Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Rhode Island will be good enough to yield 5 minutes, I would like to rise to express my great appreciation to my good friend from Rhode Island for pursuing this issue regarding quality libraries in our schools across this country. Among many other education issues, the Senator from Rhode Island has devoted an enormous amount of time, attention, efforts, and energy, to the issue of school libraries. Today, he has put before the Senate an extremely thoughtful amendment and one that is extraordinarily compelling. He has thought a great deal about the state of libraries in the nation's schools, and has consulted with many who have worked on this issue throughout the course of their lives. I was disappointed that, at the time of our markup of this legislation, we were unable to embrace Senator Reed's proposal. Historically, we have made a major national commitment to reading. We have supported outstanding programs that promote literacy in young children, such as the Reading Is Fundamental Program, and the Everyone Wins Program, which was shepherded by the chairman of our committee, Senator Jeffords. Our efforts to promote and increase literacy have targeted all ages, from early literacy programs to those that serve adults later in life. President Bush has also placed a tremendous emphasis on the importance of reading. He has furthered our commitment made last year in the Reading Excellence Act, through his Reading First and Early Reading First proposals in ESEA. However, the idea of launching a major national literacy program without a commitment to the nation's libraries defies rational thought. We all understand the importance of reading, and we all recognize that schools--especially low-performing schools--which devote greater attention to reading early in the school day, for 60 or 90 minutes, will have greater success in ensuring that all students are strong readers. Prince George's County in Maryland has increased their results on statewide assessments of student performance, and reading was a key element of that increase. If we plan to make a commitment in terms of reading as a matter of national purpose, that commitment must be accompanied by a commitment to the libraries in our children's schools. The idea that we do not have an effective, comprehensive library program is just missing the most basic, fundamental recognition of the relationship between a reading program and libraries. It defies understanding and explanation. The Senator has reminded us that we have failed in the past to devote the proper attention to libraries and their impact on literacy. The Senator from Rhode Island now offers an amendment which is a responsible one, as well as one that I am very hopeful will be accepted. I would like to take the opportunity to mention some comments from groups that have lent their support to this amendment. The Association of American Publishers states: It is a national disgrace that we live in the most technologically advanced nation in the world, yet our K-12 school libraries are packed with outdated books and materials. For our children to succeed in today's digital world, they first must learn to read and read well, and therefore need access to school libraries containing up-to- date information. The American Library Association asserts: Many of the nation's school libraries have collections that are old, inaccurate, and out of date. How can we encourage children to read, continue their education in college and become life-long learners if the material we have available for them is inadequate? We must give adequate attention to reading. Any that fail to support this amendment really fail to appreciate the relationship between literacy and libraries. This amendment is a very responsible one that makes a great deal of sense. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island for bringing this amendment forward. We have all been dilatory in understanding this very important and major hole in our educational system. The good Senator is going to help us to address it with his amendment. I am very hopeful that it will have overwhelming support. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. As I understand, it will take 2 to 3 minutes for Senator Akaka to raise this amendment, and hopefully it will be accepted. If not, we will accept it at a later time. Then we put into effect the understanding that the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, would offer his libraries amendment and to vote at a quarter of 2. Then we would have the time, as the leader has announced, so there would be a brief period for morning business so that from three to four Senators would be able to address the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. One final point. This is the Milwaukee project. Public schools, law enforcement, community-based organizations, and residents provide safe havens at neighborhood sites for children. There were 8,400 youth participating. The Milwaukee project provides homework tutoring assistance, recreational games, arts and crafts. The program helped reduce the crime rate in neighborhoods participating in the project by providing youth with alternative activities during afterschool hours. In the 15 months following the inception of the program, the crime rate dropped 21 percent in the neighborhoods that had these afterschool programs--law enforcement, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, violence, academic achievement, and accomplishment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will proceed on that basis. Mr. President, I will mention some success stories. I regret I missed the splendid presentation by the present Presiding Officer earlier today, but I look forward to reading it in the Record. I have been told by a number of my colleagues what a moving story it was. I thank the Senator for sharing that with this body. I will mention a few of the individual success stories that we have seen in Boston. We have a program called From 2 To 6. It is available to all children up to the age of 13 in Boston. Let me mention some of the experiences which we have seen in that program. There is a young student named Natalia. When Natalia started in the Gardner Extended Services School in Allston in the middle of the 1999 school year, she could not read, write, or perform basic arithmetic. They suggested that Natalia enroll in its afterschool program to receive extra support in both