Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Is this the only study that the Senator is using? I used the Tennessee study, the California study, and then the Prince George's results. I am wondering whether the Senator has other studies? I know the Senator from Tennessee referred to multiple studies that are being done on this. I was just trying to be able to look at the studies myself.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is this the only study that we are using?

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the title of the study? I want to have a chance to review it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Where is he from?

Mr. KENNEDY. I apologize to the Senator. I did not hear him.

Mr. KENNEDY. To what studies are we referring? I am trying to understand. We had the study in Tennessee, and the STARS study. I am trying to find out what these studies are and who conducted them.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off the bill on the amendment. I commend the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for bringing this measure back to the Chamber, urging the Senate to support an amendment which will make available to school districts the additional funding for smaller class sizes with a particular emphasis on K-3 classrooms. Senator Murray brings a unique and special credibility to this issue as someone who has been an active school board member and also someone who has been a first grade school teacher. Although she didn't review that experience with us this morning, I think all of us who have listened to her make this presentation and fight for this program remember clearly the very compelling case that she has made. I think it still echoes in my ears about the schoolteachers who are in the classes with 30 children, trying to deal with all of their particular names and needs, as compared to a teacher in a smaller class of 15, 13 children, where she is able to spend the time to give the individual kind of attention to the child, and particularly that child who may have some very special needs on that particular day. It is translated into helping and assisting children in the earliest grades to be able to develop their interests and their awareness in terms of education and reflects itself in terms of an enhancement in their academic achievement and accomplishment. Now there has been some suggestion on the floor of the Senate that this is not effective, that the studies indicate this is not effective, that it is one of the least desirable reforms. I hope those who maintain that position will at least be good enough to illustrate what studies they were referring to, because I am going to give three practical studies that are compelling information and make a compelling case in support of the Murray amendment. They are overwhelming. And you don't have to go back years to look at the results of the studies, all you have to do is look at the front page of the newspapers here Tuesday of last week: Prince Georges' Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever. Then you read down through this: Prince Georges County students posted their highest gains ever on a key standardized test used to gauge how local children measure up to their peers nationally, according to the results released. Then the school superintendent, when asked about what the principal contributors were in moving the children along in this direction: [She] said she hoped that county and State leaders would see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about improving academic achievement and that they would reward it with more funding to reduce class size. There it is. Results. Reduce class size. We reject this idea that you have to make a choice between well-qualified teachers in the classroom and smaller class size. The Murray amendment says we can do both. That is our position, that we can do both. With all respect to our colleagues on the other side, the ones who have been addressing this issue voted against getting an allocation of resources in our committee toward having well-qualified, well-trained teachers with professional development and mentoring. As many of us tried to say, let's make sure we are going to provide that, and that was rejected in our committee. Now, in some kind of an attempt to defeat the Murray amendment, they say the No. 1 question is: Are we going to have a well-trained teacher in every class? We are for it. The Senate voted in favor of it, with a strong bipartisan vote to expand that last week. What we are also saying is we want to have a well-trained teacher in the class with professional development and mentoring programs, but we also want the smaller class size, as has been done here every time we have reviewed this amendment. All we have to do is look at the results. I think what would be useful is, rather than speculating perhaps what each Member believes is best in the local community, to look at what is happening out in the country and what the results are. Maybe we can benefit from what is happening when we have results. That is what we have. In the STAR program in the State of Tennessee, April 29, 1999, report, it says: The original STAR research tracked the progress of an average of 6,500 students each year in 79 schools between 1985 and 1989 (and 11,600 students overall). It found that children who attended small classes (13-17 pupils per teacher) in kindergarten through grade 3 outperformed students in larger class sizes (22-25 pupils) in both reading and math on the Stanford Achievement Tests for elementary students. The second phase of the STAR research found that even after returning to larger classes in grade 4, STAR's small class students continued to outperform their peers who had been in larger class sizes. That is what we have, Mr. President. The study goes on and shows that students in smaller class sizes are more likely to