Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I ask the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. KENNEDY. On the education budget, I want to emphasize something that is enormously important and to which the American people must pay attention: this budget conference agreement, which arrived at 2 a.m. this morning, includes an outline of what will be invested in education over the next 10 years. This is the budget that has the support of some Republicans in Congress and the administration. If we look at education and what the funding will be over the next 10 years, I hope our Members will look at the part of the budget--the reference is H1867, in yesterday's Congressional Record from the House. Look at the figures there. Fiscal year 2001, budget authority of $76.9 billion, outlays of $69.850 billion; then for 2002, $81.234 billion in budget authority, $76.742 billion in outlays: that is about a 5-percent real increase after adjusting for inflation. The Department of Education's FY 2002 Budget Summary confirms, on page 2: ``The President is requesting $44.5 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2002, . . . an increase of $2.5 billion or 5.9 percent over the 2001 program level.'' Fiscal year 2003, the outlays go from $76 billion to $81 billion. Fiscal years 2004 to 2005, it goes from $81 billion to $83 billion; 2005, it goes from $83 billion to $85 billion; 2006, $87 billion; 2007, $89 billion; 2008, $92 billion; 2009, $94 billion; 2010, $96 billion; 2011, $99 billion. Flat funding for education for the next 10 years after accounting for inflation. This is the guidepost for educational funding for the next 10 years. Flat funding. No increase. With respect to the priorities for this country, how do we reach the recognition that education is the No. 1 priority for this country when the administration and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate have said no increase; none whatsoever. Flat funding in the area of education, not for next year or the year after, but flat funding over every one of the remaining 8 years of this decade, that is the guidepost in this budget proposal. That is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. President. Unacceptable. How are we going to explain it? When are we going to hear the explanation from the budgeteers? What happened to the Senate vote on the Harkin amendment where, in a bipartisan way, the Senate voted to increase education investments by $250 billion over the next ten years. We wanted funding for Title I. We wanted funding for the Head Start Program. We wanted funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program. We still want to fund an investment in children. Why? Because they are our future. We know if we do not invest in our children, they are not going to be able to fully participate in our society, in our economy, and be productive and creative members of society. That is what this debate is all about. There is no issue that comes before us that more defines what we are about as a society than whether we are going to have a strong educational system. What is Republicans' real message? On the one hand, we hear education is the No. 1 priority. Yet here's the budget, Mr. President, funding over the next 10 years. This is absolutely shocking. It certainly does not reflect the opinion of the Senate when yesterday the Senate responded to the superb amendment that was offered by Senator Hagel, a Republican, Senator Harkin, a Democrat, dealing with special needs of children and recognizing we made a commitment to the States that we were going to provide 40 percent of funding for special education. We are at about 15, 17 percent of the funding now. Yesterday, this body went on record saying, yes, we want to keep our promise to those children, families, and local communities. In the evening yesterday, again in a bipartisan effort with Senator Dodd and Senator Collins, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to provide full funding for the Title I program over the next 10 years. It provided a virtual doubling of the number of children who would be reached in the first year under Title I. It was adopted overwhelmingly last evening, Mr. President. Nonetheless, we have in this budget flat funding for the next 10 years. Unacceptable, I say. If we look further in the budget on pages H1868-69 of yesterday's House Congressional Record, the Republican budget says that $336.2 billion in non-defense discretionary spending will be available next year. But the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the amount of funding necessary to provide current services over the next year, including education, health, NIH, and assistance for Seniors under the Older Americans Act, is $343 billion. Just look here in chapter 4, of the Congressional Budget Office's Spending Outlook, Table 4-4: $343 billion will be necessary for all government non-defense discretionary spending in 2002. But look at what the budget says, it limits this to $336 billion. This means the budget provides $7 billion less, which will mean there will be cuts in education, health, the environment, or other essential government services. These are the facts. We can talk about our priorities. We can talk about what the administration is thinking about, but this budget shows Republicans' true economic objectives. They focus on tax cuts for the super wealthy, period. This budget document says we will have in excess of a $1.2 trillion tax cuts going to some of the wealthiest individuals in our country and we will have flat funding in education. I cannot understand how Members of this body can support this budget and say we give education a priority. This is so discouraging. We have before us good education reform legislation as a result of a bipartisan effort to ensure we are going to combine robust resources and accountability to get constructive