Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that we can finally turn to our work on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and during the course of the morning will begin debating two very important amendments. The first concerns the reading provisions of this legislation, which I think are such a commendable part of our whole effort, and the second, on which Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel have worked very closely to craft, regarding the challenges for our special needs children and local communities. The Harkin-Hagel amendment aims to strengthen the Individuals with Disabilities Act, particularly in providing additional relief in funding. In many respects the reading and IDEA amendments address a common concern, since many children with special needs are also eligible for the reading programs and title I assistance. Now I will take just a few moments just to review some of the provisions that I think should give heart to many parents when this legislation is actually implemented, and that is the supplementary services under title I, which increase the help available to children in troubled schools. Students in schools that have failed for at least 3 consecutive years will have the opportunity to receive the supplementary tutoring services during non-school hours. Students in failing schools get extra academic help after school while schools implement new reforms during the day. Under the supplementary service provisions, parents of children in persistently failing schools--those in corrective action or reconstitution--will have the option to enroll their children in before-school, after-school, weekend, or summer tutoring programs. The compromise extends learning time for students most in need of additional help. And the students in failing schools participate in a revamped, full regular school program during the day and receive additional help outside the school day. The public funds remain in the control of the public schools. The supplementary services provision does not provide vouchers for private school tuition. In contracting services, the school district pays State-approved providers for tutoring services. So any of the agencies that are going to be permitted to provide those services are effectively going to have to have a certification in terms of their educational competence. That is enormously important and basic. Parents then choose a provider for their children from a State- approved list of providers. The parents then will be able to make the judgment about which provider they want to choose in order to get the supplementary services for their children. And with the information that is available--with report cards and other information--it is the hope and the expectation that the parents will be able to choose wisely. It will give them an additional kind of involvement in their children's educational development. It is a small part of this legislation, but as we have been talking about parental involvement in these general discussions, this is the kind of effort that we were talking about. There is a cap on Federal funds available for supplemental services. Districts can use no more than 15 percent of the title I funds, and are not required to spend more than an equal amount to 15 percent of their title I allocation. In addition, in order to provide tutoring services, the district cannot reduce the amount a failing school receives under title I by more than 15 percent. They can draw down so they can use their own money, or they can use the supplementary services money that is available at the State, or they can use funds under the Title V(4) program for which they will be eligible. That is our clear intention, that those funds will be available. We will make that clear as we move through the debate as well as in the legislative history. Currently, many title I school districts contract with outside tutoring providers. The supplementary service provision differs from current law in that it requires failing schools to make after-school tutoring programs available. That is a requirement, not an option. It is a requirement. I think that gives additional kinds of protections to the parents. The tutoring programs must be research-based and of demonstrated effectiveness. Only tutoring providers who are pre-screened for quality by States are eligible to receive the Federal funds. Providers that fail to maintain a high quality of services and meet their annual performance goals will be removed from the State list of eligible supplemental tutoring providers. And tutoring services must be focused on academics and tied to the State standards and assessments. The tutoring program ensures strong parental involvement. The parents and districts jointly develop specific performance goals for participating children and come to agreement on how individual student progress will be measured. So parents and districts jointly determine how parents will be informed of their child's progress. There will be information given to the parents and the schools so that they can monitor where these children have additional needs. Providers must give the parents the comparative information about the quality of the tutoring programs available. I want to give just a brief summation on what we call the Straight A's compromise. The performance agreements pilot provides seven States and 25 districts additional flexibility in how communities use funds to implement public school reform. Funds can only be used for activities authorized under the programs that are eligible to be consolidated. Funds must be focused on public school reform. No funds may be used to support private school vouchers. States and districts are required to ensure the equitable participation of low-income students in private schools according to the requirements of the underlying bill. The performance agreements pilot continues the national focus on students with special needs. Migrant, homeless, immigrant, Indian education, and neglected or delinquent programs addressing students with special needs cannot be consolidated under the Performance Agreements Pilot Program. In addition, the new Reading First Program cannot be consolidated. The performance agreements pilot maintains targeting of Federal funds to the neediest students. I hope our Members will pay attention to this. The title I funds continue to be targeted by poverty