Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to. I hope the Senator will give me 5 more minutes at the end.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, just in answering--and I intend to--I was looking at page H1867 of the budget that Republicans filed before they lost their two pages last Friday, which contains the exact same numbers for education, Function 500, as the budget they filed today, if you look at page H1960. I don't know whether the Senator is looking at this particular passage. It has in here education training employment and social services. Then it has the budget authority, the outlays for 2001; from 2002 with $76 billion; for 2003, $81 billion; 2004, $83 billion; 2005, $85 billion--you get the drift--then $85 billion to $87 billion. It goes up about $2 billion a year. That looks like flat funding to me, adjusted only for inflation, which describes what is going happen if Republicans have their way. Flat funding on education all the way to the year 2011. Let me ask the Senator this. In this budget proposal, they include figures in the tax program, don't they--for example, for all of the out years; am I correct? Maybe the Senator can inform me. As I understand it, the budgeteers were able to say what would be given or returned to taxpayers all the way through to 2011, but we can't do it with regard to education.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose this budget conference report. Its tax breaks are excessive and tilted overwhelmingly to the wealthy, and it ignores the urgent need to invest effectively in education. Under the enormous tax breaks provided by this Republican budget, there will be no funds to increase education investments for the next ten years. It's a budget that fails to provide the nation's schools, teachers, parents, and communities with the resources that are essential to carry out the reforms we all know are needed. At the same time, it gives away half a trillion dollars to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. How very Republican! That is the bottom line proposed by this Republican budget--nothing new for education, and over half a trillion new dollars for those whose incomes already average over $1.1 million a year. This budget doesn't just leave some children behind--it shortchanges an entire generation of children. Nowhere are Republicans' misplaced priorities clearer. After all the talk about the importance of education to children's lives and the nation's future after all the talk about unmet needs in the nation's schools--after all the Senate votes to increase investments to meet the most basic education needs, this Republican budget contains no new funds for education. It tells millions of children who attend disadvantaged schools that they don't count--that no help is on the way to give them the long-overdue support they need and deserve. The federal budget is, in fact, the budget of the American family as a whole. Individual families have their own budget process. They know what they would like to do, but almost all of them have limited resources, so they set their priorities. Wise family budgets guarantee that the family's basic daily needs for food and shelter are met. Then the family can plan for long-term needs. And after these needs are met, vacations and other non-essential items can be included. Families know that failing to budget for both immediate and long-term needs can risk financial disaster even bankruptcy. The same is true of the federal budget. Yet Republicans have chosen to purchase the country club membership, the extravagant cruise, and the high-priced sports car, while refusing to invest in educating the youth who will lead the nation and guide its economy in the next generation. Today's irresponsible Republican decisions on this budget jeopardize America's future. Two basic facts tell the whole sad story about how badly this budget treats education. First, it spends every penny of the total $2.7 trillion surplus that will be available over the next ten years, without providing even one penny of that surplus to improve education. Second, to add insult to injury, this GOP budget caps education funding at the amount needed only to maintain current services and then it applies heavy additional pressure to cut education funding even below the level of current services over the next ten years. In allocating the surplus, the only real Republican priority is to protect the GOP tax cut. As the conference report bluntly states, ``the Committee on Finance of the Senate shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill not later than May 18, 2001 that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce revenues'' by $1.25 trillion through the year 2011. This language requires a tax cut. It sets a date certain for the tax cut to be sent to the full Senate for a vote. It sets a specific amount for the tax cut. And it even protects the tax cut from a Senate filibuster--the ultimate protection for GOP tax cuts. Wouldn't it be nice if our Republican friends would give the same tender loving care to education that they give to tax cuts under their budget? Democrats support a tax cut. But it must be a responsible tax cut-- one that the Nation can afford, and one that is fair to all workers. But the tax cut supported in this budget flunks those tests. The GOP tax cut--so explicitly touted and protected in this budget--is irresponsible, excessive, unfair, and unaffordable. In addition to tax cuts, this GOP budget carves $66 billion out of the surplus to enable the Agriculture Committee to increase support for farmers. The GOP budget also adds special protections to increase spending on defense. Democrats support these priorities too and their inclusion in the conference report clearly demonstrates that