Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The pending amendment is the Murray amendment; is that correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. That certainly is a proposal I could support. I will not offer that at this time, though.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague for making the agreement, and we will move ahead with the vote shortly. We are very hopeful of getting the process moving. There are currently about 70 amendments. Some are in the process of being worked through because they are under the jurisdiction of other committees. There are also many outstanding amendments which are related to this bill, that need to be called up. We are prepared, as we mentioned last Friday, to work toward the continuation of debate on these measures and final resolution. I know the Senator from Vermont said we are prepared to stay in this evening, tomorrow evening, and Thursday evening. We are going to have time to debate the Budget reconciliation that we will take up sometime this week. However, we are quite prepared to deal with these amendments. We urge colleagues to bring them up. I am absolutely amazed, quite frankly, that Members are not prepared to bring up their amendments. We have known this bill is going to be debated on the floor. We are prepared to deal with this legislation. I intend to ask our leaders on our side to request consent to establish a deadline for submitting amendments. We welcome our colleagues to submit amendments, and we want to try to have a full opportunity for discussion on these measures. It is about time we had good debate on this legislation. That is what I know my friend and colleague from Vermont is prepared to do. I am prepared to do that. I make the plea to my colleagues on this side of the aisle to address these measures and do it in a timely manner. We understand the priority that the budget has, and we have all been around here long enough to know that unless some deadlines are established, unfortunately, we are not going to complete our business. I will work with our side and with the majority leader to try to establish a process where we can move in a timely manner. I will be glad to yield for a moment, but I would like to address this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to move this process along, however I haven't spoken on this amendment. If anybody else wants to speak, there might be a few minutes in the morning. Understanding that we might be able to split that between Senator Murray and myself, I will not object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may we have order. The Senate is not in order, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank all of our Members for their presence and for their cooperation. We now have the Senator from Washington on an extremely important amendment. We hope the Senate will give careful attention to this amendment. This is one of the most important amendments we will have to this legislation. I am enormously grateful to the Senator from Washington for her leadership on smaller class size. I am sure she was reassured again today when we read the front page of the Washington Post and saw what was happening in Prince George's County. The test scores show the best gains. When the local Superintendent of schools was asked about the factors that were most important in making progress, she quickly indicated that smaller class size in the early grades was one of the most important aspects leading to the children's progress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Washington Post article be printed in the Record after Senator Murray's remarks. Senator Warner spoke to me and would like to join me in that request.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the very important features of this legislation is upgrading the skills of unqualified teachers who are teaching poor children and also making sure that new recruits are going to be qualified teachers. This legislation guarantees schools that have 50 percent poor children will have a qualified teacher in every classroom in 4 years. This amendment says that we should fully fund the $3 billion which is in the authorization to make sure all the teachers who are going to be teaching poor children are qualified. It says we ought to add $500 million each additional year, so that in the last year there will be a total of $6 billion a year in funding, necessary to provide continued professional development to every techer, every year in a high poverty classroom. There are 1,500,000 teachers who teach poor children; 750,000 are unqualified today. This amendment will ensure that we continually upgrade the skills of every one of them.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope the Craig amendment will be defeated. This is really putting the cart before the horse. If you adopt the Craig amendment, you are effectively saying there will not be any funding at all for the development of quality testing and accountability systems. President Bush has proposed a three-fold increase in three times the amount of reading funding. That will not be available for children if the Craig amendment is adopted. Effectively, this amendment undermines what President Bush has stated are his goals in terms of trying to get increased accountability, better testing, and increased support for education. That will all be prohibited under the Craig amendment. What we are trying to do is match resources to responsibility. That is the change in this whole bill. We are matching those two concepts. And that makes sense. But under the Craig amendment, you will be denying the President's program in increased reading and the President's program in terms of accountability. It puts the cart before the horse and makes no sense. I hope it will be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and International Security. The Under Secretary must be able to develop and shape arms control and disarmament policies in a way that helps the Nation to achieve these all-important goals for our country and our planet. It is this special responsibility of the Under Secretary to protect the United States by working to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As Senior Adviser to the President, the Under Secretary works with the Secretary of State and members of the National Security Council, leads the interagency policy process on nonproliferation, and manages global U.S. security policy. He is involved in defense cooperation, arms transfers and security assistance to our allies. He provides policy direction for the nonproliferation of nuclear missiles and fissile material. He has a primary role in the negotiation, ratification, verification, compliance, and implementation of agreements on strategic, non-conventional and conventional forces, regional security