to the school level, maintaining the allocation formula in the underlying law. If a State wants to use an alternative formula, the formula must result in a greater percentage of the funds going to districts with the highest concentration of low- income children than under the current title I formula. It is a strong commitment that the funds go to the neediest children. Other nontitle I funds allocated under the performance agreements pilot might be targeted to the district based on the same proportion of poverty as the underlying law requires. If the State uses an alternative formula, districts with the highest concentrations of low- income children must receive more funds than they would have received without consolidation. So our pilot program assures that the funds, rather than being scattered across a particular State or a jurisdiction, will effectively be focused on the children with the greatest needs. That is not all. The States and districts must comply with the title I provisions that require the development and implementation of standards and assessments: accountability for failing schools, disaggregation of assessment data, parent involvement, and the release of report cards at the State, local, and school level. So what we are giving is the assurance that there will be very strong and important accountability for these programs as well which effectively had not been in existence in the past. I think that is an improvement. States may not consolidate title I funds set aside for failing schools. States must ensure that failing schools get the extra help they need to turn around by improving student achievement. States and districts must also meet all the accountability provisions relating to teacher quality and improving achievement for limited English proficiency in title II and title III of the underlying bill. States and districts must abide by title I provisions that require adequate yearly progress, school improvement, and corrective action. If achievement does not improve any performance agreement will be terminated. So there will be a termination of these agreements if we find out there are not positive results with very strong accountability. I think that is enormously reassuring. The States may only retain 1 percent of all consolidated funds for administration. They may retain up to 5 percent of title I funds and up to 10 percent of nontitle I funds for State activities. All other funds must flow directly to the local school districts. Applications by the States and districts are subject to peer review. The Secretary may only approve an application if it shows substantial promise for exceeding the State's AYP goals. So you are going to have a peer review of the State's applications and findings. It will not be just at the discretion of the Secretary. I think that is an enormous improvement. The proposal requires a study of the effectiveness of the agreements, how funds were used, and how funds were targeted under alternative formulas. We will gain a great deal of information. Mr. President, since the Senate is poised to begin debate on the budget in the very near future, I want to take just a few moments to discuss the funding that will be needed to make the policies in this bill realities for America's children. If you don't have a well-trained teacher in a classroom, whatever we do is compromised. Teachers need, and students deserve, the resources to teach. That is fundamental. Republicans announced yesterday that they reached a deal among themselves on the budget, and the result appears to leave education out in the cold. They know the Nation overwhelmingly supports real increases for education, yet they boldly chose tax cuts over educating the Nation's children. Senators will recall that there were two points to the vote on the education amendment offered by Senator Harkin. The first was to reduce the size of the tax cut much closer to $1.2 trillion than $1.6 trillion, and the conference has respected this decision, choosing the smaller number. But the Harkin amendment had a second and equally important objective. It recognized that additional investments were urgently needed in our schools. All available evidence confirms this. Only half of the eligible children have access to Head Start and its promise of school readiness for 3- and 4-year-olds. Only a third of the students in disadvantaged school districts are assisted with the broad range of quality enhancements that I have discussed under title I. The Federal Government is meeting well under half of its funding commitment to disabled students under IDEA, nearly 1 in 5 children are in oversized classes of 25 or more, and thousands of school buildings remain in such disrepair that they are unsafe or unfit for learning. The basic improvements we're debating in this bill today will be impossible without additional investments in low-income school districts, teacher quality, early learning, smaller class sizes, special education, school construction, and accountability. Yet the conference report on the budget appears as if it will ignore the will of the Senate on the core issue of education. In place of the major increases passed by the Senate, the budget proposes to freeze education funding at current levels. Because it abandons American school children and their parents, it does not deserve our support. I urge every one of my colleagues who recognizes the value of improved education for the long-term future of the Nation to denounce the budget that the conferees have produced, and ask them to try again. Our current budget surplus means for once we have the resources needed to make major education advances in the coming years. We only lack the commitment to put our money where our mouths are. Will we step up to the plate on this issue, or will we just have more talk? Republican budget negotiators found room for 1.35 trillion dollars in tax cuts over eleven years, yet they decline to guarantee that 0.008 trillion dollars (or $8 billion) will be available next year to fund the education increases that passed the Senate last month in Senator Harkin's amendment. Their priorities are clear, and education is not among them, no matter what they say about education here on the floor. The Nation can afford both tax cuts for everyone and real education improvements. But we can't afford education reform and the massive tax cuts for the wealthy that Republicans