Republican members of the House and Senate know how to write a priority into the budget when they want to. But they refuse to do so for education. Let's look at what the budget does say about education. Here it is: ``Sense of the Senate With Respect to Education Funding. It is the Sense of the Senate that this budget resolution makes available up to $6.2 billion in discretionary budget authority for funding domestic priorities. . . .'' As we all know, a Sense of the Senate provision has no binding legal effect on anyone. That is why Republicans did not use a Sense of the Senate to protect their tax cut. The language of this budget proves that Republicans know how to protect their priorities--it also proves that education is nowhere to be found in Republican priorities. All of the GOP education rhetoric rings hollow when you examine the GOP budget. The Republican leadership could easily have accepted the recent Senate vote on the Harkin amendment, to reduce the size of the tax cut by 20 percent, so that support for education could increase by $250 billion over the next 10 years. A responsible proposal like that would enable vital improvements to be made in education throughout America, while still leaving $1 trillion dollars for tax cuts. But no, said our Republican friends. They want every last penny for their tax cut, and they write specific language to force it into law. In addition, they added specific budget language that restricts education funding. The conference report itself specifically sets education discretionary funding at CBO's current services level, and then adjusts it for inflation for the next 10 years. These figures fail to account for the estimated increase in enrollment of 1.1 million new students, which the Department of Education expects between now and 2008. When this increase is taken into account, it is clear that Federal spending per student will actually decline under the Republican budget. With all the challenges facing schools and students today, Republicans intend to reduce Federal funding per student. The conference report goes even further, and directs a $5.5 billion cut next year in total nondefense discretionary spending--2 percent below the amount that the Congressional Budget Office says is needed to maintain current services next year. With all this downward pressure on overall domestic discretionary spending, any increased education investments will be difficult at best to achieve. We are already well aware of the difficulty in funding the small $1.8 billion increase that President Bush proposes for education next year. None of it comes from the surplus. Instead, Republicans expect it to come from cuts in other domestic programs, as I pointed out earlier. Those cuts include--$541 million from a range of job training programs, $20 million from the Early Learning Opportunities Act, $35 million from Pediatric Graduate Medical Education, $497 million from the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Fund, $156 million from renewable energy programs, $200 million from basic science research at NASA and the National Science Foundation, $270 million from disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and $270 million from Community Oriented Policing Services. All of these cuts are demanded under the Republican budget in exchange for a small increase in education. If the tax cut were trimmed by 20 percent, major resources in the range of $250 billion over the next decade such as the Harkin amendment that was approved by a bipartisan vote in the Senate a few weeks ago, would be available to vastly improve education throughout America, without requiring cuts in other essential services. America's school administrators, teachers, and State and local leaders all know the need for additional Federal investments in education. They are the ones today who cannot afford to hire additional qualified teachers in overcrowded school districts. They are the ones today who confront the social problems that arise when 7 million children are left alone after school each day. They are the ones who endure first-hand the crumbling school buildings. Countless business executives know the needs too. They are the ones who see young children enter school without being ready to learn. They are the ones who search in vain for qualified employees among graduates of many public schools. Across America, 12 million children live in poverty--but we provide the full range of title I Federal education services to only one in three of these children. The rest are left to fend for themselves, with the most inadequate teaching, the most inadequate attention, and the most inadequate facilities. Four of every 10 children in poverty are taught by teachers who lack an undergraduate major or minor degree in their primary field. Gym teachers are teaching math. English teachers are teaching physics. Because Federal title I funding is so deficient, needy children have more teachers' aides than teachers. The vast majority of teachers' aides never graduated from college. In all, at least 750,000 well- meaning but underqualified teachers are working in classrooms across America today. Nearly one in five first through third graders are attempting to learn in overcrowded classes of 25 or more students. In these cases, some students inevitably lose in the competition for essential teacher time. Entire classrooms suffer as well. Ask any teacher or student. Overcrowded classrooms undermine teaching for everyone. In addition, over 7 million latchkey children are left alone to fend for themselves after school each day, without constructive after school activities to keep them off the streets, out of gangs, and away from drugs and other dangerous behavior. Even though Head Start ranks as the public's favorite Government