pursue college, small classes lead to higher graduation rates, students in small classes achieve at higher levels, and the list goes on. That is Tennessee, 6,500 students. We can go to what took place from 1996 up to the year 2000 in the State of Wisconsin, the SAGE Program. The exact same results--30 schools, 21 school districts. When adjusted for preexisting differences in academic achievement, attendance, and socioeconomic status, the SAGE students showed significant improvement over their comparison school counterparts from the beginning of the first grade to the end of the third grade across all academic areas. The charts go through there. We can take the Rand study. That is not known to be a flaming liberal or Democratic organization--the Rand Corporation. Here they examine smaller class sizes in California --more than 1.8 million students. This is their conclusion: Smaller class sizes with certified teachers-- That is what we stand for. We have the certified teachers with the authorizations we passed last week in a bipartisan way. But also we haven't got the guarantee that there will be resources in here for the smaller class sizes. Here is the Rand study that was just produced in July of last year: Smaller class sizes with certified teachers have the greatest benefit for the neediest students. Why not do both? That is what the Senator from Washington is saying. Why don't we do both? We are doing the well-qualified teachers. Why not do smaller class sizes? Why be in the situation? We have to make a choice. We know what is working. Let's give that option to the local communities. That is what the Murray amendment does. Here it is: Smaller class sizes with certified teachers have the greatest benefit for the neediest students. Evaluation shows that those students in the most disadvantaged schools were most likely to be in larger classes, or have less-qualified teachers. Students in smaller classes still outperformed their peers in larger classes, even with less-qualified teachers. These students could be performing even better if all children in these schools had fully qualified teachers and smaller class sizes. That is the Rand Corporation. If we want to try to do something to help children in local communities, let's take the best in terms of studies. Let's take the best in practical experience. Let's take the best in terms of our own intuition and understanding about a schoolteacher in a classroom where they are familiar with the children and can spend the time with the children versus in a larger classroom. That is what this is really all about. Finally, I want to read this. I have other examples. In Fayetteville, AR, there is a wonderful story about a rural school that took advantage of the Murray amendment, because although we are resisted on the floor of the Senate by our Republican friends, in the past we were able to, under the leadership of Senator Murray and President Clinton, have an effective program that is currently working, and one we want to keep. Let me just read a very brief letter from a student at the Richmond Elementary School from Narragansett, RI. I think it could have been from any number of children. This is from Marieke Spresser: If I were in a smaller class, I would do more projects. I could talk more with my teacher about school. I could read more in my book packets. I could have more time for centers. I could have more time for snacks. I could ask more questions. I could talk more with my friends. The coat room would not be so messy and we would not waste the time looking for something. The line would not be so long. My colleagues get the sense from this student. Even though there are references about other activities, my colleagues have an understanding, which the children have, that should not be lost as well. If we are talking about developing a legislative initiative that is going to present the best we possibly can to local communities, let them make their choice; let them make the decision. They are the ones who are going to ultimately make the request. There is nothing mandatory in here, but let us at least pass legislation that reflects the best of educators and practical experience. The Murray amendment does that in spades. It is a compelling case. It should be accepted, and I hope it will be. My colleague, the Senator from New York has arrived. The Senator from Washington can yield time to our colleague.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing a resolution expressing our concern over the recent loss of the U.S. seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission. We are pleased that Senators Leahy, Brownback, Biden, Snowe, Kerry, Gordon Smith, Torricelli, Chafee, Corzine, Allen, Akaka, Lieberman, Bayh, Bingaman, Feingold, Levin, Reed, Kohl, Durbin, Johnson, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Boxer are cosponsors of this resolution. We are deeply concerned that in the vote on May 3, the United States was not re-elected to membership on the Commission. The Commission is the most important and visible international body dealing with the promotion and protection of human rights and is the main policy-making organization dealing with human rights issues in the United Nations. The 53 member governments of the Human Rights Commission prepare studies, make recommendations, draft international human rights conventions and declarations, investigate allegations of human rights violations, and handle communications relating to human rights. The United States has held a seat on the Commission since its creation in 1947 and has worked effectively through the Commission for the past fifty-four years to improve respect for human rights throughout the world. It is essential for the United States to regain its position on the Commission and to continue to promote human rights worldwide. The loss of membership on the Commission is a diplomatic setback for