and productive results from schools. While we work to make our education policy the best, under this budget, we effectively turn our backs on the needs of students across this country. It's a disgrace. I take issue with comments made earlier about what has been happening in Title I. I heard we really don't need to fund Title I because it will take so long for the programs we are passing to be put into effect: It will take time to develop the tests; it will take time for the schools to allegedly fail over a period of time; it will take time before we need the resources. I question that. That is not my reading of the specific language. This bill talks about school improvement for failing schools. We know today we have 10,000 failing schools. This particular legislation has approaches to help local communities and assist them to get out of the category of failing schools. That will take resources. We don't have to wait 2, 3, 4, 5 years. We don't have to do that. We know there are 10,000 failing schools in the country today. We know the average cost is $180,000 to turn around a failing school. There are some 57 research-based, comprehensive school reform models that have been identified by the New American Schools Corporation as proven and successful. School committees choose their preferred model. The decision is made locally. For a $1.8 billion commitment, we could begin turning around every failing school tomorrow. We have not gotten that. That is what we want to try to do. People say, wait for the bill to go into effect. It will have to be in effect 3 or 4 or 5 years before we force action to turn around failing schools. But there are 10,000 failing schools that can be turned around now. The parents want them improved now. Why wait? In the BEST bill, we seek to turn around those 10,000 needy schools now. Under the budget the administration suggested, we will be able to reach only 2,440 schools. This is a missed opportunity. It makes no sense. Do we want a $1.2 trillion tax cut or do we want to take a small percent of that, less than half of 1 percent that would fund these programs? We ought to have the vote on that. Should we have less than a one-half of 1 percent reduction in the tax program to try to turn around the schools, or shall we go ahead and give the tax cut? The Budget Committees, that are the voice of the Republican majority, say we will shortchange the schools. We are resisting that. The Senate is resisting that in a bipartisan way. Those votes last night were bipartisan. That is a clear reflection of where we are. We are very hopeful of using those votes to try to persuade the Administration to make the kinds of investments in the children needed. With all respect to those who spoke earlier today, I would like to review what has happened historically in terms of the NAEP test. The federal government contributes 6 or 7 cents out of every education dollar spent. Education is primarily the State and local responsibility. On the federal level, we try to target aid toward the neediest children. Fifteen percent of the children in this country are poor. You have to be desperately poor to qualify under Title I. There are some 10.3 million children we identify as needy for the purposes of Title I. But we provide enough funding to reach only 3.5 million of those children. We think we ought to fully fund Title I and really leave no child behind. In recent years, we have seen NAEP achievement gains by needy children. They have been gradually going up with regard to white children, gradually going up with regard to Hispanics, gradually going up with regard to blacks. What is most encouraging, you can say look how little progress has been made, or you can say progress has been made. We are talking about the poorest of the poor, the neediest of the needy. The fact we added 5 million disabled children, mainstreamed them, with physical and mental challenges, the fact we have had an explosion of homelessness, the fact we have had an explosion in the number of migrant children impacted, and we have had a dramatic increase in the immigrant children attending schools--all those have impacted achievement levels. We have had a very significant increase in those speaking different languages, foreign languages, and difficulties associated with that. In spite of these new challenges, the achievement gap between children of different races and classes has been reduced. We see in 13- year-olds, in math, a 46-percent achievement gap reduced to a 32 percent gap, a 30-percent change. We are moving in the right direction. The reduced achievement gap has come without the further improvements brought in this legislation--improvements that will strengthen the quality of education for the teachers, improve the curriculum, give the schools more authority, fund supplementary services in the afterschool programs, and come from an insistence on results. We have seen even under the old system that we have been making some progress--not as much as any of us would like, but we have seen the lines moving in the right direction, which has to be a part of our national purpose and goal. In this case, it was for 13-year-olds in the area of math. In reading, for 9-year-olds, there was a 44 percent gap in the 1970s, and a 29-percent gap in 1996. The best results show minority students are moving in the right direction--there has been a 34-percent change in the last 30 years. It is not a dramatic change, but when you look at the expansion of the student body and the significant expansion of students, poor children getting poorer, and all the other factors that impact children, it is still moving along--not as fast as any Members would like, but we are making some progress under the NAEP tests. This chart shows for 17-year-olds, in reading, a 52-percent gap at the start of the program, down to a 29-percent gap at the present time; fairly flat at