program, inadequate funding continues to deny Head Start to half of all eligible children. In the case of Early Head Start, 95 percent of eligible infants and toddlers are left out. Students with disabilities suffer from the same Federal neglect. The Federal Government has long promised to fund 40 percent of disability education. Yet it still only funds 17 percent. As a result, only one in six children with a disability obtains the needed Federal support. This afternoon, we have a release from the White House talking about the education program: The administration strongly opposes the costly and unwarranted amendment to convert special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to direct spending. Unwarranted. Tell that to the parents of disabled children. Tell that to local communities that are paying for these services. Unwarranted. Unwarranted against this tax program? Please. For years, States have called on the Federal Government to live up to its commitment to disabled students. Yet this Republican budget says no. Fourteen million children attend crumbling schools--schools with contaminated drinking water, heating and plumbing systems that do not work, falling tiles, broken windows, and soot-filled ventilation systems. Seven million children attend schools with severe safety code violations. Parents across the country are pleading for increased investments to meet these basic needs for modern facilities. But the Republican leadership says no, no, no. In all of these cases, our Republican colleagues say that ``money doesn't guarantee a quality education.'' What a preposterous response. Money may not guarantee quality education, but it is impossible to provide quality education in today's schools without substantial new investments. ``Reform'' without resources simply rearranges the deck chairs on the Education Titanic. Make no mistake. The Nation stands at a crossroads. It is long past time for Congress to make the investments that are so urgently needed in education, and we can do so by using less than ten percent of the $2.7 trillion budget surplus estimated over the next decade. Sadly, lipservice is all the Republican leadership gives to education. We have a unique opportunity to use the budget surplus to improve education, and we cannot afford to waste that opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote against this anti-education budget and send it back to conference so Congress can do the job that needs to be done and do it right. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is correct. The fact is, the poorest students--yes, poorest students--in America over the last few years have increased in terms of poverty, yet the budget includes nothing to address their needs. We expect a doubling in those attending school who speak foreign languages, yet we have nothing in this budget but current services; no increase. The total numbers of students are increasing, and we'll have a million more to educate by 2009. We will have a million more students that will come to school over the next 9 years whose interests aren't even being taken care of. This budget is a complete abdication of responsibility to students in this country. I wonder if I could have 10 minutes for to offer my prepared remarks for the consideration of my colleagues.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, the differences in proposed Elementary and Secondary Education Act increases.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my good friend from New Mexico in the Chamber, Senator Domenici. I saw, as well, my friend from the State of Texas in the Chamber. They were commenting earlier--particularly the Senator from Texas--about how this budget protects education. Well, it does not. We Democrats challenge the chairman of the Budget Committee or the Senator from Texas to take the budget here and show us where and how education is protected in this budget--because it is not protected. We will give you a very quick lesson on why the budget fails to protect education. First of all, let's take how this budget considered the tax breaks. It is very clear, on the top of page H1961 in the Congressional Record, in how it treats the tax cut. It says, ``the Senate Committee on Finance shall report a reconciliation bill'' which is to include their tax reduction of $1.25 trillion. The Finance Committee shall do it. Then we come over to the issue of defense on page H1962. And it says: ``Senate Defense Firewall.'' It says: ``for the nondefense category, $336,230,000,000 in new budget authority.'' That is less than current services. Still nothing on education. Written right here, H1962. Let's at least, when we are talking about this extremely important measure, get away from general rhetoric and let's look at the facts written in this budget. It says right up here on H1962 that you won't even have current services. Current services means the money needed to provide the same services the government provides today next year. It costs more to provide the same services because of inflation. We are not even going to get the current services level of funding for domestic discretionary spending under this budget. It is written right in here on H1962, but you need to look at the Congressional Budget Office report to know that current services in domestic discretionary spending will require $343 billion next year, in fiscal year 2002. Then we stay on the same page H1962 and go on to the third column. As a reserve fund for agriculture, it says the Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation for farmers by $66 billion. Well, then, let's go ahead and look in here on page H1964 and see what they say about education, when we have all of that written in here to set money aside for tax cuts and defense and agriculture. Now