her academics and her study skills. With the help of a certified teacher, a teacher's aide, and several Boston College tutors, Natalia showed significant progress. Currently, Natalia is in the second grade and is performing at grade level in all academic areas of the classroom. She is maintaining a solid B average. Natalia is also now participating in many extracurricular activities, such as the African Dance Club and swimming lessons at the YMCA. Michael: In 1999, 11-year-old Michael spent afterschool time playing Nintendo, and as the end of the school year approached, he began to hang around with a group of kids who were affiliated with a local gang. His mother grew concerned and enrolled Michael in the summer camp program run by the East Boston YMCA Program Center. At first Michael was not very responsive. However, as the summer progressed, he learned how to swim and became more confident in his athletic abilities. By the end of the summer, he made a lot of friends and also started to mentor the 5- and 6-year-olds. He also continued to attend the afterschool program when school started again. He got sort of hooked on it through the course of the summer. Many of his new friends were going to the afterschool program, too. Since being involved in the program, all of his teachers have commented about the progress he has made. He now receives A's and B's on his report card And enjoys outdoor activities. Edgar from Roxbury first came to the B.E.L.L. Foundation's BASICs program at the Jackson/Mann Elementary School in Allston in the fall of 1998 as a second grader. He was a friendly, outgoing, energetic student, but he couldn't read and didn't know the alphabet. Edgar was embarrassed to work on academics with other students his age because he was well below grade level in literacy. They paired him with a one-on- one tutor, and he worked hard to improve but became frustrated when he didn't see immediate results. Seeing that Edgar might need more support, his tutor encouraged him to get to know a fifth grader name Jesus. They both had many things in common. Both were recent immigrants from Brazil. They loved wrestling, making people laugh. One day a tutor overheard Jesus say to Edgar: I know you're having a hard time reading. I did, too, when I first came here, and I promise you that it will get easier. A year later, Edgar is now completing grade level work in school and getting good grades. He also helps his peers who are having a hard time reading. It was the afterschool program that has made the difference. We have example after example of these programs. The 2-6 program, as I mentioned, is primarily for children 12 or younger. We know that this particular program will reach the children in middle school and high school, and that is something which is very much in need and is one of the principal reasons we are working now to see its support. I mentioned the Institute for Student Achievement in six New York school districts which is a school-based afterschool program that provides counseling and academic assistance to middle and high school students who are struggling in school. The programs, STAR, Success Through Academic Readiness, and COMET, Children of Many Educational Talents, provide tutoring, academic enrichment activities, and computer-assisted instruction. Community service and family involvement are also key components of the afterschool programs. Every STAR student has graduated from high school, and 96 percent have gone on to college. Test scores at Hempstead High School on Long Island have improved dramatically since the afterschool program began. This is the tie-in between the core program that we are talking about in terms of the classroom. What goes on in the classroom is the key: obviously, a well-trained teacher, good curriculum, accountability, the range of different challenges that exist in the classroom. We see these afterschool programs and what has happened. When you have effective afterschool programs associated with schools in terms of providing those supplementary services, the children improve academically significantly. I mentioned this excellent series of afterschool programs in six New York districts that the students have been attending, and 96 percent have gone on to college. The test scores of the Hempstead High School on Long Island, which is sort of the major high school in the center of these activities, have improved dramatically since the afterschool program began. The State removed the school from its list of low- performing schools 1 year ahead of schedule. Here was a school that was in trouble. With the development of the afterschool programs and the supplementary services that were provided, we see the very positive impact that had on the academic achievement in the school. This is the point which has been made by the two sponsors of this legislation. In Pennsylvania, the Rand Corporation, when evaluating afterschool programs supported by Foundations, Inc. in the Philadelphia area, found fourth graders in the program outperformed comparison students in reading, language arts, and math. The Rand Corporation is a tough, independent organization that does evaluations of various programs. Their own evaluation of afterschool programs, in this case in Philadelphia, which is very much challenged in terms of their school systems, has shown some results. In Ohio, the University of Cincinnati, when evaluating the Ohio Hunger Task Force urban afterschool initiative, found fourth graders in the program exceeding the statewide percentage of students meeting proficient standards in math, writing, reading, citizenship, and in science. In Texas, the Lighted Schools Project, in Waco, TX, provides over 650 middle school students with a safe, supervised environment during after hours. The program targets at-risk youth, although all middle school students can participate in free activities, including sports, crafts, special events, and institutions. Students have access to primary health care and programs to enhance self-confidence, violence prevention, the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, conflict resolution, and to receive tutoring and homework assistance. These programs also have a very positive effect in terms of reducing the violence in school and, in this particular case, the dangers of alcohol abuse and also the conflict resolution, important initiatives which are taking place in schools. We have some enormously impressive ones in Massachusetts