the United States and for human rights worldwide. Our resolution emphasizes the important contributions of the U.S. to the Commission, and it urges the Administration to work with our European allies and other nations to restore the membership of the United States on the United Nations Human Rights Commission as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on April 29, the Los Angeles Times printed a thoughtful op-ed article by former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias that raises troubling questions about President Bush's nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Otto Reich. President Arias discusses the important role played by the Assistant Secretary, and questions Otto Reich's suitability for this position, in light of his record as head of the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, his support of President Reagan's policies toward Central America, his involvement in lifting the ban on the sale of advanced weapons to Latin America, and his views on U.S. policy toward Cuba. I urge my colleagues to read the article. The significant concerns raised by this distinguished Nobel Peace Prize recipient must be carefully considered. I ask unanimous consent that the article by President Arias be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I saw in the newspaper this morning the headline in the Washington Post ``Business Seeks Tax Breaks in Wage Bill.'' This is a reference to the inevitability that I and others are going to offer an increase in the minimum wage. This story is a reference to what the business lobbying groups are doing in preparation for that particular legislation and how they intend to add additional kinds of tax reductions for companies and corporations on that piece of legislation. We have just seen in the Senate last week a tax reduction of $1.35 that is excessive and unfair in terms of its allocation among Americans. A number of us voted in opposition to it. We recognized that even in that proposal there wasn't a nickel--not 5 cents--increase for education over the next 10 years--not even a 5-cent increase. We found $1,350,000,000,000 in tax reductions, but we couldn't divert any of those resources to education, particularly educating the needy children on whom this legislation is focused, recognizing that these children are our future, recognizing that what we are trying to do is to give greater support to the children and to get greater accountability for the children, the schools, parents, and communities, as well, in this legislation. It is good legislation, I support it, but it does need to have the resources to be able to have life to it. We didn't get any increase on that. We are going to have a chance to revisit that issue when the Finance Committee reports back in the next few days with their product on the allocation of taxes, on who is going to get the tax reductions. Many of us will have the opportunity again to present to the Senate: Do we want to see the reduction in the highest rates for the wealthiest individuals, or do we want to use that money, which otherwise would go back in terms of reduced taxes--do we want to use that money to fund education for children in this country? We will have an opportunity to vote on that several times when the bill comes back. The idea that the ink isn't even dry on that legislation and already our Republican friends on the other side are licking their lips, waiting for an increase in the minimum wage, which is a target to try to help working families working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, to help them out of poverty. We have the Republican leader Armey saying: There is a general resolve, especially among Republicans, that you can't put this kind of disincentive in the employment of people on the lowest rungs into play without trying to compensate for its adverse employment effects. In other words, schools are out, and we are going to have a lot more besides the $1.35 trillion in tax reduction, that evidently the Republican leadership is waiting for the Senate and the House to take action to increase the minimum wage, hopefully $1.50 over 3 years, with a 60-, 50-, 40-cent increase in 3 steps, in order to help some of the hardest working Americans. This is a question about human dignity. It is a question of whether we are going to say to Americans working at the lowest end of the economic ladder that the work they do is important. What is the work they do? Many of them are teachers' aides. Many of them work in childcare centers. Many of them work as nursing aides. Many of them work in the buildings across this country, cleaning them late at night, away from their families. That is what many of these low-income jobs are all about. People work hard at them. They sacrifice in order to get them in many instances. We want to say to those workers that when we have had the strongest economy in the history of the Nation, people who work hard should not have to live in poverty. It is interesting to note that over the history of the minimum wage we have increased the minimum wage 17 times. It was only the last time, when we increased it, which was 4 years ago, and evidently this time, that we have seen the minimum wage loaded up with tax goodies, tax benefits. We didn't do it the previous 17 times. We didn't do that. But now our Republican friends are looking for a vehicle to carry this load about further tax reductions for the wealthy corporations. We have had consideration of the tax reduction bill. We have all seen that. We have heard it. We have debated it. That has been done. Hopefully, that will be it. Hopefully, we are not going to have another backdoor tax reduction here and effectively do it on the backs of our needy workers. I certainly hope not. I understand we might have to make some adjustments on this. The last time we had an increase, it was in the $18 to $20 billion