we come to education. If the Senator from Texas or the Senator from New Mexico can read the language of the report at H1964 and tell me where we have this increase in funding for education, I will be glad to wait here for all 10 hours to hear it. But we won't hear it. They can't get there because this is what it says: ``It is the sense of the Senate.'' No requirement, no mandate, no words like ``shall,'' or even ``may'' set aside specific funds. Instead, ``It is the sense of the Senate'' that the budget makes available ``up to $6.2 billion.'' ``Up to''--``up to.'' Come on. Please, please, for those who are going to support this budget, don't insult our intelligence by maintaining that this is any commitment even of $6 billion for education. It is not. Read the language. It is not there. Don't distort the facts. No new money is in this budget for education. If it is, answer where it is, because it isn't there. We have given you the references. We await the answers. We await the answers from the members of the Budget Committee. Money for education just isn't there. It is a sham. The commitment of the administration and the budgeteers is a sham when it talks about increasing education for the children of this country. It is a cliche. It is a shibboleth. It is nonexistent. This budget doesn't provide it. We wait to find out where it is. We wait to have it clarified. We wait for them to tell us how they claim it is in here. They won't be able to do it. The only increases they have provided in the last year come not from new money but come from the cuts in other programs. We heard Members here on the floor of the Senate talk about the increases last year in education. Wouldn't we be proud to have all this in education? You wouldn't be proud of it if you were a worker who needed job training and you had your job training resources cut $540 million next year alone. And you wouldn't be proud if you were a mother and your child needed early learning opportunities--you wouldn't be so proud of it. And you wouldn't be so proud of it if you were a young person trying to upgrade your skills to be trained as a pediatrician and to try to get some help for training so that we have the best doctors in the world to take care of our children. They slashed that program too, to pay for what they call a one-time ``increase'' in education. The list goes on--the slashing of clean water, the slashing of renewable energy, the slashing of the National Science Foundation, disaster relief, community policing. It adds up to, what, $1.8 billion, just to the level of new real dollars that the administration claims it will provide for education. Come on, please. Please, Budget Committee. Please don't insult our intelligence. You don't have a nickel in this program that is new money in terms of education. You just don't have it. The money you put in there you have taken from someplace else. You don't have it in the outer years, as we see the outer years. Here it is in the Education Department's own 2002 budget. You talk about it here on in the budget resolution as well. There will be no new education money in the outer years. It is very clear what it is, on page H1983, if you read through the ``Functions and Revenues'' paragraph on the first column. The budget plainly says, ``This report assumes that the 2002 discretionary function level grows by inflation.'' There it is. There it is, ``grows by inflation.'' That is all for education. It grows by inflation. That means zero increase in 2003, zero increase in 2004, zero increase in 2005, zero increase in 2006, zero in 2007, zero in 2008, zero in 2009, zero in 2010, and zero in 2011. That is in the Congressional Record on page H1983. There are others who may know this document better than I, but I'm just reading the words written in this budget. We have cited the relevant passages. This budget comes in the wake of actions of this body, in a bipartisan way, to provide $250 billion through the Harkin amendment. We look around here, we look around and say, the Harkin amendment? We were going to reduce the tax bill by $200 billion so that education could be realistically funded. Is there $200 billion in here for education? No. Is there $100 billion? No. Is there $50 billion in here? No. Is there $10 billion? No. The Senate voted, Republicans and Democrats, to reduce the tax cut by $250 billion and put that in education. Is there $5 billion in here? No. Here's what new money the budgeteers and the administration provide for education: Zero.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that the Presiding Officer be good enough to tell me when I have 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. KENNEDY. Please.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. There has been a special reservation of that proceeding.

Mr. KENNEDY. To move the process along, will the Senator object if we are able to dispose of the Wellstone amendment while the Senators are talking, with the recognition that the Senator from Kentucky would be next on the matter after the conclusion of the Wellstone amendment?