and military cooperation. His role is also to oversee implementation of the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and related legislation. The Bureaus of Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Political-Military Affairs and Verification and Compliance are under the policy oversight of the Under Secretary. The position carries enormous responsibilities, and I am not persuaded that Mr. Bolton has the vision and commitment to advance America's best interests, especially in arms control. Mr. Bolton has said that ``international treaties are `laws' purely for domestic purposes'' and in their ``international operation, they are simply political obligations.'' He has described treaties as useless, because they don't stop rogue states from doing what they seek and only restrain the U.S. from pursuing its own defense initiatives. Mr. Bolton has also been an outspoken critic of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, referring to the latter as an ``unenforceable treaty with illusory protections.'' Mr. Bolton praised the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the Senate. He called Americans who worried that nuclear proliferation would threaten international peace and security ``hysterical.'' He described the philosophy behind supporting a treaty that bans dangerous nuclear testing as ``profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous.'' The CTBT is an important part of our global non-proliferation efforts, and it has been endorsed by General John Shalikashvili. Earlier this year, General Shalikashvili, Special Advisor to the President on this treaty, stated in a letter to the President that ``there is no good reason to delay ratification of the CTBT'' and that `` the longer the U.S. delays, the more likely it is that other countries will move irrevocably to acquire nuclear weapons or significantly improve their current nuclear arsenal and the less likely it is that we could mobilize a strong international coalition against such activities.'' Yet Mr. Bolton has criticized the treaty for not providing ``adequate protections'' and ``hobbling the United States' ability to maintain the most important international guarantee of peace''--which is, in Mr. Bolton's view, ``a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' I also have serious reservations about Mr. Bolton's views on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In the years since the United States and the Soviet Union signed the ABM Treaty in 1972, it has been a major part of U.S. nuclear arms control policy. By ensuring that our nuclear arsenal remains an effective deterrent, the ABM Treaty prevented an escalating arms race with the Soviet Union and more recently with Russia. The treaty continues to bring significant stability to the U.S.-Russia nuclear partnership in the post-Cold War world. Mr. Bolton has contended that National Missile Defense should be one of the our primary considerations in dealing with proliferation and international security. But this view is in conflict with the Under Secretary's responsibility to protect our Nation against threats in a way that is consistent with our treaty obligations. Mr. Bolton's view that Russia will take advantage of any U.S. vulnerability could hinder essential and continued cooperation with that nation. I am concerned as well by Mr. Bolton's views on our relations with North Korea and China. Since 1996, the United States has embarked on a delicate negotiation with North Korea. The agreed framework has achieved renewed dialogue between North and South Korea, and could be the beginning of a serious effort to achieving an arms control agreement with North Korea. It has created an unprecedented opportunity for the U.S. and North Korea to work together. But Mr. Bolton has been outspoken in his opposition to the agreement, calling it an ``egregious mistake.'' Mr. Bolton has stated that normalizing relations with North Korea and the goals it would achieve are ``entirely in North Korea's interests, not ours.'' Clearly, efforts to stop the development of nuclear weapons in the Korean Peninsula are in the United States' interest. Yet Mr. Bolton has also called the agreed framework an ``unjustifiable propping up of the North Korean regime.'' I am concerned that Mr. Bolton presents himself as a nominee who will fundamentally change the objectives of his office from promoting treaties and arms control to urging a national agenda on missile defense. The policies he promotes could unnecessarily alienate our allies and undermine arms control and nonproliferation. Mr. Bolton has stated that ``the most important international guarantee of peace is a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' It would be a mistake to entrust the responsibility of achieving more effective arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament policies to someone who believes that international security is best maintained by continuing the nuclear arms race. I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's views on the United Nations. As Under Secretary, he would advise the President and the Secretary of State on policy decisions on U.S. security commitments worldwide and on arms transfers and security assistance policy and programs. He would need to work with the international community and the United Nations to meet these goals. Yet, in 1994, Mr. Bolton wrote starkly that ``there is no such thing as the United Nations.'' He has said that the majority of Congress and most Americans do not care about losing the U.S. vote in the General Assembly. Virtually every other nation in the world supports the United Nations and the United States should be dedicated to strengthening, not weakening, it. The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and International Security should work to strengthen our international treaties and our relations with other countries, not dismantle or destroy them. I am not convinced that Mr. Bolton is committed to these critical goals. His views do not represent a positive approach to key arms control issues, and I urge the Senate to oppose his nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Mr. Dodd.