range. I found that offensive but nonetheless supportable. But last year our Republican leadership was talking about over $100 billion. I would certainly do everything I could to resist that kind of action here. Let me review briefly what is happening with the minimum wage at the present time. This says: Working hard but losing ground, the declining real value of the minimum wage. If we look at what has happened, in 1992, we have an increase in the minimum wage. Again, we voted it in 1996; it went into effect in 1997. What we have seen since that time is, now at the year 2000, 2001, we have effectively wiped out the increase, the purchasing value of the increase we had in 1996. What we are talking about is what the red line shows, which would be an increase of $1.50, which would bring it up to a purchasing power of $6.14, and we are still not even close to what it was from 1968, 1978, up to, really, 1980. We are not even close to that. We are talking about the neediest of the needy. Look at this. If we look at what has happened to the minimum wage, we have historically tried to have a minimum wage which is going to be half the average hourly earnings. That has been the basic kind of reference point. Look at what has happened in recent years, how the average hourly earnings have been going up but the purchasing power, the real minimum wage for workers, is falling further and further behind. This is another chart. This reflects: The minimum wage no longer supports a family above the poverty line. This is the real value of poverty guidelines and the minimum wage. If you look at what the poverty line is, for a family of three at $15,000, if you look at where the minimum wage is, you will see that it is falling further and further behind the poverty line. The fact is, the poor today continue to be poor and are poorer than at any time in the last 40 years. This is our proposal we will be looking at, a minimum wage increase. We will be asking for the 60 cents in 2001, 50 cents in 2002, and 40 cents in 2003. This represents the percent of our proposed increase in the minimum wage in relationship to past increases. This is relatively small. We are talking about a 12-percent increase. We increased it about 12 percent in 1996, in 1991. In 1990, we were higher than in 1978. We were just about there in 1976, a great deal higher in 1969, higher in 1968. So this is right in the mainstream of increases. A 60- cent increase is right in the mainstream; 50 cents is a little below the mainstream, and the final 40 cent increase is down even further. This is what we are going to have before us. I reiterate: This is basically an issue that affects women because the great majority of minimum-wage workers are women--the great majority of workers are women. This is a children's issue because a majority of the women have children. And so it is their relationship, how the minimum wage worker is going to be able to provide for the children in that home. What happens, of course, is that by and large the mothers have more than one minimum wage job; they have two, or even three jobs, in order to provide for their families. I read with interest the report last week about how parents are spending more time with their parents. While that may be true, I don't know where they find the time and can only imagine at what price. Low-wage workers are working 416 more hours a year than they did twenty years ago. And studies have shown that in 1996, families, on average, had 22 hours a week less to spend with their children then they did in 1969, because their parents are working longer hours and, in some cases, working two, sometimes even three jobs. So it is a women's issue, a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue because many of the men and women who earn the minimum wage are men and women of color. And, most of all, it is a fairness issue, that here with the strength of our economy, we ought to be able to say that in the United States of America, if you work hard, play by the rules, try to bring up children, you should not have to live in poverty. Finally, I point out that the Senate of the United States was quite willing to increase its own salary last year by $3,800. We were glad to do that, but we are unwilling to have an increase in the minimum wage. Now we are told that they are going to hold the minimum wage hostage unless they get billions and billions and billions and billions more in tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals in America-- that is wrong; that is absolutely categorically wrong--and add that on top of the tax breaks they have just had. I mean, how much greed can there be, Mr. President? How much greed can there be, and at the expense of the lowest income working Americans? How much greed can there be? This idea, well, we have to look and see the pressure that this provides in terms of--that it puts on businesses in terms of employment, and the inflation rate, well, I hope we are not going to hear much about that. You will hear much about it, but it has been so discredited, so discredited. We could go back to the times of the last increase in the most recent times--1992, 1997--and I will show you the expansion in the job rate here in this country among every group, including teenage minorities. We are going to hear a lot that you really don't care about teenage minorities. It is the same people who say I don't care about teenagers who say you are not really interested in health insurance; but if you pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, a lot of companies will drop the health insurance and you will get a lot more uninsured, and that is the reason I am not voting for it. That is the first time words ever came out of their mouths about how they are interested in expanding health insurance--when they are opposing the Patients' Bill of Rights. We are going to hear similar arguments, and those