant student, you will not be guaranteed services. You have no guarantee. Forget about going to that school. Do you get the picture? It is very interesting. According to a 1998 survey conducted in conjunction with a Department of Education study on public school students and private schools, private schools indicated that, if they were required to accept public school students--look at this: Randomly assigned. What about saying there are a lot of children in that school, and all of them want to go to a particular school. Let's take randomly assigned students who go to a public school and later to a private school. Entrants decline by one-half. And 68 percent of private schools indicated that they would be unwilling to accept students with learning disabilities. 68 percent would be unwilling to accept students with limited English proficiency. Under this condition, the percentage of schools that would definitely be willing to participate declines from 77 to 36 percent. Hello. This great experiment in democracy of making sure that every child is going to have this choice and not have the needy schools that are failing on that, basically it is going to be a decision for private schools to make a judgment with regard to who they want, and make a conscious selection. The idea that this is going to open doors for parents whose children are in failing schools as a way out raises a false hope, and it is one that should be rejected. We are strongly committed to trying to do something about it. I know the Senator from New Hampshire is strongly committed. We know what has to be done. We are going to ensure that, with real accountability, schools will take steps to make sure they make annual, yearly progress, even based upon the existing tests in the old 1994 act which States already have in place. Schools will constantly have to make progress. There is going to be a range of supplementary services available to children. They are going to have additional options to go to public schools if they need to. There will be afterschool programs available to them. There will be summer programs available to them. As we accepted last night, there will be funding for creative summer programs which we have seen work in Boston last year. In those programs, they tied employment to reading. And children in that program, after 6 weeks of employment, increased their reading scores by 1.7 years. That is real progress taking place. We are strongly committed to that. But we want to provide that for all the children. That is our commitment--high achievement for all children. Of course all of these parents who are faced with the prospect that their children will not make progress in the schools, if someone offers them a phony lifeline and says this is going to answer your problem, everybody is going to vote for that particular kind of opportunity. But that isn't being true to the complete picture. We are trying to say we know what works. We are going to invest in these programs. We are going to move all of these children along together because we are one nation with one history and one destiny. We are all going to move along together. That is what this commitment ought to be--not just to try to find some way that perhaps that one child or two children can move on. Good for them. But we want everyone to move along together. That is what our commitment is. Private schools are not required to have assessments in their programs in the manner that the President has talked about. They are able to be selective about who will attend their schools. We are considering a proposal to divert scarce resources away from the nation's public school systems, where 90 percent of America's children receive an education. If we find that the children going to the private schools today would like to go to the public schools, do you know what percent could go? Four percent. Of all of them, 4 percent could go to private schools. So what are we saying out there? Are we going to have an experiment that is going to be out there, and only 4 percent can go? This makes no sense. Now let's get back to the facts about whether there are any meaningful, positive results from these experiments, in the first place, where they have been tried. The first 5 years of the Milwaukee voucher program showed no achievement differences between voucher students and comparable students. That is from the University of Wisconsin at Madison report, their 5-year report. It is the Witte study. Followup studies found that voucher students made no gains in reading and only small gains in math. In fact, low-income students in Milwaukee public schools that reduced class size outperformed voucher students in reading and did as well as voucher students in math. That is the Princeton study. Cecilia Rouse, 1998, a State-sponsored independent evaluation of the first year of Cleveland's voucher program, conducted by researchers in Indiana--not up at Harvard, not at Yale, not at Princeton; in Indiana-- found no significant achievement difference in all subjects between voucher students and comparable public school students. In the second year there were no achievement differences, except a slight advantage for voucher students in languages. The recent Jay Greene study on the effects of vouchers in Florida is also in serious question. Many researchers found that the Florida vouchers did not enhance reform in public schools, other factors did. Some researchers did suggest that the threat of vouchers for students failing public schools caused math and writing gains among Florida's lowest performing public schools to increase. But Greene's research overestimates the effect of being designated a failing school and offers no evidence that the higher estimate test score gains by failing schools should be attributed to the threat of vouchers. What else? We could go down the list. I have the studies for virtually all of the voucher programs here. We can take some time and go through this. Later perhaps, in the afternoon, we will have an opportunity to go through them. I will include in the Record the analysis of the cities that have been mentioned in this debate, and others, in a very limited way, and ask they be