the top, and moving up with regard to minority students. For the 9-year-old kids, in science, a 57-percent gap has been reduced to a 41-percent gap, a 28-percent change. Look at the gap in minority students. They have moved up in an important way. We have made some progress. We spend $400 billion a year on K-12. The main federal program is only $8 billion, about 2 cents out of each dollar spent, and we are still making progress. Yesterday, I used the example of the special situations where we had many of the programs we have supported and illustrated in this legislation that have resulted in dramatic improvements for children. I will just mention a few. Goethe Middle School, Sacramento, CA--With chronically low test scores across the curriculum, Geothe Middle School recently decided to attack its academic problems at their root: Many students had never learned to read well. Beginning with the 1997-98 school year, Goethe took a radical step. It trained all instructional staff in Corrective Reading and used fourth period for a mandatory reading class for virtually every student. Although this DI implementation is still too new to judge, preliminary data are encouraging. In the fall of 1997, only 11 percent of Goethe students could read above a sixth-grade level, while 12 percent were at a ``high average'' level for sixth grade. In other words, fewer than one in four students had much hope of keeping up with the reading assignments usually required of middle school students. By the end of the school year, the number of students reading at least at this basic level had more than doubled: 22 percent were at the ``high average'' level, 26 percent were above. This legislation will expand that type of program. Kalispell, MT--The only independent study of Early Steps was conducted in Kalispell, Montana, a small school district with many lower- and middle-class Caucasian families attending Title I schools. In general, the student selected into the study were among the most economically disadvantaged in the district. All students in the study were also performing in the lowest 20th percentile of their class in reading and on related tasks, such as alphabetic knowledge, spelling, word attack and recognition of words in context. Students were assigned to two matched groups, receiving different types of tutorial interventions. After one year, students who had been taught using Early Steps significantly outperformed their peers in reading assessments. In addition, 52 percent of the Early Steps students were found to be reading at or above grade level, compared to 23 percent of students in the control group. We know that this program can work. Cameron Elementary School, Fairfax County, VA--In Fairfax County, Cameron Elementary School's reading scores were below average, and well below those of many schools in the district. With as many as 40 percent of students suffering from low reading achievement, the school decided to implement ECRI as a summer school intervention. By the end of the summer, not only had students in the 4th and 6th grades increased their scores by 10 points, but they also ranked at or above the national average on standardized tests. We have adopted the kinds of programs there which have been successful. Arkansas--The state of Arkansas approved Reading Recovery for statewide use in 1988. From 1991 to 1994, 1,088 struggling students received the full RR program (defined as having received 60 lessons). Of those students, 940 (86 percent) attained grade level. Fifty-nine students who had successfully completed the program were followed for an additional two years. Compared to a random sample of non-RR students, the RR students tended to perform as well or better on measures of dictation, spelling and text reading in both the third and fourth grades. Mr. President, we have many examples of improving academic achievement and the reading ability of the nation's schoolchildren. We can help children achieve. That is what this legislation is all about. We have the ability to do it. The real question is whether we aim to reach all of these children, or whether we aim to reach only one-third of them? That is the issue. Earlier we heard a good deal about the improvements that were taking place in Houston, Texas. Secretary Paige is from Houston. All of the Houston's educational improvements that were highlighted earlier in this debate have come at a cost Houston has seen a 43 percent increase in education spending between 1995 and 2000. That is an investment in children. That is what we are asking for. We have seen it work in Houston. In Dallas, too, we have seen results. Dallas has made academic gains. Since Dallas made an investment in their accountability system, between 1994 and 2000, they have seen a 21% increase in the number of students that are passing all portions of the TAAS. Before the Texas accountability system, Texas was spending $673 million in Dallas. Today, they spend $985 million. That is a 46 percent increase--$312 million. These examples indicate real investments. Real money. We have the programs and the educational reforms. We know that when the reforms are in place, and when we have significant investments, we get results. We have a bill that contains the right programs, but now we need the resources. Amendment No. 375 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend and colleague for his kind words. I am also grateful for the Senator's extraordinary service. I say to my colleagues, if they want to find out what a Senator's Senator is all about, travel to West Virginia with Bob Byrd. And if you want to know what the history of this body is, read his lengthy history of this institution. There are many reasons we are indebted to his service in this institution. There is no one who fights to preserve the institution as Senator Byrd does, and to those of us who love and respect this institution, he stands as Number One. History will not show his equal. Mr. President, now I want to take a few moments to review a very important aspect of this education debate, and that is the issue of funding for the educational reforms that are before us today. I ask unanimous consent that this table describing the history of past efforts for funding Title I and other elementary and secondary education programs be printed in the Record in refutation of Senator Gregg's statement on education earlier this morning.