started by the former Attorney General Harshbarger and continued and expanded by Attorney General Reilly on conflict resolutions. And we have had as well in many of our schools the AmeriCorps students involved with the students in what they call Peace Games. It is a rather interesting concept where they just do it for an hour once a week. And what it is, they take large popcorn cans, jars, and they take extended rubber bands. Then they all pick up the popcorn cans and pile them on top of each other to make a design. The fact is, they all have to work together because if one loosens the end of the rubber bands, the popcorn can will fall. And as they build it, they will work it out so they will have 10 students working together in order to construct it. They play games with it about what part of the class can do it. Then they have classes against each other, just 1 hour a week. It is supervised by the AmeriCorps children. It has had an incredible impact in terms of reducing conflict and violence among the students in that school. It is called Peace Games. These are the range of activities. These are the kinds of hands-on local initiatives that are taking place in these afterschool programs that are helping. They have demonstrated a positive impact in terms of academic achievement. I know time is running out now. I could give the example in the reduction in terms of teenage pregnancies. The interesting sad effect is about 80 percent of teenage pregnancies happen during the afterschool time, between 3 in the afternoon and 7 o'clock at night. The fact that we have these afterschool programs has had a positive impact in reducing teenage pregnancies, in many instances, more effectively than some of the other programs that have been tried. Reducing violence, academic achievement, bringing children who may have fallen somewhat further behind because of the fact maybe they didn't get into the Head Start program, maybe they didn't get the early interventions in terms of help in literacy as they were starting through school, all these kinds of initiatives have helped. This amendment is really an outreach. It is going to bring up all of these children that perhaps have fallen through the cracks at one place or another and help to bring them on into hopefully the academic setting, and then, with the other parts of the legislation working, if they are funded--they are not funded, but they have to be funded--can really make a difference.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, there is a half hour in opposition, which is not being used at this time. For the benefit of the membership, the time has been established to vote. We are prepared to do that. I think the leadership has stated a time for the convenience of the Members. If there is no objection, I will talk a little bit about what the afterschool programs have meant to children, and as soon as any Member comes to speak in opposition to the amendment, I will be glad to yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Ensign for this amendment. I think this amendment is enormously important. In this whole debate on elementary and secondary education we are now making a commitment to the families and to the country that we are going to have the funding for these reforms which are in this legislation, which I support; also, that we are not going to leave children who have limited-English-speaking ability behind. We had a good debate on that. We are only reaching 25 percent of those children. As a result of the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas--we had a good debate on this--a decision was made that we were not going to be satisfied to leave behind any children who had those challenges. Now with this amendment we are saying we are not going to leave behind any of the children who need afterschool services. That is what this amendment is really all about. We are making our commitment to the children in the classroom with supplementary services, with good teachers, and we have made a commitment to make sure we are going to have good teachers. We are making sure we are going to have the bilingual support children are going to need. We are not leaving anyone behind. This amendment is saying the same with regard to afterschool programs. As the Senator from California understands, this program, the afterschool program, was the most oversubscribed program of any in the Clinton administration, with quality programs. There were not any other programs that could come close to it. That is a reflection of the demand in the local communities. That is a reflection of what is happening out there in communities all across this country. As has been pointed out, there are 7 million children going to be home alone. Under the existing legislation, we cover a little more than a million of them. But the importance of this program is that we are moving in a glidepath to reach out to these children, all 7 million. It will take some time, but that is the best we can do at this time. What we are saying to those children about their afterschool situation is, we as a country believe this time for you is important. For many of us who have seen these afterschool programs, we know what an extraordinary difference they make in enhancing the child's not only academic ability but confidence. Also, the children work with other children. In many of the centers in Massachusetts you have older children working with younger children. That has made a big difference in the older children's attitude about the program. It has made a big difference in the private sector. I can take you to places in Boston where many companies are coming in and talking about graphic arts and photography, which are not being taught in the schools. It just clicked children's minds open. Children who were indifferent in school are tying into photography or graphic arts in ways they could not have imagined and are now interested in going to school. It can also provide pathways for children in sports and athletics, with all the lessons in life that come from competing and participating in sports. This makes sense. It is of key importance. These afterschool situations can be enormously important and significant for the supplementary services that are necessary and needed for children. We have seen that particularly in the Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs in Boston, how they are working providing all these supplementary services. If we are really going to do the job for children in this country, which I believe this President wants to do, and we are committed to do in this legislation, this amendment is enormously important, far beyond the resources that are being talked about here, making a real difference in quality education and investment in the children. I commend the Senator. I certainly hope this amendment will be adopted.

Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will be good enough to yield me 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to state for the record that I will vote in opposition to the McCain position. I expect it will be an up-or-down vote. If not, I will vote to table. He is entitled to an up- or-down vote. I want to explain my position. I indicated to colleagues that on this legislation I was going to resist nongermane amendments. I do not think the majority leader has the right to a pocket veto. Although it is a position which I strongly support, we have to be consistent if we are going to take the position that we are not going to support nongermane amendments. We cannot pick and choose with which ones we agree and differ. Even though I agree with this amendment, I indicated to colleagues that I would oppose nongermane amendments. Therefore, I feel compelled to oppose this amendment. Should there be an expression of overwhelming support for this, then, obviously, I will at that time interpret my vote perhaps in a different way. I have every intention now to vote in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from Iowa for bringing up this amendment. We will have an opportunity to address this issue perhaps later this evening and tomorrow. As we have worked on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, there have been five major components. A well-trained teacher in every classroom is enormously important. Smaller class sizes for the early grades are enormously important. Afterschool supplementary services are enormously important. Having newer computers and technologies to avoid a digital divide are enormously important. But to have a schoolroom that is going to be safe and secure and free from the conditions which the Senator described is absolutely essential as well. I thank him very much. I will have more to say about this when the time comes. We are going to be voting in a few moments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it my understanding that we will be voting at 5:30 p.m.; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are awaiting Senators who desire to offer their amendments. I believe Senator Boxer will be here shortly, and also Senator Harkin, perhaps just after that, depending on the desire of the other side. While I have a moment and prior to the time they come, I want to review where we are on a very important aspect of this debate, and that is the funding for this legislation. As I mentioned on a number of occasions, and I am going to continue to mention it, we cannot expect to educate our children on a tin cup budget. It cannot be done on the cheap. Money is not the answer to everything, but it is a very clear indication of a nation's priorities. In this legislation, we are looking for investments in America's future. When we are talking about America's future, we are talking about America's children. We believe we have an effective blueprint that can make an important difference in the quality of education for children in this country. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not going to be this legislation in and of itself. It is going to be the cumulative efforts of parents, teachers, communities, principals, school administrators, and school boards all working together. It is also going to be the support we provide in the early learning programs that will reach children of the 0-to-3 age. It is important we invest in these efforts. It is a biological fact that development of a child's brain reaches its maximum at the age of 5. All the development takes place prior to that time. It is enormously important the child have, up to that time, as many positive influences as possible. We are going to battle the issues of funding for early intervention of children--the Early Start Program--the Head Start Program, which are only funded at about 40 percent, and the child care programs as well. We have had a good debate on funding IDEA, and we had a very powerful bipartisan vote in the Senate that put us clearly on record that we want to meet our responsibilities to the families and local communities by funding 40 percent of the education of the children. I want to review where we are on the question of funding this legislation and what we understand will be the administration's position on funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This includes not only title I but professional development programs, technology programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, afterschool programs, and related programs that are part of the whole Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I pointed out at the time we had the last debate in the Senate last week what was going to be in the budget for this country, what was going to be available for funding. We have seen now that the Republican leadership, with the support of the administration, has effectively sucked up all of the available resources that can be used for education with the $1.25 trillion tax reduction. As a result of that, as a result of the document that we had, when it came back from the conference, there was virtually no guarantee or assurance for funding for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. In fact, a careful reading of that legislation would mean there would actually be a reduction in the funding from current services during that period of time. That is a matter of enormous concern--and it should be--to the families of this country. I expect the families in this Nation would say if we are going to have a tax cut, you ought to be able to get--as a matter of fact, I am stating what about 75 percent of the American families say. They say: If we are going to have a tax cut we are going to have a tax cut, but first let's fund education, investing in the children of this country. What we have seen under the administration's program is they have reached a different conclusion. Under that proposal, as I pointed out when we had that debate, the measure was very clear and precise in the instructions to the Finance Committee about what they ought to come back