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier I briefly commented on the importance of having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom. We will be asking the Senate to vote for increased funding for that tomorrow. I hope those who are thinking about this amendment will review the excellent TIMSS 1999 eighth grade mathematics benchmarking report. These are findings for the United States and internationally. It is the leading authority of what is happening in classrooms in mathematics in the United States. It states clearly on page 7: Research shows that higher achievement in mathematics is associated with teachers having a bachelor's and/or master's degree in mathematics. According to their teachers, however, U.S. eighth-grade students were less likely than those in other countries to be taught mathematics by teachers with a major area of study in mathematics. It goes on to say: The Benchmarking Study provides evidence that some schools in the U.S. are among the best in the world, but that a world-class education is not available to all children across the nation. The TIMSS index of home educational resources (based on books in the home, availability of study aids, and parents' education level) shows that students with more home resources have higher mathematics achievement. Futhermore, the Benchmarking jurisdictions with the greatest percentages of students with high levels of home resources were among the top-performing jurisdictions, and those with the lowest achievement were four urban districts that also had the lowest percentages of students with high levels of home resources. These and other TIMSS 1999 Benchmarking results support research indicating that students in urban districts with a high proportion of low- income families and minorities often attend schools with fewer resources than in non-urban districts, including less experienced teachers, fewer appropriate instructional materials, more emphasis on lower-level content, less access to gifted and talented programs, higher absenteeism, more inadequate buildings, and more discipline problems. What have we done with our legislation? I mentioned the other day, a point of reference about the excellent book ``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future,'' the report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, September of 1996. Hopefully, people following these issues in the debate will take a few moments and read through this compelling report. It is an excellent document. This, along with the hearings we had and the representations from Secretary Paige and the administration, gave very good structure for strengthening our Nation's teaching force. We have 750,000 teachers who do not have degrees in the subject matter they are teaching. This is how we try to address that. Part A of BEST will ensure there are more highly qualified teachers in the neediest schools because more teachers have access to high- quality professional development. We have a strong definition for a qualified teacher. All highly qualified teachers are teachers who have an academic major in the arts and science or have demonstrated competence through a high level of performance in core academic standards and are certified or licensed by the State. That is a very strong criteria to be met. We are going to insist on having a high standard and high quality teacher teaching the children. The BEST Act ensures that professional development and mentoring activities are research-based and high quality. Mentoring support for teachers is absolutely essential and key. The continued development for teachers in terms of professional development is important. We require professional development activities as an integral part of the broad school-wide and district-wide educational improvement plans. We make sure that it is intensive, sustained, and school-based. Those are the elements of effective professional development programs. They have to be intensive. We cannot have just 1 day, 2 days, a few days at the end of the year or a few days at the beginning of the year. They have to be sustained, intensive, school-based, of high quality and sufficient duration to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction. Too often we have the one-time workshops based on the best research designed to help teachers continue to improve the practice of teaching and developing instructional skills. The BEST Act ensures that professional development activities are aligned with State content standards, student performance standards assessment, and the curriculum and programs are tied to those standards at the local level. That is the key. One of most important aspects of school success is the presence of highly qualified, highly competent teachers working in the development of a curriculum, teaching the curriculum, and the students are then examined on that curriculum, finding out what the student does not know, providing the supplementary services available. That is as clearly stated in the legislation as we could. This is very important and is one of the most important parts of the bill. It guarantees funds for professional development and mentoring. To date, we have not been guaranteeing the funds for professional development. The BEST Act moves to ensure that all teachers in schools with 50 percent of poverty or higher are highly qualified in 4 years. I welcome that language. That is putting a challenge to the Congress: Are we going to provide the resources to make sure we have the highly qualified teacher that will teach in these urban areas or rural areas, where we have the high percentage of needy children? We are committing ourselves. If we are going to commit ourselves to getting well-trained teachers, we have to provide the resources. That is what this amendment does. It holds all States accountable for ensuring all teachers are qualified, and if we hold the States accountable, we have to provide the resources and require States to provide assistance to teachers in schools. It ensures teachers receive professional development to help students reach higher standards. Requiring professional development helps all students, including those diverse racial and ethnic students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, meet higher standards. The States are required to set the performance goals that include the annual increase and the percentage of highly qualified teachers that schools with 50 percent of poverty or more are highly qualified within 4 years. The States have to set their goals and know at the beginning of this walk that we are going to walk the walk with them, that we will provide the resources. How do we expect the States to accept this responsibility if we are not going to provide the resources? We expect in their plan that the States are going to have to have accountability as well. States that do not meet this goal in 4 years will lose 15 percent of their administrative funds and risk increased sanctions in the following years. We are asking everyone to be responsible and to be accountable. We are asking the States, the schools, and the students to be accountable. The last question is whether we are going to be responsible. The way we are going to be responsible is supporting this amendment which will, hopefully, establish the guideposts for sufficient funds for the training of teachers and professional development. My amendment effectively is a sense of the Senate that the Congress should appropriate the $3 billion authorized in the BEST Act for improving teacher quality, and authorizes a $500 million increase per year for the subsequent 6 years, 2003 to 2008. I hope this amendment receives a strong bipartisan vote in the morning. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these amendments are two very worthwhile amendments with which this body is familiar, and with the excellent presentation we will be hearing and have heard from the Senator from Washington about the importance of class size. As a former school board member and first grade teacher, she makes a case that is irrefutable. We are looking forward to at least some support on the other side. I can remember the first year it was accepted, Speaker Newt Gingrich went out and gave a positive statement how Republicans had supported this very important breakthrough in education, smaller class size. Subsequently, we haven't been able to get quite the breadth of support on that side of the aisle. Now that this has been in effect for a number of years and is working in a number of the States and we are seeing important, significant, and positive results, hopefully we will have support for it. Senator Mikulski is our leader in the Senate in terms of the digital divide. We have seen in our society where education has been a divide, and we are committed to making sure that this piece of legislation isn't going to further that divide. We want to make sure, with this new phenomenon and new technology in terms of the Internet and the high technology, that we are not having another phenomenon that comes into our society and impacts our society between the haves and have-nots. Senator Mikulski has been the leading voice. These community technology centers have made an enormous difference in reducing that disparity. I know she will speak very eloquently about that shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Mikulski on community technology centers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Murray and ask that it be temporarily set aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the opportunity to be back on this extremely important piece of legislation on which many of us, on both sides of the aisle, have worked on these past weeks. With the leadership of President Bush, we have made every kind of effort, because of the importance of education, to try to find common ground. We remember very well the debates and discussions we had a little over a year ago when we were at such odds and unable to move ahead with the reauthorization bill. The other side wanted to abolish the Department of Education. How far we have come. Now we are together with a unanimous vote out of our Committee to move this reauthorization bill forward, although there are those who still have some concerns about the legislation they have spoken to in these past days and will speak to as we continue to debate this legislation over the course of this week and I expect coming into next week as well. We all understand this legislation is really about our future. It is called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but it really is a recognition that we have 20 percent of our children in this country living in poverty and about 50 percent of those are eligible for coverage by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are trying to bring some focus and attention to these children in their early years so they will be able to be a part of the great American dream. We recognize if they do not get off to a Head Start or Early Start or Smart Start, and they are not qualified when they go to school, not able to learn, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to go through the education system and continue to develop skills in college or afterwards, or in alternative training programs, and be a part of a new economy in the United States and throughout the world. All of us understand that in many respects, of all the things we are going to do this year, this debate will say more about what kind of country we are going to be in 10 or 15 years than anything else we do. This debate is about the future. This is about our children. This is about the seriousness with which we, at this time in American history, are prepared to invest in those children to give them the opportunity to be a part of our society. We cannot knock down all the walls of unfairness in our society, but one thing we know for sure: If a child does not start off with the ability to learn and is not challenged in those early years of education, it is difficult to believe they will be equipped to play a meaningful role in our society. In many respects this is a defining issue. It is a defining value of our country. Do we really believe in equality for our people? All Americans understand the very special role of public education in our society and what a difference it has made to our greatness as nation. We, in each generation, have to find ways to make sure that playing field is going to be fair and equal and that those children who will be coming up all across this Nation, and their families, can have confidence in our public school system. That ought to be generally applicable for children from homes of every income, but we all understand children who come from economically challenged situations are facing additional problems. We have tried to work together on these challenges. We have legislation that reflects the best judgment of those on the other side of the aisle as well as this side of the aisle. We are prepared to see this legislation move forward. As we go through this week, we will consider changes on the legislation, but we are prepared to see this legislation move forward. It has important provisions on accountability. It has accountability for schools, it has accountability for parents, it has accountability for children. It provides some resources to make those services available. But if there is one overwhelming flaw in this legislation--and it is an overwhelming flaw--it is that after all is said and done about the importance of this legislation, we are failing to give the life to the legislation which it is capable of providing to so many of the children because we are not providing the services contemplated in this legislation to all the children who need it. We will not be providing the services to the children, about which those who talk about this legislation too frequently and glibly talk. We have to provide support for needy children. We have to do it by providing resources. You cannot have education on the cheap. You cannot have an education budget that is a tin cup budget. We have to invest in our children. That is what this debate is about, investing in our children. It is important for the country, as we are debating these issues, to understand exactly what we have done