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just about a week ago, Senator Byrd was addressing the Senate on a matter of importance, and I took just a moment of his time to ask him if he could refresh our recollection of a poem that he previously recited about the fence and the ambulance down in the valley. As things would have it, there was intervening business, and the good Senator was kind and patient enough to permit others to proceed. It was late in the afternoon, close to the evening, and Senator Byrd agreed to respond to my request for recitation of this poem at a later time. Little did I know then that his presentation would have such meaning in connection with the amendment that he offers today, to try to strengthen the academic achievement of children in this country. His amendment is absolutely on point, in that it recognizes that investment in prevention is a much wiser investment than providing remedies after the fact. Prevention is what the Senator's amendment is really all about. That is the central theme of the Senator's amendment today in terms of awakening awareness among our young people across this country about the extraordinary dangers and devastations of alcohol. The good Senator from West Virginia is not a member of our Education Committee, but I am hopeful that in the remaining time the Senate considers the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, at some time the Senator will recall for us the importance of a quality education. There is no one in this Chamber who can speak more eloquently or more passionately or more knowledgeably than he about the basic importance of starting a young person off on the right path towards academic achievement. And there is no one who can tell the story more effectively about the challenges that are presented to young people, and the resolve they must have in order to earn the legitimate scholarship that results from application of hard work in the development of one's academic abilities. I do not think there is anyone I know who can remember the names of their third, fourth, and fifth grade teachers, as the Senator from West Virginia can, the subject matter that was taught, and the lessons learned in those classrooms many years ago. I know of no one who can make a more persuasive or passionate statement of support for the importance of a good education as a matter of national priority than the Senator from West Virginia. I will certainly urge that his amendment be adopted. But more important, I hope that as this body is considering the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and as we get weighted down in the particulars of the legislation, at some time during this period, he might remind us all of the importance of education in a young life and the difference that makes. He has a remarkable story. I can remember many of the good Senator's speeches. But his past speeches on the importance of a quality education is always one I remember with such clarity and such profundity. It is an extraordinary story. I hope at the end, or sometime during the debate that story of the early educational years of Bob Byrd will remind us all about what we hope this legislation is really about. We are talking about different features of the legislation this morning, as we did yesterday and we will next week. But Senator Byrd's story brings it all together. I thank the Senator for bringing this amendment to our attention. I think it adds a very important dimension to this legislation. I hope it will be accepted at this time, if my good friend from Vermont believes it is appropriate to do so.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back our time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I do not intend to object. As the leader has pointed out, we have been on this bill for some time. We are prepared to move ahead tomorrow and on Monday. There are a number of amendments. We are prepared to go through Tuesday evening or Wednesday evening or Thursday evening, but I hope we will not be put in the position later on, since we have been on this bill for some time, where we have to come to a vote, denying Members the opportunity to offer their amendments. I wanted to put that in the Record at this time because we are prepared to move ahead. We are glad to accommodate the leadership, but we have additional amendments that are extremely important. I want to make it very clear, I want to make sure people are going to be fairly treated. I am glad to accommodate others, but I want to make sure those who are going to offer amendments will be accommodated. There is no reason not to think so tonight. I just felt compelled to raise that.