with, within what period of time. Even though we passed that bill last week, as I understand it, we may very well be considering the budget tomorrow. Can you imagine that? We passed it last week. It will be out of the Finance Committee and we may be considering it tomorrow. We can see what happens when the majority, in this case the Republican majority, and in this case the President, want to get something done. They can get it done virtually overnight; over $1 trillion that will go into effect in terms of tax reductions for wealthy individuals. They can get it done overnight. But what was included in this proposal? Over the period of the life of this legislation, the 10-years, up to $6 billion may be used for education. I think everybody understands there were very precise instructions on tax reduction, very precise instructions on defense, very precise instructions on agriculture, and virtually no instructions with regard to education. That is the fact. That is indisputable. Now we are going to see what the result of that will be. I think it is instructive to look at what this increase would mean in terms of past years: proposed ESEA budget increases, Clinton versus Bush administration. We heard the President wants this to be the first priority. As I say, if we compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, grapefruits to grapefruits, Clinton to Bush, over recent years, in terms of elementary and secondary education budget increases, this chart indicates from 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and what the Clinton average was over that period. The Clinton average over that period from 1994 to this last year was 8.67 percent. Under President Bush, it is 3.6 percent. There it is, the Clinton average--2001, 22 percent; 2000, 4.7 percent; 15.7 percent in 1999; 6.8 percent in 1998; 9.4 percent in 1997; 6.4 percent in 1996; 19 percent in 1995; 4.5 percent in 1994. Average: 8.67. There is the 3.6 percent. We want to point out that is without the changes and without the reforms. We have done a lot of giving and taking. There has been chiding on both sides about whether the administration, the President, gave up too much, whether others gave up too much. That is what compromise is all about. This is not the bill I would have written and this is not the bill President Bush would have written, but it represents a legitimate compromise and I am satisfied. I believe the great majority of our Members are satisfied. If this bill had full funding, we would have virtually every vote on our side. We may not, if it is not funded, and that is what we are saying. If we are talking about the future of this country and talking about the importance of investing in children, and we have seen the changes which have been brought back as a matter of additional accountability and how this legislation has been put together, the consolidations of various programming, holding schools accountable, holding the children accountable as well, the changes that have been made in holding schoolteachers accountable and strengthening the assurance we have well-qualified teachers, that we have a professional mentoring program, professional development over the years, none of that was out there. We had some accountability in the previous bill. We had some reconstitution, actually, of schools under the last elementary and secondary education bill. But this goes further and is more comprehensive as a package, bringing together the funding of IDEA, bringing together the additional resources for professional development and the way they are structured, bringing together the outreach for good quality teachers, bringing together consolidation of the technology component, and with a strong emphasis that we are going to get curriculum reform, well-trained teachers, and a more thoughtful process in examining children to find out what they don't know. We do that so we can provide the supplementary services, reaching out to the communities in a much wider way than we have before to use the resources within the communities to help and assist children who might need that extra help with supplementary services in a very expansive way that we had not done before--and to recognize we are only reaching a third of the children. How are we going to achieve what this legislation effectively states, and that is that we will bring every needy child in this country up to proficiency within 10 years, if we are only reaching a third of them now? It is going to be difficult enough--if we were reaching all of them--to try to help with the additional resources in bilingual education, for example. The number of children who need those services has virtually doubled in our school-age population. As I mentioned on other occasions, but it bears repeating, the challenges that schools are dealing with are much more complex today. We have many more families divided so children are growing up in divided homes. We see what has happened in terms of violence in many of the homes, in inner cities as well as in rural communities, the problems with substance abuse and physical abuse. All that has taken place. Plus, we have seen an increasing number of children who are homeless--more than 800,000 homeless children, 800,000 migrant children, sweeping from California all the way to Washington in the west and from Florida to the State of Maine in the east. We have about 1.5 million children. Then we have about 700,000 immigrant children who are going to be citizens of the United States who need help and assistance as they move along. They are going to be American citizens. They are on the way to being American citizens. We want to invest in those children. These are the kinds of challenges we were not facing 20 years ago, for the most part. So we have a more complex situation at the grassroots level. We have parents, teachers, and schools attempting to cope with this under extraordinary circumstances. They need help, they want help, and they are counting on us to help. The way that we can do that is to make sure with this legislation and with the accountability that we are going to invest in children who need the help. That is for what we are fighting. When you look at this chart, the comparison with what this administration is requesting, 3.6 percent this year versus the 8.6 percent average over the previous 8 years and understand that of that 3.6 percent, money is taken from other pots--that is not new money. Half of that is in job training. Two-hundred