and what we have not done. The good news is that the Senate, in a bipartisan way last Friday, with the strong bipartisan leadership from Senators Harkin and Hagel, agreed to ensure that the Federal Government is going to meet its responsibilities to local communities and, most important, to disabled children in our communities. What a help that is going to be for millions of children. Full IDEA funding necessary will be available for children with disabilities. That is the guarantee that was made more than 25 years and never lived up to. Only a third of full funding was provided. Now we will be able to help every child with a disability. In a very positive way in another very important bipartisan effort, Senator Dodd and Senator Collins made the compelling case that if we are going to provide assistance to needy children under the Title I program, then we ought to provide it to every needy child. We have been unable to get a similar commitment from the administration, from the President of the United States, on the funding of the Title I program. The initiatives provided by the President are inadequate to even get to 50 percent of the children, let alone 100 percent of the children, even though in the underlying legislation we effectively promise a fair chance at proficiency to all children, under the Title I program. That is enormously troublesome. If we do not provide the funding, which we are strongly committed to on this side of the aisle--and with notable recognition of a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have supported those efforts--then, frankly, this legislation may become just a cliche. It will be just a cliche for two- thirds of the children who are eligible for Title I, but who do not receive full services. Someone watching this debate over recent times must wonder what happened here in the Senate. If they watched the debate on the budget a few weeks ago, they saw the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, talk about having some $250 billion of tax reductions that would go to support increased education funding. That passed overwhelmingly. I think that was a very clear indication about the priorities in the Senate and the priorities across this country. We are taking less than 10 percent of the tax break, which has a great percentage going to the wealthiest individuals, and saying, let's fund the Early Start Program, the Smart Start Program, and the Head Start Program. Head Start is only funded at a 40 to 45 percent level, and in some of the poorest areas of this country, only 25 percent of eligible children can be served because of inadequate funding. These are eligible children about which we are talking. Their parents want them to be able to get the Head Start Program. And they are told, no. Why? Because we are making a judgment in this body that the reduction in the tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals ought to have a preference over children who are in some of the most challenging and difficult circumstances. Under the Harkin amendment, we effectively have full funding for the Head Start Program. We would have substantial funding increases in the Title I program. We would provide more help and assistance under the Pell Grant program for children who are academically gifted and talented, but don't have the resources to afford colleges. The Harkin amendment was a real indication of our Nation's priorities. What happened to it? We will see on the budget bill that comes back from the House of Representatives. We can ask ourselves: Did the Republican leadership consider the vote on the floor of the Senate of $250 billion for education? Did they include $200 billion? No, they didn't include $200 billion. Did they include $150 billion? No, they didn't include $150 billion. Did they have $100 billion? No. Fifty billion dollars? No. Twenty-five billion dollars? No. Five billion dollars? No. Zero, Mr. President; zero. That comes directly from the White House. We wouldn't have that unless the White House had given those instructions. Republican leadership and the White House--zero for education funding increases. We have had debates about money isn't everything. We have had it said that money is not going to solve all of these problems. We are going to have a modest increase in terms of the budget over future years. Next year it is going to be an increase of 5 percent on the budget. That was interesting to me because we have seen what has been the increase in education over the period of the last 5 years. It has gone up 12.8 percent a year in the last 5 years at a time even when we had sizable deficits--12.8 percent in the last 5 years. Now we have a new sense and a new administration that says education is a top priority important? And what is their increase for the next year? Their figure is 3.6 percent for 2002. How did we get that amount of money? That amounts to $1.8 billion. That is $1.8 billion they didn't have last year. Where did they get the $1.8 billion? It might be of some interest the Republican budget cuts job training by $541 million. The job training program is the result of a bipartisan effort that Senator Jeffords was a part of, led by Senator Kassebaum, myself, and others, in order to consolidate 126 job training programs into 12 different agencies with one-stop shopping. It had the broad support from the trade union movement and from the business community. It is to try to continue skilled training for workers who need it. No. No. We need $1.8 billion in education. We take $541 million out of job training. Early learning opportunities--this is, again, a bipartisan program. Senator Jeffords and Senator Stevens were very involved in that; my colleagues, Senators Dodd and Kerry, very much involved in this, with perhaps a very small appropriations. That is with the recognition that study after study says that ages 1 to 3 are enormously important for children, and the early interventions from the ages of 1 to 3 to give support to children prior to the time they are even thinking about going to Head Start. That was all zeroed out in the Republican budget. Pediatric graduate medical education cut. $35 million to train who? Pediatricians. Who do they care for? Children. Yes. They got a cut. They should have gotten an increase, because that has been one aspect of medical training of professionals that has gotten no help until recent years. I applaud the previous administration in recognizing that. I want to make sure we are going to have the best pediatric specialists in the world to take care of our children. We have taken $35 million from the EPA clean water fund; $497 million from renewable energy; $156 million from the National Science Foundation; and $200 million from the National Science Foundation. Talking about math and science, on the one hand, the National