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join in supporting the Jeffords amendment which proposes the trigger for testing. There is bipartisan support for this program. The case has been made very eloquently by Senator Jeffords and others about the role of testing. I was impressed when I heard Secretary Paige and the President talk about their strong views that this should never be used as a punitive measure; that the role of these tests is to try to determine what the children know and to help the teachers develop approaches to assist those students so they can do better in their school work and in the future. That is certainly my view. I believe that is certainly the view of those who fashioned and shaped this proposal that is included in the legislation. A reasonable question has been raised about tests, tests which are simple, easy, multiple-choice tests that too often are used to test children and too often the curriculum or the children are coached or taught to those tests. That, clearly, is not our interest. During the course of this debate we will attempt to address the issue of the quality of the tests, the tests that take critical thinking, demonstrate an excellence in writing, tests that examine what the child should know. Obviously, the difficulty is calibrated upon a well- thought-out curriculum taught by a well-qualified teacher. That is basically what we are looking at in this legislation. We are going to upgrade the curriculums. We are going to incorporate professional development for the teachers and thoughtful examination for the teachers themselves so they understand the challenges that remain for children and help develop the supplementary services that will be of high quality to help the children make progress in their education. That is certainly the way we want to proceed. That is the objective. The Jeffords amendment indicates we recognize our responsibility in helping fashion, shape, and support those developments. We will give our strong support and commitment and help develop those tests. This is the essence of the Jeffords amendment. It provides resources. It has a trigger. I think this will be funding that, effectively, will be assured as we move through the process. I will certainly support it. As we make this case in support of the Dodd amendment, we are talking about additional resources. As has been said eloquently by the Senator from Connecticut and by others, we have devised a new blueprint for accountability and responsibility on the schools, on the States, on the teachers, and really with the students. What we are pointing out and what Senator Dodd and Senator Collins have pointed out is, in order to give life to those dreams, we have to have the resources to make sure all of the elements of this proposal will be available to the neediest children in our society. Twenty percent of our children live in poverty. There are 10 million who qualify for the benefits of this proposal. Only about 3.5 million are reached. Under the Dodd amendment, in the first year we will increase children reached from 3.5 million to 6.8 million. That is a dramatic increase. Over the rest of the years, we are moving for the final 3.5 million. For those who want to say we have done something important, if we support the Dodd amendment we will cover 6.8 million children at the end. This is progress. This is what we believe this whole legislation should do. We will consider later this evening the proposal on the budget of $1.2 trillion. What we are talking about in this instance amounts to less than six-thousandths of 1 percent of that tax cut in order to be able to fund that program. Mr. President, $250 billion was approved in this body, Republicans and Democrats, to go to the conference on the budget. Virtually zero is coming back. We are asking six-thousandths of 1 percent, and with that money we are including an extra 6.8 million children. Investing in these children makes a difference for the children, not just for the future but for our country. Although the support for title I historically has been very minimal--less than 2 percent of the money that has actually been expended--it is important to respond to those comments I heard recently on the floor about what has been happening in Texas and the fact they made such progress, allegedly, without using any more resources. The fact is, in 1994, they spent $673 million in the Dallas independent school district. In the year 2000, they spent $985 million. That is a $312 million increase. What have been the results? The results have been a significant increase in the funding and a dramatic increase in student achievement. We are not just saying throw the money at the problem and that will answer it all. We are saying if the money is used, and used effectively, it results in student achievement. We have seen it in Dallas, as raised earlier this evening, and we have seen it in a number of other places. I will mention a few other title I success stories. Approximately 80 percent of the students at the Baldwin Elementary School in Boston, MA, are from low-income families, and many are recent immigrants. With a strong focus on professional development and high standards for even the neediest children, test scores soared between 1996 and 2000. In the year 2000, 96 percent of the third graders and 91 percent of the fifth graders passed the State reading test, and 60 percent of the third graders and 39 percent of the fifth graders scored proficient at advanced levels. At Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary School in Cheverly, MD, in 1994, only 17 percent of third graders scored at or above the satisfactory level on the State test. Title I was used to implement reform. Each teacher was paired with another staff member to provide small group instruction during a 90-minute reading period in a language arts block in the mornings. All staff utilized specialists as a basis for language instruction and were provided with professional development. By 1999, 73 percent of the third graders performed at or above satisfactory on the State tests. These are exactly the kinds of programs that have been included in this legislation and which the Collins-Dodd proposal intends to support. The poverty rate at Burgess Elementary in Atlanta, GA, is 81 percent. Burgess Elementary staff set out to improve parent involvement in working with parents in the classroom, parent volunteer programs, academic programs for parent learning, and Saturday school programs for parents and students. Parental involvement in the school has boomed. Most days, 10 or 