printed in the Record so as to demonstrate that. On the contrary, where have we seen the most progress made? Have we seen the most progress made in any State which has had vouchers? No. The most progress that has been made is in the State of North Carolina. In the State of North Carolina, public school reforms have been similar to those in Florida and have been initiated without vouchers, and student achievements have risen. The results are further reason to doubt the effectiveness of vouchers in public school reform. The achievements in North Carolina have been notable. Every review, every evaluation, every examination, and every study finds unequivocally that North Carolina has made this significant and dramatic progress. Here are the Rand studies. The Rand studies show that the gains in Texas and/or North Carolina, in both reading and math, were much higher than the average State gains and close to that of the State with the highest gains. If we were to average the gains across the States, North Carolina and Texas show the highest average gain among all the States. Do they have vouchers? No. Here are the two States that are doing, what? In the bill we are investing in well-trained teachers, professional development, smaller class sizes, safer schools, afterschool programs, working with schools that are in trouble, as North Carolina does, in terms of closing down effectively the schools and putting them under new leadership, and bringing around new curriculum with new evaluations to benefit the children, having summer school programs--all of those that are out there--and having early reading programs, which is one of the areas Governor Hunt was so concerned with and is shown to be so important and successful, and a program included in this legislation providing for early reading programs. I wish we could expand that. It is $75 million. That ought to be expanded for a nation when we know what is happening. Why are we talking, on the one hand, vouchers, for which there is virtually no evidence--we can stand around here all day and talk about the different tests, but the fact is, when you take the review of States that have made meaningful progress in terms of advancing academic achievement, they are not relying on vouchers, they are relying on the kinds of things we have in this legislation. I find this proposal enormously troublesome for other reasons as well. If you look at the ``eligible entity'': The term ``eligible entity'' means a public agency, institution, or organization, such as a State-- This does not say it is going to go through the local superintendent of schools-- a State or local educational agency, a county or municipal agency, a consortium of public agencies, or a consortium of public agencies and private nonprofit organizations, that can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary. . . . I do not quite understand this, in any event, because I wonder if in Boston the superintendent and the mayor say, ``We don't want it,'' and then they are able to go out and the Secretary gets some other public agency. It appears to me they would be eligible to develop a voucher system in a community. I would have thought at least they would want the superintendent of schools to say that, to give them the authority and the responsibility. I think we ought to get back to the fundamentals. We know what works. And we know what works is investing and taking advantage of the kinds of things that have happened in this country over the period of these recent years, and building on those. We know what a difference that can make in terms of the children of this country and having well-trained teachers in the classroom, having the smaller class sizes, having a well-thought-out curriculum, having evaluations of the progress children are making with well-thought-out examinations and tests--not tests that are just a mechanical rote of knowledge, but also a thinking process for these children--helping and assisting with supplementary services, summer programs, afterschool programs, doing all of that. There are schools that are not going to measure up. We are taking the kinds of items that are included in this bill, in terms of over a period of years, and putting the emphasis and stress on math and reading. They have the high priorities in the bill. This is what works. If we adopted this amendment, we would be drawing down scarce resources that would otherwise be used--make no mistake about it--to benefit all of the children. If we took those resources out and used them on a program that is largely discriminatory--because it does not give the guarantee of choice to the child or to the parent. It still makes the choice in the school's interest, not the child's interest. It does not provide for how that child is going to be evaluated. It completely is exempt from all the kinds of evaluation this President has talked about. How can you have that? He talks about having evaluations and making sure children are going to learn and insists they have the annual test. And on the other hand he says, if you go to a private school, you don't have to do any of that. What is happening here? What possible sense does that make? And he leaves it up to the school to make the judgment and decision, and without giving the protection to many of the children whether they are disabled children, limited-English children, other children with any kind of special needs. I think that is a failure. Let us take the resources we have available and invest them in our children, invest in their future, invest in what we know can work, invest in this new partnership we will have with the Federal Government, the States, and local communities; the new partnership we are going to have involving parents, teachers, and the local communities. I think that is what we ought to be about. Finally, I think on the whole issue on the vouchers, obviously, there are constitutional issues. I know in the remaining time that I have--I will not take the time to go through it, but there are serious constitutional issues as well. But I strongly oppose this amendment just on the basis of the policy questions. These programs have not demonstrated effectiveness. The public, by and large, has rejected these issues time and again, across this country, and more than 80 percent in the District of Columbia. I know there is a potential voucher amendment for the District of Columbia. This has been rejected across the country. When people know we are going to be serious about making a difference in investing in children and in the kinds of educational programs that are positive and will result in academic achievement and accomplishment, when we do that, the American people understand the importance of that type of investment. That is what this bill is about to do. Its great failure to date is the fact that we have not received the kinds of assurances from the administration that they are going to make sure the benefits of this legislation are going to reach all of the children. Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend from Michigan is here. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. We have no objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, we have listened during the presentation of those who supported this amendment, that this was not really going to take money away from public school children. We would like to find out where this magical pot of money is. They are saying we want to give assurance to all those who are voting with us and against us that this money will not be taken away. If we don't use this money, it still won't be available to children. I am somewhat mystified--I don't believe it. I don't think anybody in this body believes it. Does the Senator agree these are scarce resources? We have reviewed the fact we are still only reaching a third of the children under the President's program. Under the President's program, there is no increase other than the cost-of-living increase for children over the period of the next 8 years. Resources are scarce. I wonder if the Senator from Washington buys the argument that this is not going to be money that would otherwise be used for professional development, or training teachers, or mentoring programs, or afterschool programs, or moving teachers into smaller class sizes. The Senator has been our national leader on that issue. Doesn't the Senator agree we could use that $50 million more effectively in terms of benefitting children rather than for a voucher program?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the proponent of the amendment, Senator Gregg, will be here momentarily. I back up what our leaders have stated. We are interested in the completion of this legislation. We have been making progress in the disposition of amendments, but we have a number of our colleagues who have said they are not ready to call up their amendments. That might have been a reasonable comment a week ago or 4 weeks ago or 5 weeks ago, but it certainly is not now. We are going to move ahead. Regrettably, there are ways we can ultimately dispose of these amendments if we are put in that position. What is completely unacceptable and completely unfair to our colleagues is the failure to bring these amendments up and to indicate to the floor managers a willingness to work through these amendments. We are glad to have the votes when the votes are due. We are glad to debate amendments, discuss them, and accept them when we can. We are glad to cooperate in every way. We have received the strong direction from our leader saying we want disposition. This bill has been before the Senate for 8 weeks. Members have had an opportunity to study it, to read about it, to think about it, and work with their staffs. There is no further reason for delay. We will make every effort to dispose of the amendments in a timely way. We are prepared to work long and hard on these measures. We intend to accept the leader's challenge and complete the work this week. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to the proponent of the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take a moment or two to refer those interested in this debate to this report called ``Uncommon Wisdom, Effective Reform Strategies,'' from Mass Insight Education, an education-reform organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. Massachusetts is well on its way in terms of educational reform. We have been making progress in recent years. This report illustrates a number of schools making very important and significant progress academically with their students. They include elementary, middle, and high schools. They illustrate the different techniques used in each of the schools. All the reforms vary somewhat, but all have been implemented within the framework that this bill supports: high standards; good professional development; data generated by meaningful, high-quality assessments; and extra support for the students in need of academic assistance. This independent organization is highly regarded. They have reviewed various schools in our State, and have shared their findings so that other schools can make progress. Again, they identify four critical priorities: the development of the curriculum, the teaching, the assessment, and the intervention. Together, these reforms directly shape every student's educational experience in school. These four common elements have produced important and significant progress in each of the 22 Massachusetts schools included in this report. In the Thompson School in Arlington, 30 percent of students receive free or reduced lunches, 15 percent have special needs, and 25 percent are students of color. It is a mixed blue-collar, working-class, middle/low-income high school that has been able to make extraordinary progress with their programs. There are countless other examples of schools, such as the Thompson school, that have reformed to produce results. The bottom line is that the elements included in this report are elements we have included in this legislation. If we provide funding for these reforms, we will see these results in not only every school in Massachusetts but every school in the country. That is what we want to do. The Senator from Rhode Island is here and I yield 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, to hear testimony on Preserving and Protecting our Natural Resources.