Science Foundation is supposed to be trying to help develop national policies to help our country deal with math and science. We are taking $200 million out of that. FEMA disaster relief cut $270 million; community policing cut $270 million. They are cutting all of those programs and putting them up for the increase in the education next year. This is not the kind of endorsement for education that I think most of the American people were expecting when we heard during the President's campaign that education is a top priority. Let's look at the out years of the Republican budget. If we pass this budget, this budget has a zero increase in 2003, a zero increase in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 in the area of education. Zero. What are we supposed to believe? I was absolutely startled when I saw that. I thought, well, maybe they are not going to give us all the money we need in order to cover all Title I children. But at least they will do it a little bit--maybe not as fast as I would like to do it, or virtually everyone on this side of the aisle wants to do it. Every Democrat has supported our proposal to provide Title I services to every eligible child within a 5-year period. We are unanimous on that. But, no, the Republican budget provides zero in fiscal year 2003, and zero every single year, all the way out for the life of their ten year budget bill. Nothing is in there in terms of the poorest of the poor children-- zero, nothing; nothing in there for any expansion of the Pell grants. Nothing is in there in terms of expansion of Head Start. Nothing is in there in terms of children with disabilities. But there is plenty--$1.2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. How many times do we have to come back to the Senate and say, no, that isn't where the American people are. We are in a bipartisan saying, no. Education is the key. Education should be our top budget priority. But around here, you find out that this is what talks. Money may not be the answer to all the problems in education, but it is a clear indication of where a nation's priorities are. It is as simple as that. You will hear from many friends over here that money doesn't solve problems. You keep adding money they say, and too often children still will not make progress. Well, money is not going to solve all of our education problems. But when you follow the money, you can see where a nation's priorities are, and where they are prepared to invest in terms of the future. This is a shocking budget that absolutely fails the children in this country. I hope this will be defeated on that basis and that basis alone. Many of our colleagues, hopefully, are not going to have it both ways--vote for increases on the floor of the Senate, and then vote on the budget for irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy. You have my vote on the Senate floor: That is how I stand on education. Here is my vote. And you have my vote on the budget. That shows how I stand on taxes. I can remember very well a true story from when I first came to the Senate. In my first week in the Senate, I listened to my colleague, Willis Robertson, a Senator from Virginia. He gave an impassioned plea in favor of an issue. When the time came to vote, he voted in opposition to it. I said: Willis, you gave a speech in favor on the floor, and I supported it. He said: In my State on this issue the people are evenly divided. For those who favor it, I send my speech. For those who oppose it, I send my vote. That was 40 years ago. I hope we are not going to see that again. People laugh about it--and they should laugh about it--but it will be a sad thing if that is what Senators do on education this year. What are we trying to do on investing? This is what we have been trying to do with children who have disabilities. Under the Republican budget, their proposal will cover 825,000 children this year, and it will be the same number 10 years from now. It will be different children, but it will be the same total: 825,000 children--no increase. Under the Democratic proposal, we are raising that up to cover the 5.5 million. We are saying that no child with a disability should be left behind. We want our President to join us. We do not want him on the outside of this debate. We want him to join us. We want him to lead the bipartisan effort in the Senate and the bipartisan effort across the country. We want him out in front on this. But if you are going to get out in front, you are going to have to support the kind of investments about which we have been talking. Low-income children: We have about 10.3 million children who are eligible for Title I. Under the administration's budget, for the next fiscal year there will be 3.7 million covered; and in fiscal year 2011, the same 3.7 million children. There will be no increase whatsoever. We increase it--almost double it--next year under the Dodd-Collins amendment; and then we phase in and reach the whole 10.3 million children by fiscal year 2011. We get the greatest bulk of those children covered within 5 years from now. I think it is the appropriate way to do it. I would like to do it even somewhat faster, but we were able to have an overwhelming vote, in excess of two-thirds of the Members, for that Dodd-Collins commitment. We see how the Republican budget shortchanges children in another area: limited-English-proficient children. In this country, we are benefitting in so many different ways from those who come from different cultures and different traditions. The children are trying to make their way through our school systems. We find in the Republican proposal, 699,000 children are provided help in 2002. The same number of children, 699,000, are covered in 2011. In 2002, we ramp it up to 1.5 million children; and by 2011, serve all 2.6 million limited English proficient children. I want to mention one of the important areas we will be voting on tomorrow, and that is in relation to professional development. We have 750,000 teachers teaching poor children who are hard working, decent, wonderful people, but do not have all of the background and competency in the areas in which they are teaching. They need additional training. This is aside from the continuation of professional development, an ongoing responsibility. In the legislation, we say in 4 years that half of all the children in Title I will have well-qualified teachers, but we do not provide the resources for it. So we have pending an amendment that I and others have offered to make sure we are going to be able to reach those 750,000 teachers. How are we going to expect children to take tests and measure up on the tests when they are not going to have teachers who can teach their subject matter properly? It just does not make a great deal of sense. You have to have a well-qualified