15 parents are in the school voluntarily. In 1995, only 29 percent performed at or above the norm on the State tests. That increased to 64 percent as of 1998, and the math scores have improved from 34 percent to 72 percent. Parental involvement is in this bill. We can take the other examples and take the time of the Senate to review these other examples. We have tried to find the kinds of efforts that have demonstrated success and support those in this proposal. But unless we are going to provide the investment in the children, we are not going to be able to achieve those objectives; we are not going to be able to get there. That is what this amendment is all about. We have the blueprint. It will do the job. It will make a big difference. But we want to make sure no child is left behind. This should be a priority. We have an opportunity in a few moments to indicate our priorities, our support for this strong bipartisan effort to make sure the most needy and poorest children in this country will not be left behind. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to address the issues before us, the Jeffords amendment, and also the Dodd amendment. Having listened to my colleague from Alabama, there are many children who attend our schools who need assistance. One of the more recent studies shows in our city of Boston, a quarter of the children come from homes where either substance abuse or violence is present. Those who have looked at the profile of children from that urban area and similar urban areas understand the need for assistance for children who are facing different challenges. One is the kind of violence they have at home. Another is the medical challenges they are facing. All of us want to find ways to deal with these issues. What we have seen in recent times is where, out of the security for other children, children are dismissed arbitrarily. Too often we see instances where they get further frustrated and resort to other types of violence, such as going home and finding a gun and acting out their anger with even greater violence. These are complex issues and questions. Children ought to be able to learn in a climate which lends itself to progress, and we also ought to find ways of providing assistance to the children who need it. We can address those issues, and I welcome the opportunity to participate as we move through the reauthorization of IDEA or at other times. I want to reserve 4 minutes at the end of my 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes on the time of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. KENNEDY. It certainly does. I appreciate the Senator mentioning that. The underlying blueprint reflects the best judgment of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a blueprint which I strongly support. The real gap, as the Senator heard, is placing enormous demands on schools, on teachers, and on children. We need to have the resources for the children. That requires funding, and we still are not there on that particular issue. But certainly with regard to the special needs children, this has been an extraordinarily bipartisan effort. That is of incredible importance to this country. I congratulate our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is a very sound, bipartisan effort. We are enormously grateful for their initiatives and for the result.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I express the appreciation of all of us to Senator Hagel and Senator Harkin and their staffs and all those who have been part of the effort to bring about this extraordinary and incredibly important resolution that will result in hundreds of thousands of children having better opportunities for their future. This action that was taken here today sends an enormous message of help to many children who are growing up, not only with the challenges and needs that normal children have, but who have the additional burdens of some physical or mental disability or challenge. It will make an enormous difference to their lives. It will make an incredible difference to their parents' lives. It will make an extraordinary difference to those who care for these children. I think it is really the Senate at its best. So I thank those two leaders. It seems to me you probably do not have to do much more than that, to have had a very great mark on the lives of many people in this country. I salute them both. This adds a very important, special, and extra dimension to this legislation. It will take time for the American people to understand it, but it will make an important difference.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Just to come back to looking at the history, when the original special education law was passed, the Congress intended to work toward the goal of fully funding the 40 percent of the cost of educating special needs children--a child. After 25 years, the Federal Government pays only 13 percent of the excess costs. This bill will obligate funds to reach the 40 percent, full funding, in the fiscal year 2007. So that is what this bill does. It meets the responsibility we have given to the communities. I am sure in your own State, as in mine, you can go to a very small community where they have maybe a severely challenged child and the child goes to the local school. These extraordinary benefits are for the child. But these are extraordinary burdens to the community. The community wants to help the child, and suddenly they are caught up in something they never anticipated or thought possible, and they are sort of left out there without assistance. If we recognize that we as a nation have additional responsibilities in these areas of the very special needs-- we do this in different ways under the Medicare and Medicaid systems; I recognize that--I think that helps define our humanity. But if we are going to define our humanity, we ought to at least