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming for sharing his good judgment and observation about education in rural areas, States with smaller populations, and about their particular needs and the challenges they are facing in terms of strengthening teacher quality in those communities. We are grateful for his comments. I add my strong support to the amendment offered by my good friend Senator Wellstone of Minnesota, making sure the tests that are developed under this legislation are going to be the kinds of tests that are going to be helpful and useful in terms of advancing the academic achievement of the children in this country. We know tests in and of themselves are not reform. Tests don't provide a well-qualified teacher. Tests don't provide smaller class sizes. Tests don't provide afterschool programs. Tests, in and of themselves, are a device and only a device. In Lancaster, PA, we have seen tests used as frequently as every 9 weeks by teachers. The purpose of those tests is to find out how the children are making progress in different courses. They have had a remarkable amount of success because they are broad dimensioned. They are challenging the thinking process of the children. It demonstrates that when the tests are done well, not just in the kinds of tests, the multiple choice tests, but ones that really evaluate the children's progress and look at the thinking process of the child, and then takes action, it is going to be supplementary services for those children in order to enhance their academic achievement, then there is legitimacy in terms of these kinds of evaluations. I commend the Senator from Minnesota for bringing this measure to the floor. This has been a matter, among others, that he has been absolutely passionate about. It is well deserved. What we don't want to do is pass legislation that claims we are doing something about accountability and are relying on the slick, simple, easy multiple choice tests which are being taught by teachers in different communities and then think we are doing something for children. We are not. That is something the Senator wants to address. There are some wonderful studies that have been done in evaluating what is working and what is not working in the States and local communities. The statement of the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development is a very interesting evaluation of the effectiveness of evaluating students, measuring student achievement. It reviews in great detail what is being done. They start off by saying that tests are a means, not an end, in school reform. Real educational improvement requires changing what goes on in classrooms. It continues from there. Perhaps one of the more interesting comments came from Education Week, which also has been doing evaluations of the testing process. I will mention a paragraph here: Districts must draft policies that rely on multiple criteria, including test scores, student's academic performance, and teacher recommendations. That is how they think you can do the best kinds of evaluation of a child. ``Initially I was resistant to the use of multiple criteria,'' acknowledges Gary Cook, director of the Office of Education Accountability in the State education department. This is in the State of Wisconsin. I have changed my opinion. I think it really forces districts to consider all the pieces of evidence in a student's performance to determine whether they should advance to the next grade or graduate. We need something more than just whether the child is going to be able to get the right answer or guess at the right answer. We need to evaluate how the children get to the answer. That is the essence of the Wellstone amendment. He has explained it very well. I know there are other colleagues who want to address the issue. I commend him. We have enough experience now to know what doesn't work and what is an abuse of the whole testing process and what does work and can be used in evaluating children's progress so that well-trained teachers in classrooms that are small enough so they can teach and can use these tests in ways to help children make progress during the year, understanding what the needs are of those children, and so they can continue to make progress. That is the essence of the Senator's amendment. He is right on target. It is one of the most important aspects of this legislation. This is one of the most important amendments we have. Many of us have been thinking about how to try to address it. The Senator from Minnesota has, in his typical way, found a pathway to do it. I commend him and thank him. This is an extraordinary addition to what we are attempting to do with the legislation. I am grateful to him for his bringing this to our attention. I am hopeful we will be able to achieve it. Let me mention one other evaluation. This is using these portfolio assessments. Here students collect what they have done over a period of time, not just because it is helpful to have all that material in one place but because the process of choosing what to include and deciding how long to evaluate becomes an opportunity for them to reflect on their past learning as well as to set new goals. As in other forms of performance assessment, they provide data far more meaningful than what would be learned from a conventional test, standardized or otherwise, about what the student can do and where they still need help. This is the conclusion of an evaluation of a number of the existing tests. It really captures in a few short words what is being sought by the Senator from Minnesota. I again thank him.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank our colleagues for remaining on the floor tonight and presenting their amendments. I think these are amendments that strengthen the legislation. I might mention, first of all, Senator Feinstein's amendment, which has been accepted. I think it adds an additional dimension to making sure the mentoring system would work well between senior teachers and newer teachers and will help all teachers be more effective in the classroom. The mentoring system has been enormously important, not only in enhancing education for children, but also in terms of retaining teachers. In many instances, the youngest, least experienced teachers teach in the most challenging classrooms, and 50% of those teachers leave teaching in the first five years. What we have also seen--and the statistics demonstrate--that when teachers have a mentor--pairing new