million dollars of that is from the National Science Foundation. Another couple hundred million dollars is from the EPA. Look at this: $54.1 million from job training; $20 million from the early learning opportunities--that is the program that reaches the children in the 0-to-3 programs; pediatric graduate medical education to try to assure that we are going to have the best in terms of pediatric training for children. They have taken $30 million out of that; clean water State fund, $497 million. That is a vital resource in terms of many of the States, including my State of Massachusetts where you have so many of the communities under court order to clean up their water systems in what which are basically blue-collar, working-class communities. They have high taxes as it is. They don't have the resources to be able to draw on a State fund. To help them is absolutely essential. We are cutting that program. As to the renewable energy programs, we have the great debate and discussion about these energy programs. The administration takes out $156 million; NASA and National Science Foundation, $200 million; FEMA disaster relief, $270 million; and community policing, one of the most successful programs, they cut. What we see is a difficult situation over the period of the next 5 years out I fear for the outyears, the fifth year to the tenth year, because we know what is going to be in this tax package which is going to be heavily weighted, or backloaded. That is the word which is used. As we all understand around here, the reason it is backloaded is because it conceals its purpose. Make no mistake about it; if it was frontloaded, there would be a clear indication of the amounts we could evaluate for the first 5 years; that is, the Joint Tax Program, the Congressional Budget Office, and the OMB estimates the first 5 years--not the back 5 years. As a result, we find the backloaded tax bill. That is going to mean that education resources will remain scarce--not just for the next decade covered by the budget resolution but for the next decade as well when the enrollments are expected to expand dramatically. I think this is a clear indication if you look at the broader issue. You say, OK, that is ESEA, but maybe much more will be done in the other areas of education; that is, in the Pell grants or other kinds of help and assistance in higher education, such as the Department of Education, or maybe we are looking at research to find out what really works out there so we can help. But we have the same story. This administration fails in the education budget in investments in education. If we look on the chart, the total increase for the title I program was $669 million, 3.5 percent, even though if you look through the book that has the budget figures, that is effectively where it comes out. There was a great hoopla about how it was going to be 11.9 percent. It is $669 million, and the appropriation for the year 2001 was $3.6 billion. If you look at the total Department of Education, 6.5 percent appropriations last year; the total for the Department of Education is $2.5 billion. This is not only elementary and secondary education, but it is in the higher education as well. I know many of our colleagues have the opportunity to go back as I do and talk with people in our States. If I go back to Massachusetts and have a town meeting, I ask people in that hall, say you have $1 that represents the Federal budget. Let's think through about how that ought to be spent. You ask people for a show of hands. They want national security. They want defense. They understand the importance of national security. They want to make sure whatever is necessary is there, and that is something certainly that we ought to support. While we are talking about national security, is there anyone in this body who doubts that within the next 3 or 4 weeks after we pass their tax cut on tomorrow, or the next few days, that within a 4-week period we will have the requests from the Department of Defense as a result of Secretary Rumsfeld's total Bottom-Up Review, and the best estimate is anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion over the next 5 years. That is going to be on track. We are not hearing about it now. We are not talking about it. But does anybody really doubt that? Does anybody in the defense community really question that? Not that I have heard. We are just not going to be able to do this. As I say, if you are in that room and asking people what they think, they say: Oh, yes. We need Social Security and we need to have Medicare. They understand that. Maybe some will say we will start talking about it. What about education? What about prescription drugs? Where do they fit? Some will mention that we have to pay an interest on the debt. Then you ask them: What do you think we are spending on education? First of all, what do you think we should spend? After they begin to understand that it is maybe 5 cents in terms of the defense and maybe a little less than that on the interest on the debt, you get probably 2.4 or 2.5 in terms of the Medicare programs. You include Medicaid in there, and you have Social Security. That is figured in the budget. They see that going up. But at the end of the day when you start talking about education, 80 percent of Senators will say that we ought to at the minimum spend 10 cents or 8 cents out of that dollar on education. Ninety percent will say certainly 5. Would you believe that it is less than 2? And under this administration, it will be less than 1 cent. Does that reflect the American families' priorities in terms of education? We understand it is a local responsibility and a State responsibility, and the Federal participation has been focused primarily on the higher education. But I think most families would say we want a partnership with local, State, and Federal. We want a partnership because we recognize that we need the resources. In many different communities where they have the greatest kind of pressure, particularly in the poorest of the poor, they do not have the resources to be able to sort of deal with this. We made a decision in the early 1960s that we were going to reach out to try to provide resources and recognize as a matter of national commitment that we were going to deal with the neediest students in this country. That is what this title I program is really all about. It provides resources for those communities--not a great deal of resources. We have had some