be able to define it in a more complete way, and that is by providing the resources for this problem. I will just mention a couple of additional facts. I see my friend and colleague from Vermont, who I know wants to say a word. Listen to what has happened in the schools. The dropout rate for these students has decreased, while graduates have exploded. The number of young adults with disabilities enrolling in college has tripled. These results do not come without financial costs. It is time for the Congress to help schools provide the services that give children with special needs the educational opportunities to pursue their dreams. For too many years there were empty promises. The amendment of Senators Harkin and Hagel will help the schools and communities to meet the responsibilities. This amendment would make IDEA mandatory, and by passing it we will free up discretionary funds that could be allocated to other critical education priorities. We can truly ensure that no child is left behind; that every needy child has a fair chance at a quality education; that more teachers are better trained; that more afterschool opportunities are available; and more schools are modern and safe. This is another chapter, I believe, in no child being left behind. We want to make sure that no child with special needs is left behind. We need the funding for the title I. We want to make sure that the children with special needs are not going to be left behind. This is a continuum. We should free ourselves from: Well, look, we have increased this fund, that fund by X percent, by Y percent. What we are talking about is not leaving the children behind and at a time of record surpluses, these are questions and choices. There will always be reasons why we cannot. The question is, Do we have the will and determination? Now is the time. I see my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is true.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is entirely correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will take a few moments to talk about the substance of the Harkin-Hagel amendment and the reasons I support it. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment of Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel. I congratulate both of them for bringing focus and attention to this great opportunity and responsibility to the Senate. They both deserve great credit. I am on the floor now with my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, who has been a strong supporter over his lifetime in terms of funding for the special needs as well. I know he will have a chance to speak to it. I think all of us are very grateful for their leadership, and it is appropriate, as we are coming into the Nation's choices about its budget and taxes, that we get an idea of some of the alternatives. This amendment to fully fund IDEA finally puts real dollars behind the goal of full funding by providing $181 billion over the next 10 years in increased funding for special education. Congress owes the children and families across the country the most effective possible implementation of this legislation and the Federal funding necessary to make it happen. For 25 years, IDEA has sent a clear message to young people with disabilities that they can learn and that their learning will enable them to be independent and productive citizens and live fulfilling lives. Prior to 1975, 4 million disabled children didn't receive the help they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received the services; 1 million disabled were excluded from public schools. Now, IDEA serves almost 6 million disabled children from birth through the age of 21, and every State in the Nation offers public education and early intervention services to disabled children. That is a remarkable statement in terms of the American people, to transition from this point where so many of these children were basically ignored, shunned, placed in the shadows of the communities, and it has been extraordinary courage those children have shown, their parents have shown, schoolteachers have shown, community leaders have shown, and to awaken this Nation to its responsibilities to provide education and opportunity for these children to live independent, constructive, and positive lives is just virtually unlimited. I don't think any day goes by when we don't hear another remarkable story. I saw Leonard Slatkin just yesterday. I was commenting about the wonderful success the National Symphony had with its brilliant symphonies; many positive comments have been made about it. One of the comments made was regarding the percussionist, who is tone deaf, for the National Symphony. Maestro Slatkin had indicated that this woman is probably the best percussionist in the world; she has a general worldwide reputation. She plays the instruments with bare feet. She can hear the vibrations that are coming through the floor of the concert hall as she plays her music. She is able to produce just superlative performances. Every day we are all reminded of these extraordinary acts of courage. So little of that would have been possible if we had not moved ahead to develop an IDEA program a number of years ago. IDEA now serves almost 6 million disabled from birth to age 21. Every State in the Nation offers public education and early intervention services to disabled children.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is that the total time on the amendment, just 30 minutes? I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of that time be given to Senator Hagel.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand under the previous agreement there is time on the Harkin-Hagel amendment; am I correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I see. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Could I ask the Chair, then, what is the time situation?