teacher. We know there is $137 billion of need out there in terms of school repairs. We do not expect the Federal Government to pick up all of the cost, but we ought to be able to at least do our part. The Harkin amendment, which provides $1.6 billion this year, is a good departure point, but it is not in the underlying bill. I wish it were. If I had drafted it, it would be in the bill. There are others who did not want it in the bill, but we are going to see an amendment from the Senator from Iowa to try to make sure we are going to provide the construction. There is nothing in this Republican budget for school repair. We believe there should be a modest school construction amendment. After-school opportunities: There are 7 million children between the ages of 8 and 13 who go home alone every single day. As this body knows, if you take out the various charts, you can show the increased escalation in terms of violence in society from children getting into trouble and also the increase in contact with alcoholism and antisocial behavior. We know the important role that after-school programs play in connection with schools and educational centers to provide an atmosphere where children can receive additional kinds of help and assistance in the afternoon. The Boys and Girls Clubs are excellent examples such as in my own city of Boston. We know the difference they make. In the Republican proposal, there are only 1.1 million children who get assistance in 2002; and in fiscal year 2011, there will still be only 1.1 million children who get assistance. Under our proposal, 1.5 million children will get assistance in 2002--a very small increase, but we are going in the right direction--and then afterschool programs would be available to virtually all latch-key children. We would be developing the afterschool program and have good teachers, good mentoring, and doing something about the school construction, and having support for the early interventions with children, good funding for the Head Start Programs, the consolidation of the computers, and doing something about the curriculum, and then the accountability, finding out what the children don't know, and giving the help in the supplementary services to those children so they can make progress. We would give help, making these programs available to them afterwards; not using tests as punishment, but using them as ways for educators to understand where these children are falling out and falling behind. It is a pretty good check on some of the schools as well to find out which schools are working and getting that information back to the parents so the parents understand what is going on and can tell which schools are working. Then they can do some things about it. This is what we are talking about. I am enormously distressed about what we are looking at in this budget that has been proposed. We want to make it crystal clear that we are going to continue to battle during this authorization for investments in children. I am hopeful we can resist this budget when it comes, but if we do not, we are going to have the tax program coming in several weeks and we will have an opportunity again to battle to make education a priority in this nation's budget. We know we have people in this body who are prepared to support us. We are putting this Congress, this President, on notice that this fight will not end until we make funding education a top priority. We are either going to get the commitment from the Administration that they are going to fund education or we are going to be back here when the specifics of the tax program are debated. We are going to come back when the Appropriations bills come out. I have been around here enough to know how important the budget can be and not be when it comes to the will of the Senate. We are going to be right back here on the appropriations. This is going to be a long, continuing, ongoing battle and one in which I am absolutely convinced we will be successful. We are just expressing the sense of the American people. Mr. President, at this time I would like to offer two amendments and ask unanimous consent to set them aside.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this legislation is focused on ensuring that there is a well-trained teacher in every classroom for all of the children. This amendment is also about providing teachers with opportunities for mentorship and other support services to create successful pathways toward academic achievement and accomplishment. The BEST Act currently authorizes $3 billion professional development in the first fiscal year covered by the bill. The current authorization includes $1.6 billion previously authorized for class-size reduction, and about $500 million for the Eisenhower math-science professional development program. What we are saying in this amendment is that we should give teacher training a special priority in future years as well. The amendment provides for a modest increase of $500 million more in authorized funding levels in each of the following years, for the next 6 years. This is a 7-year authorization bill. Title II, Part A will be used to support qualifying teachers, attract new teachers, and provide mentors for new teachers. That is what this amendment is about. At the end of the 7 years, we will have well-qualified teachers in virtually every high poverty classroom. Under current law, we would reach less than half that many in 7 years. Having a qualified teacher in every classroom is the key to educational success. My friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, mentioned four or five factors this morning that really strengthen education. Well-qualified teachers was one of those factors. Many believe it is most important. It is difficult to make a judgment about the most important factor influencing achievement, but quality teaching certainly, without question, is one of the most important. Under current law, there is high-quality professional development for less than 5 percent of the Nation's teachers, approximately, 100,000 out of the current 2.8 million. There are more than 750,000 teachers in the high-poverty schools who do not have undergraduate degrees in their primary instruction. This amendment provides an increased authorization for professional development for every teacher in high- poverty schools. It would positively impact virtually 50 percent of all teachers. In the first year alone, it would provide subject matter training to about 187,000 teachers in high poverty schools who do not have an undergraduate degree in their primary instructional field. With the additional funding in the second year, we will get another quarter of the 750,000. We will not only do that, but we will also make sure that we provide mentoring support for 125,000 new teachers. That is what we