teachers with a more senior teacher--those younger teachers develop teaching skills. They become better teachers. They feel more confident about their teaching, and their interest in staying in teaching is enhanced, and the students are the beneficiaries. That is certainly something that we want to encourage in this legislation, and I think the Feinstein amendment strengthens that particular proposal. I know when Senator Carnahan talked with us earlier about the amendment on professional development and about year-round schools and providing teaching specialists in reading in more schools, we saw--and I have referenced this earlier during the discussion and debate--the value of improved reading instruction in enhancing academic achievement. Today in the Washington Post, we read about the Prince Georges County Schools where the young children are reading for close to 90 minutes to 2 hours, and then spending a concentrated period of additional time on math. There is no question that spending more time reading has had a very positive impact. I have seen it in a number of other situations myself, and I think the Carnahan amendment gives important options on how to use resources in terms of hiring specialists in reading, and enhancing professional development. Then, there is also some allowable use in terms of the year-round schools. Experiments in year-round schools are being conducted in a number of different communities. Again, this legislation provides additional flexibility in the use of funds, while adding more accountability. I think Senator Carnahan has increased that kind of flexibility but still maintained the focus in terms of professional development. I think that is a very worthwhile use. Finally, I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of the Mikulski amendment. I have admired Senator Mikulski as the leader in the Senate on the issue of the digital divide. I think all of us are very mindful--it is one of the reasons that we are here--about the digital divide in our country. Senator Mikulski, from the beginning, has identified new technology as being as significant as an education tool, in terms of the numbers of opportunities that it opens up, or the numbers of opportunities that are closed down if children are not exposed to the Internet and to newer technologies. She has developed a very effective concept of these technology centers, which she has outlined. I visited the Computer Clubhouse in Boston last fall, which is one of the community technology centers in Boston. I met high school students who had attended the center for 3 years. They told me that coming to the Clubhouse had changed their lives. Because they had the positive experiences at the Center, they are planning to go to college and study math, science, or engineering. With the very small investment this amendment would provide, we could begin to put a technology center in every needy community in this country. Information technology is changing how we learn at an incredible rate. New resources are added to the Internet every day. Web pages are as common as fax machines and cell phones. We cannot wait for needy individuals to find their own way to get access to modern resources. We have a responsibility to get the necessary tools to the high poverty urban and rural communities, and community technology centers are one way to fulfill that responsibility. So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Finally, Massachusetts was, just several years ago, 48th out of 50 in terms of the Internet accessibility. It was really extraordinary, Mr. President. We have responded to the concept of a fellow named John Gage from Sun Systems in California, who developed this idea of ``Net Days''--that is, to challenge the new industries to donate computers to schools and challenge labor to put wire down in these areas and in schools. We did a number of these in my State on four different Net Days. On Net Day, we would announce the progress made in the last 6 months. We went from 48th to the top 20 percent of states with Internet access in the country. Boston is the first urban center that had complete Internet accessing and training of teachers--it is very impressive. I must say the generosity of the high-tech community was incredibly impressive to me. They were enormously responsive. So many of these companies are headed by young professionals and it was the first time they had been asked to do something. They welcomed the opportunity to be involved in their communities. Then we challenged labor. In the city of Boston, on a voluntary basis, we got 350 miles of cable laid by the IBEW in Boston. Many of their children are going to these schools. It was an incredible sight to see so many different workers volunteering on Saturdays to wire the schools. It was an incredible coming together, and there was a great sense of pride in the achievement. So, Mr. President, I think the Mikulski amendment will be an enormous force in helping to make sure that the access to the Internet, the technology, the curriculum, and the training of professional personnel will be effective. I know the Senator well; she will pursue this to make sure no child is left behind in the technology area. She is serious about closing the digital divide. I thank our colleagues here today. We have made some important progress. We are strongly committed to starting early tomorrow and working late tomorrow night. We want to have a full opportunity to address education issues, but we want to try to also move this process forward. I am very grateful for the patience and courtesy of our colleagues today in helping us to move the legislation forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. If we could ask unanimous consent to that order, and then I ask if I can be recognized after the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask consent she be recognized for that purpose. Then the Senator from California intends to introduce her amendment and speak briefly. After that, the Senator from Maryland, for whatever time she might use. After that, the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator Carnahan, as I understand, would like to address the Chair and introduce her amendment and set it aside. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is being very gracious. There, correctly, was not a consent agreement, but I think there was sort of a gentleperson's agreement to try to move the scheduling along. I think I will be here when the Senator speaks.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the Chair, I think when the leaders asked, there was a recognition that in order to move the process forward, Senator Voinovich, Senator Specter--I see the leader is here-- there was a recognition that Senator Feinstein was to speak briefly, Senator Mikulski--we have agreed to consider her amendment--and Senator Carnahan. I don't know whether consent was agreed to, but I think that was generally the thought.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to point out very clearly, we need fewer children in classrooms so that teachers can give each child the attention necessary for that child to succeed. Teachers need the mentoring and the professional development that we have in the legislation. Smaller class size is a tried and tested program. It is effective. We ought to have smaller classes and more opportunities for teachers to get the training that they need. That is what this amendment is really about. We should not forget the commitment that we made. We know what works. We know it has been effective. We believe that children are worth our investment. We believe the Murray amendment is the best way to get this job done. I yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly correct. It is a voluntary program. It will be available, with the Senator's amendment, to local communities that have crowding in their classrooms, as it has been in my own State of Massachusetts in a number of different communities with the same very positive results we have seen in other places. As the Senator remembers, we made a national commitment to hire 100,000 teachers. This is the amendment the Senator from Washington offered--100,000 teachers. We have, I believe, 37,000 of them, and some of them have already proven to be our best. At the time this was announced, as the Senator remembers, we had former Speaker of the House Gingrich. ``We said the local school board would make the decisions. No new Federal bureaucracy, no State, not a penny in the bill that was passed goes to pay for bureaucracy; all of it goes to pay for local school districts. . . .'' House Speaker Gingrich, the first time we passed the Murray amendment, called it a victory for the American people: ``There will be more teachers, and that is good for all Americans.'' As I remember, and as I read the amendment, I believe 99 percent of the funds go to the local district and the local district has the control. Am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I certainly will.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to add my strong support for the Murray Class Size amendment. I have listened with great interest and always have learned from my friend and colleague from the State of Washington when she proposes this amendment. It is a subject that is not new to the Senate. We have voted on this, and we have seen its implementation for a number of years and the success that it is having in schools across the country. I am always impressed by the fact that the Senator from Washington, who was a member of a school board and a great teacher, understands this issue and is able to address this issue from her personal experiences. We are so fortunate to have a Senator with that kind of experience proposing an amendment that can make an important difference in the education of children. I support this amendment, as I have in the past. We have tried in the legislation to find various programs that enhance the educational capabilities of children. It is true, as the Senator from Tennessee said, that there can be a local option as to whether schools, under the title II provisions, want to use the funds for smaller class sizes or professional development. It is my strong position we need both and we need a commitment in both areas. That is what this is about. We did enhance the resources for recruitment, enhanced training of teachers, continuing professional development, mentoring, and the development of additional professional skills dealing with the important areas of child growth and development and child psychology area. These are enormously important. If there is anything we have learned over the years, it is the power of well-qualified teachers with a good curriculum teaching in a class with a small number of students. I am not going to take the time of the Senate to go through the research base supporting reducing class size, but the studies are very clear. Both the Star studies that have been done in the State of Tennessee, and the Sage studies in the State of Wisconsin show that reducing class size has positive effects on student achievement and classroom behavior. I have traveled to the State of Wisconsin. I visited the classrooms. I heard the teachers. I talked with the parents. There has been dramatic and significant progress made in moving toward smaller class sizes. That has been true in the State of California as well. I will read from the California report on the results from the first 2 years of class-size reduction: California class-size reduction reports show that reducing class