arguments have been dismissed, shattered, and I understand that we are going to have to pay a toll because the Republican leadership is going to insist on it. They insisted last year. The price was going to be $100 billion last year-- $100 billion. The newspaper report today says it is going to be just about that much this year. That is the toll to get through the gate for an increase in the minimum wage put on there by the Republican leadership. Make no mistake about it. If the Speaker and the majority leader said no, it would not be there. It is the second time in the history of the minimum wage we are going to have it packaged with tax goodies for the wealthiest individuals. The ink is not even dry on the most dramatic tax reduction that we have had in recent times, Mr. President, at the expense of other vital priorities. It just doesn't work. Maybe the Republican leadership is able to try to muscle that through, but they are going to take some time on this and they are going to have some votes on it. We are going to find out--the American people are--who is on the side of those working families and who is on the side of trying to make sure that we are not going to have a giveaway in terms of these taxes. That would be absolutely wrong. Sooner or later, it is going to come down to which party represents you and stands by you. Well, you are going to find out; you can tell where those special interests are going to be. They will know who stands by them. It is going to be the Republican leadership because they are going to try to add $100 billion more in tax goodies for them. But the workers of America are going to know who stands by them as well by the end of this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama. But I think we are not quite prepared to offer a consent agreement on the procedures for tomorrow. We are awaiting that agreement. We welcome the Senator's comments on that legislation.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will accept this amendment. The Senator explained it earlier, and I think it is a useful addition to the legislation. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for what I hope will be an accepted amendment. The administration is offering the bonuses to encourage States to move ahead. The Senator has rightfully put his finger on the fact that we want to make sure the tests are not going to be off-the-shelf tests and responding to rote information but are a reflection of what the children actually learned and how they think. That is done in a number of States at the present time. The administration wanted to provide encouragement to States to do it. We had, the Senator may remember, in the previous elementary and secondary education title I program, put in a provision encouraging States to do it, and only 10 or 12 States actually did it. We provided flexibility for them to do it in the elementary, middle, and then the senior year. A number of the States did but most did not. The administration was trying to encourage States to move ahead. I support that concept, but I absolutely agree with the Senator from Minnesota: First, we want to have good tests. We had that debate last week. The bill is strengthened with the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. This is a follow-on that says we want to encourage good tests and we want to get it done as early as possible. As I understand, there are 15 States now which have tests between the third and the eighth grade. The basic reviews, the studies that have been done on those tests, say of the 15, 7 States have very well designed tests that are generally recognized to meet this criterion to test the children's ability to think and comprehend the information and then be able to respond to challenges using that information in an effective way in response to questions. We want to encourage that. It takes time to do tests well. There are a number of steps. We want good tests. We want a good curriculum. We want well-trained teachers. That is what we are trying to do, get well-trained teachers, and we have the provisions in the legislation to do that. We want to get the curriculum formed, and we have provisions in the legislation to do that. We want accountability with tests which we are encouraging, and with the Wellstone amendment we can do that. With the Wellstone amendment and the bonuses, this is a very useful and helpful amendment. I am very hopeful at the appropriate time we will be able to successfully urge Senators to accept this amendment. Senator Wellstone has targeted one area of concern to me and I think to many here, and that is to make sure we are going to get good tests and not just the off-the-shelf tests which are taught to and really do not reflect the progress all of us want to see in terms of children learning. I thank him very much. We had talked about this concept before, and he has taken the concept and put it into legislative form. I had not seen it before. There may be some parts to it--but I cannot spot them-- that may be of trouble to some of our colleagues, but I hope at the appropriate time we can move ahead and accept the amendment. I thank the Senator for the development of this amendment. This amendment and the other amendment he had immeasurably strengthen the legislation. I don't want to end this part of the discussion without saying I agree with him about the importance of the resources. I am somewhat more hopeful than he is that by the end of the day we are going to be able to get them. Maybe it is a false hope. I do not believe it is. But I know he will be helping us and doing everything he can to help us get them whenever we can. I know the depth of his own feeling. I respect it, although I might have some difference in the final conclusions he comes to with regard to the overall legislation. This is an important amendment. I am hopeful it will be accepted at an appropriate time.