need--quality training for current teachers, mentors for new teachers, and continued and ongoing professional development. That is the way you ensure the atmosphere and the climate for learning. That is what we find in almost every study that has been done. I hope those who are interested in this subject matter take a few moments to review this excellent report, ``What Matters Most, Teaching for America's Future.'' It was published in 1996. It is the document recognized as the leading authority in terms of what is necessary in the classroom to help a child learn. I will take a few moments to mention a few of the observations. This is on page 41. Most U.S. teachers have almost no time to consult together or learn about new teaching strategies, unlike their peers in many European and Asian countries where teachers have substantial time to plan and study with one another. In Germany, Japan, and China, for example, teachers spend between 15 and 20 hours per week working with colleagues on developing curriculum, counseling students, and pursuing their own learning. They regularly visit and serve other school classrooms and attend seminars provided by university faculty and other teachers, conduct group research projects, and participate in teacher-led study groups. The result is a rich environment for continuous learning about teaching and the needs of students. Instead of these ongoing learning opportunities, American teachers get a few brief workshops offering packaged programs from outside consultants and that contribute little to deepening their subject knowledge or teaching skills. I couldn't say it better than that. We are trying to change that. What about the importance of mentoring? The weight of accumulated evidence clearly shows that traditional sink-or-swim induction to teaching contributes to high attrition and lower levels of teacher effectiveness. Sink or swim, put a new teacher with no seniority in the toughest class in America, and they don't last. Forty percent leave in the first 2 years. You put that teacher in the class with an experienced teacher and mentor a young teacher, and you find that you reduce the number of teachers that leave the profession by about 80 percent. Supervised internships or residencies regularly provided for new entrants in other professions, such as architects, psychologists, nurses, doctors, and engineers, are rare in teaching, but they have proven to be quite effective where they exist. Some States have created programs for new teacher induction. Few have maintained the commitment required. With few exceptions, initiatives during the 1980s focused on evaluation and failed to fund mentoring programs. Again, the problem is not that we do not know how to support beginning teachers. The problem is that we have not yet developed the commitment to do so routinely. We know what is necessary and what is needed. Again, work in the classroom, getting the well-trained teachers, getting the mentoring and doing it in a continuous way is absolutely key. I again point out from this study, in addition, that investing in targeted recruitment preparation for teachers for high-need locations is a national need. That is why we believe we have a responsibility to move ahead in this area. I will not take additional time in terms of the justification. It is all here in a very compelling way. I say one additional thing about this at this time. We want to make sure in the legislation, in title II part A, that we set a strong definition for all qualified teachers who have an academic major in the arts and sciences, develop competence in a high-level of in-core academic subjects, and are certified and licensed by the States. My amendment ensures that professional development and mentoring activities are research-based and of high quality. It requires professional development activities be an integral part of broad, school-wide improvement plans, are sustained, and of such high quality and sufficient duration to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction. My amendment does not promote the one-time workshops we have now but what the best available research tells us. My amendment promotes mentoring activities that are multi-year and designed to help teachers continue to improve their practice of teaching and develop their instructional skills. It ensures that professional development activities are aligned with State content standards, student performance standards, assessment, and the curriculum of programs tied to those standards. We are trying to get well-qualified teachers in the classroom. We are promoting a high-grade curriculum, tests that are not going to be a quick, slick, or easy multiple-choice test, but a test that is really going to test the ability of the child to think through complex problems in math, science, literature, and be able to express them by writing in these areas. We need all of these reforms. We need thoughtful tests that challenge children. We need strengthened curricula, and we need quality teaching. We require in this legislation that all teachers in schools with 50 percent of poverty or higher are highly qualified in 4 years. I don't believe, quite frankly, under the bill that we can achieve that with the resources provided. I think the additional funding that we provide in this amendment will move us on a pathway to being able to achieve that. Then we move ahead to the other parts. Finally, I hope the Senate will not accept the Craig amendment that is before us. It would effectively undermine in a very significant and important way what we are really attempting to do. The Craig amendment is the wrong approach to improving education. The Craig amendment tells already failing schools that they have to improve achievement before receiving the additional resources. That is a recipe for failure. The schools and children failing need additional resources in order to achieve the heightened standards we are demanding of them in this legislation. Mr. President, we have a strong blueprint. We know that once this legislation is achieved it will trigger school improvement. And we have the ability to do so. For my money, we have a greater demand than there are the resources. But we have the ability to do so. If we are not going to be able to show results by the range of different support that is available under this legislation, we will have a prescription for disaster in terms of addressing the real needs of children. It is counterintuitive to say to children that we are not going to give you what you know you need until you make progress. So we will have a chance, I imagine, when the Senator from Idaho is present to get into greater debate. But it does seem to me that his amendment runs in conflict with the central thrust of this legislation. I hope the amendment is not adopted. I thank the Chair.