size improves student achievement. A study of the first 3 years of class-size reduction efforts in California shows that smaller classes have boosted student achievement in communities across the State for the second year in a row. It goes on: The evaluation shows those students in the most disadvantaged schools were most likely to be in larger classes or taught by less qualified teachers. Students in smaller classes outperformed their peers in larger classes even with less qualified teachers. These students could be performing even better if all the children in these schools had fully qualified teachers and smaller classes. That is what we want: smaller class size and better trained teachers. That is absolutely essential. The Murray amendment will authorize continued funding to create smaller classes, hire additional teachers and provide those teachers with the professional development that they need to help every child succeed. We will have the continued commitment to smaller class size. With a strong bipartisan vote this morning, we will have the resources to make sure the neediest children in this country have well-qualified teachers in the classrooms, and those teachers will be able to give every student the individual attention that they deserve. I am amazed at what the Senator from Washington was able to do with her amendment. It requires a simple one-page application. It will be available to any school district in the country. All they fill out is one page. Under the formula devised in the Senator's amendment, they will either qualify or not qualify. It does not take a lot of grant writing. The school districts will know very quickly the amount that they are entitled to and how many classes they are able to impact. That will help move the process forward. There is flexibility in the Murray amendment. If a school district reaches the smaller class size goal, it states in the amendment that they can use the resources for professional training for teachers. It is enormously important. Senator Murray has built in flexibility. If a school achieves a lower class size in grades one through three, and they have the additional resources, they can reduce class sizes in other grades. The flexibility is there. If they are able to do all of them and still have resources left, they can use them for teacher professional development. I want to use my last moments to bring a few things to the attention of my colleagues. First, we have the recent story on the achievement gains by the students of the Prince Georges County Schools reported in this morning's Washington Post. I point out the lead story: ``Pr. George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever.'' It says: Prince George's 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 yesterday. It gives the very encouraging results. The superintendent was asked about the factors in ensuring these kinds of results. She said: . . . as proof that the county is serious about improving academic achievement and that they would reward it with more funding to reduce class size and repair deteriorating buildings. This is what they have been able to do. Moving over to the jump page on A14, it talks about the importance of reading. That is in the BEST bill. We are in strong support of additional time for reading and math. We are all for that. It is in this bill. The superintendent also commented on the importance of reducing class size in the lower grades and placing more emphasis on training teachers. This is exactly what we are debating today. How many times do we have to see the same evidence before we learn this? We have the studies in Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California. I have a report from the Mississippi Department of Education. I will mention what a few of the teachers have found. I will also include other comments. This is from Suzanne Wooley: The drop in the student/teacher ratio within the first grade this year has been a really great tool in our ability to help our children. Because of fewer numbers of children, we have had practically no discipline problems. The children are more like a team and they expect the best from each other. This saves a great amount of our instructional time for actual instruction. My teacher's assistant and I are also better able to aid and instruct low-achieving students with their individual needs. We are giving much more time to the skills each student needs to work on. As a group, we are covering our ``core-skill'' material much more quickly and the children are ``catching on'' and learning the material more thoroughly. Kelly Blacklaw: This is the first year that I have taught first grade. However, I am accustomed to small groups, because I taught Title I Reading for three years. I taught kindergarten for one year prior to teaching Title I and had 30 students with an assistant. Comparing this year to that particular year, reduced class size has definitely been very beneficial for the progress of my students. I have been able to get to know my students better and much more quickly. I have been able to gain a great deal of insight into their backgrounds and their strengths and weaknesses. Ms. Simpson: Generally speaking, my class this year is quite low. Due to that fact, a smaller classroom size has been greatly appreciated. I am able to more effectively monitor the children's progress as I teach, and have found that more time is available to reinforce and practice important skills. They mention there was only one child who fell behind in reading. These go on and on. I do not know what more we have to do to convince our colleagues. We are not placing a mandate on any local district. All we are saying is we know this works and we hope communities will choose to embrace the idea of reducing class size.