successes and failures. But we are in a new day and period. But the idea that we are providing a penny out of that dollar in terms of education, which is really another word for talking about our future--children are our future. Investing in our children is investing in our future. Is there anyone who doubts that if you have an eighth grade class and the children don't learn algebra that those children are not going to college? It is simple, plain, finished, conversation ended. You have to make sure you have people in there who are going to be able to teach them. That is going to take upgrading. We don't expect to solve all the problems, but we have made a commitment at least in this bill that the teachers who are going to teach the children--better than 50 percent of the title I children who are going to be educated within 4 years--will be well qualified. We have made our commitment. We have to have the resources to be able to do it. So this is about our future. This is about our priority. It is about the key element in terms of a nation and our fundamental values. Are they going to be in terms of the future, which is our children, or are we going to be presented with a future tax reduction for the wealthy individuals in this country? I think that is how it is going to be. Let me make it clear that I have every intention of offering amendments to let the American people understand how this body wants to vote in terms of a reduction in the top rates for the wealthiest individuals, or fund education. This body will have a chance to make a judgment decision on that. Are we going to go from the 39.6 down to 36, and then further reductions in many other areas or are we going to fund our children's education in the future? What is in the national interest? What is in the interest of these children? Do we want this Nation to invest in our children or do we want to find out that we are going to provide additional benefits to people who have done very well in the last few years? What we have seen in the most recent times has been this extraordinary kind of dichotomy where the wealthier have grown so much wealthier and the poor have grown so much poorer. I remember those charts. I do not have them here. But if you look at what has happened in terms of American income, broken into fifths, from the time of the war to 1972, you will find each group went up; they grew together. Virtually all of them grew together. Not now. You now find the bottom fifth is going down--yes, going down. The second fifth is going down just a little bit. And the top fifth has gone up through the ceiling. We have these enormous disparities. By failing to invest in the children, that is going to continue, as sure as we are standing here. So we will have the chance to come back and visit this as soon as the Finance Committee reports out its bill. We will welcome the opportunity to have the Members of this body vote on these measures. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I do not. As far as the floor managers are concerned, the earlier the better. I don't know about what the timing is on the other side. The leader on our side is familiar with it, and I hope we will do it at an early time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin have pointed out the focus on this legislation, and Senator McCain indicated that once the papers go over to the House, they will ask to withdraw this amendment. I must say, on a broader issue, I congratulate the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin for bringing this to light on the Senate floor. I think all of us are very mindful in this institution that this is where these issues ought to be debated and discussed and also examined. When we do have that opportunity, as we saw during the debate on campaign financing--the fact that there are a lot of discussions in the back rooms and in the corridors and behind closed doors--when they finally get it into the openness of the floor of the Senate, you get a different reaction. I daresay we will have a very encouraging reaction when we vote on this measure this afternoon, and we should have. I think it is very regrettable that we have the use of the Senate rules to deny a clear process in this legislative undertaking, where this legislation had passed and still there has not been the passing of the papers. We have seen other actions such as that in denying this body the opportunity to address key issues even currently. For example, on the increase in the minimum wage, we were denied the opportunity of getting a fair vote. Even though a majority of this body is committed to a Patients' Bill of Rights, we have seen this. On this measure, which is of such importance to our good leaders here, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, they deserve credit and support. I join in congratulating them.

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. The Senator is permitted to modify his amendment. We haven't asked for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has given additional focus on a very key element in this legislation; that is, the information made available to parents. His amendment will add an additional dimension in terms of the possible accuracy and types of information so it can be easily understood and utilized by parents and so they can understand what is happening in the schools their children are attending. In the existing legislation, there is the requirement that the States will provide information to the parents. What the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does is provide the ability for the States themselves to get, through this contracting arrangement, the up-to- date, most advanced, most recent, comprehensive information that can possibly be developed. It gives that option to the State to provide it to the parents. It is incredibly important. This is one of the underlying concepts of the legislation; that is, that the parents become involved. We want them to be involved, and there are ample provisions in the legislation to have them involved. We want to get the parents involved. Part of a very powerful tool to get them involved is giving them information about what is happening in the school and what the condition of the school is. We have provided in the legislation a range of different information that will be available in the report card. The Senator from North Carolina, with this additional amendment, can give the assurance that if the State wants to work