Mr. KENNEDY. We will have that chance.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I remind the Senate that the study, which is the basis for this amendment, is entitled ``Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide To Safe Schools.'' The study itself was sent out to principals of schools across the country, but if teachers or parents are interested, they can write the Department of Justice or the Department of Education and get this study. It is also available on line as well. I want to mention one quote from Wilmer Cody, Kentucky Commissioner of Education: Coordinated school efforts can help. But the solution does not just rest in the schools. Together we must develop solutions that are community-wide and coordinated, that include schools, families, courts, law enforcement, community agencies, representatives of the faith community, business, and the broader community. I think that is what is unique in the Cleland proposal. It isn't just relying on one aspect of the community; it includes all of those elements. It is described in this report. I think it will be a center which will have information of essential importance to every school in this country. I think every school in the country would be wise to continue to upgrade their own information because it will be a resource that will explain what is working, what has been effective, what has been successful. Finally, we have to start by recognizing that schools are safe places. They are safe places for children. We are all mindful of the tragedies, the tragic killings that have taken place, the shootings that have brought such enormous tragedy to the families of people who have been affected by acts of violence. Parents are constantly concerned about how safe their children are when they go to school every day. But the essential fact is, children are safe in their schools. I think people understand that. We understand that. But we want to make sure they are going to continue to be safe. There are too many instances of violence. The instances that have occurred are a real concern to us. We want to reduce them and make the schools even safer. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia is all about. As I mentioned, I hope those who follow this debate--and it is a difficult debate to follow since we are on this legislation for a few days and then have intervening matters, but nonetheless, I hope they will have the chance to review that study and this amendment. We think this amendment will be an important addition to the bill. I thank the Senator again.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend on the floor, the Senator from Georgia, who is the primary sponsor of this amendment. I now have the excellent study which was the basis of his amendment, ``Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools.'' I know he is familiar with this study. One of the conclusions in this excellent study is that there is valuable information available on recognizing the warning signs of violent behavior; that in dealing effectively with a school crisis, one of the tragedies is schools have become the experts after they face violence that is destructive and harmful to the children themselves who are attending these schools. As I understand, one of the principal reasons the Senator is offering the amendment is so that we will have a central clearinghouse available to public schools all across the country where the school administrators, teachers, and others with responsibility for security within the schools can tap into and draw from the experience of other schools that have had successful programs. Is this one of the purposes for the amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time is in opposition?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was not here at the time my good friend, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, offered his amendment about afterschool literacy programs. This would expand the 21st Century Community Learning Centers' eligibility to certain organizations to include projects with an emphasis on language and life skill programs for limited-English-proficient students. I wish to add my support for that program. We had an excellent debate last week when the Senate addressed the issue about increasing support for the limited-English-speaking programs. We pointed out at the start of the debate that, under the existing legislation, we were only reaching about 25 percent of the children who would need these programs. Then time was taken by the good Senator from Arkansas, myself, and others to point out what has been happening in our school systems with limited-English-speaking students. The number of children has doubled in the last 10 years. If one looks at what happened over the next several years, the numbers went up dramatically. This is true with regard to Hispanics, but it is also applicable to other children. I mentioned earlier in the debate my not so recent, several months ago, visit to Revere High School in Revere, MA, where they have children speaking 43 languages. The school is involved in 12 to 14 language classes and expects to expand in the next few years. It is an enormous challenge to schools, but schools are attempting to respond in an extraordinary way. Encouraging afterschool programs, encouraging programs in these afterschool settings makes a good deal of sense to me. There are a variety of activities in the afterschool programs. In many instances, there are excellent tutorial services, excellent supplementary services. In some areas, there are just athletic programs. There are different programs in each afterschool program. For example, in one I visited recently, they have an excellent program in photography and also a second program in graphic arts. A number of the children were coming to this afterschool program. The fascination of the children in graphic arts and also in photography was overwhelming. Because children were interested in those activities, they were becoming more interested in their school work as well. It has a symbiotic effect. Senator Reid's amendment makes sure children will also have an opportunity for continued training in language in the afterschool programs. If the local jurisdiction chooses to do so, it can utilize the assets they have for that type of activity. It makes a great deal of sense to me. The Senator is to be commended for it. We have found that where we have these effective programs, the favorable impact in student achievement has been extraordinary, and where we do not have these programs, the children have difficulties. This is a continuum of opportunity for children with limited English capability, and it is a wise policy decision. I congratulate the Senator for his initiative and hope the Senate will support the amendment when we have the opportunity to do so. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to the opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.