through a contracting arrangement, the information may very well be much more available and usable and current for the parent. That is very important and completely consistent with the direction of the legislation and very desirable to have. I thank him for this idea, as well as bringing to the basic legislation the experience that has taken place in turning around low- performing schools in North Carolina, and the way it has changed through the development of some enormously interesting and very successful models that will be available in this legislation to communities all over this country is really a major strengthening of and improvement in the legislation itself. That is one of the things that makes this legislation so hopeful. If we are able to get the resources to be able to give all these provisions some life and meaning, we are going to be in an even stronger position. As the Senator from North Carolina and others have pointed out, we have a blueprint here which is both supportable and commendable and can make a difference, but we need the resources to make sure these provisions are going to do what, in this instance, parents need and should have and also what schoolchildren should have in the provisions which have been included in the bill that are patterned after the very important, successful initiatives in North Carolina. I thank the Senator for his initiative. I hope we will accept it.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate that we study the impact of violence in the media on young people. The increasing incidence of violent behavior is alarming and we should carefully scrutinize the causes of that violence. It will be very helpful to learn which types of imaging and broadcasting have causal links to violent behavior. A great deal of research has already been conducted in this area. For example, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have studied the impact of violent images in movies, television and video games and have expressed caution against a presumption that there is an isolated cause and effect between violent images and violent action. I also believe that access to guns is indisputably part of this critical problem. There is no one individual cause of this disturbing social pattern and we should avoid simplifying either this problem or our solution to it. However, many young people spend a great deal of time watching television and movies and we should explore incentives to the industry to provide entertaining material that is nonviolent. Industry leaders have expressed a willingness to incorporate improved warnings for parents to monitor the programming that their children do watch, and we should do all that we can to make these worthwhile tools accessible and understandable. We should be ready also to acknowledge that the entertainment industry is not solely responsible for increasing violent behavior in our youngest citizens. The Senate should also improve a broad range of opportunities for children to help them achieve to their fullest expectations and dreams. We can increase funding for Early Start and Head Start. We can improve the learning experience of children once they enter school, including reducing class size and teacher quality. I have sponsored--and I have worked very closely with the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran--on our Ready to Learn legislation to ensure that time spent watching television by young preschool children will be entertaining and educational. With a modest $15 million Federal appropriation, public broadcasting has created effective educational programming that develops skills necessary for success when a child enters a classroom for the first time. Accompanying material is provided for parents, caregivers and other family members to encourage reading in the child's home environment. We should be tripling funding for this program, but instead, this bill seeks to eliminate it. The number of awards that those programs for children have been nominated for has been truly amazing. There have been over 40 Emmys for all the ready-to-learn programs. ``Between the Lions'' has really been an extraordinary success. It and its Web site have won several awards. The series won the Parents' Choice Gold Award for best show for kids aged 4 to 7. It was recently named the Best Children's Show in the country by the Television Critics Association. It has just been nominated for several Academy Awards. And the Web site won two awards in the fall of 2000: Best Children's Entertainment Site from the Massachusetts Interactive Media Council and Best Kids Web Entertainment from NewsMedia.com's Invision Awards. We welcome the Senator's amendment and think it is an entirely appropriate one. We also recognize there are important additional matters to which we should give focus. I support a serious examination of the impact that violence in the media has on young children. I am, as well, hopeful we can also improve the educational components of our media. As I know the Senator is aware, we attempted, for a number of years, to make that as a condition for the relicensing. What happened, of course, is that it never worked because we would find that with the application the broadcasting industry would just label programs as children's programs, and they never really carried forward the effect of that. We have been remarkably unsuccessful in monitoring and affecting the kind of violence there is on television. But when we provided a very limited amount of incentives for the development of children's programs, and worked those through public broadcasting, we have had some amazing success. I look forward to working with the Senator in terms of getting this study, this review, and also working with him to try to see what can be developed to attract families, and particularly parents with their children, to watch the programs on television that can be useful, positive, constructive, and, hopefully, educational and helpful to the children as well. I urge acceptance of the Senator's amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The Senator from Kansas. Amendment No. 413 to Amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Did you review the Rand study? You mentioned that they did the STAR school study and that he questioned that. They had the SAGE review in Wisconsin. And they have the Rand study, which involved 1,800,000 children last year, with very positive results. This is the Rand Corporation. I wonder if----