seek. The tax cut that budget negotiators appear set to adopt would allocate over $400 billion of the current budget surplus to the wealthiest 1% of Americans--those with average incomes of 1.1 million dollars per year--yet it provides only about 21 billion dollars to improve education over the next ten years. Last month, Senator Harkin won a Senate vote to shift $250 billion from tax cuts to education investments, still leaving over a trillion dollars on the table for tax cuts. Senator Harkin's effort put the Senate firmly on record in support of education investments over the most extravagant of the tax cuts. Republicans shut Democrats out of the conference on the budget, and then apparently disregarded the Harkin education amendment. They increased the size of the tax cut over the Senate level, and they vastly decreased education spending below the Senate level. The unfortunate result that Republicans now call a ``compromise'' is a compromise only in the sense that it compromises the futures of America's school children. The Republican decision to ignore the Harkin amendment will have very real and immediate consequences for America's school children and their parents: 350,000 fewer students in disadvantaged school districts aided under title I; 115,000 fewer safe, educational after-school opportunities for youth; 100,000 fewer teachers improved through access to training and mentoring; 50,000 fewer children in Head Start; 16,000 fewer teachers to reduce class sizes in the critical earlier school years; 100 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools repaired; and continued delinquency on the Federal Government's promise to help children with disabilities access a quality education under IDEA. These are just the consequences for the next school year. Over the next decade, the consequences of ignoring the vote on Senator Harkin's education amendment will guarantee that we will fall further and further behind on the work before us, including: 19,000,000 fewer title I-aided classroom slots that dramatically improve the quality of education available to students in disadvantaged districts; 7,000,000 fewer safe and educational after-school opportunities for youth; 2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start; 2,000,000 fewer opportunities for teachers to build skills by training and mentioning; 50,000 fewer teachers every year reducing class sizes in the critical early grades; and 2,000 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools repaired. Many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle point out that if we can't or won't do the work before us in one year, we must at least make a commitment to finish the work in a specific number of years. The key example is our goal of full funding for title I within the next 4 years. The Republican response on this point is noteworthy. They say it's impossible to commit to funding levels for specific education programs in any year except next year. But that's clearly not their position on taxes. They're proud to say just how much they'll cut inheritance taxes for the wealthiest 1% every year, all the way to 2011. The policy changes that we enact during this ESEA reauthorization debate will make no practical difference for children if massive tax cuts leave nothing but crumbs for education. The bottom line for the budget now nearing completion is that it squanders an historic opportunity to improve America's education system in favor of tax breaks that only the wealthy will ever notice. It is a disgrace, and it reduces all of the education speeches we've heard from our Republican friends to empty platitudes. I will vote against this anti-education budget and I urge my colleagues to reject it as well. If the budget we will be debating in just a few hours had not eliminated the Harkin amendment, the children of the country would have received a major boost. You cannot educate children on the cheap. You can't do it with a tin cup budget. We know what works and what doesn't. The education proposal we are endorsing today is a framework, but without resources, it will not be successful. If you just have resources without reform, you jeopardize success. But if you have reform, given the current unmet needs, you guarantee failure. What we are challenging this President and this administration to do is to provide the necessary resources. This Senate went on record in a bipartisan way to say: These are the types of resources we believe are necessary for the children of this country over the next 10 years. The Budget Committee eliminated those. It was wrong. We want the President to speak up. We want him to say, at least in the area of Elementary and Secondary Education, and in particular in title I, we want to have the funding that is necessary to support the policies that we both agreed to place in this legislation, so that the benefit of the supplementary services and other protections will be available to these children. Otherwise, the words about reaching every child in this country within 10 years is a cliche. It is a shibboleth. That will be the crux of the debate over the next 2 weeks in the Senate. We will be debating issues of policy, but make no mistake about it, we will be debating the issue of need, of investment, of the type of future we are going to have in this country. That is what this is all about. Our children are the future. We know the results. If you have children who don't learn algebra by the eighth grade, they're much less likely to go to college. That is a fact. Any educator will tell us that. When 80 percent of eighth graders lack trained math teachers, we can see what is compromised in terms of the children of this country. At a time when we need their talents, their involvement, and their help in leading the United States in the world community, we fail to provide them the resources they need to build a strong educational foundation. That is what this debate over funding is about. It is about our future. We know what is out there. Twenty percent of the children in the United States live in poverty; 10 million children are eligible for title I services. We are only reaching a third of them. So if we are going to give life and meaning to ``leave no child behind,'' we ought to be out front finding ways to reach all of them, not skimping on the 10 million children who are eligible under this legislation, and who look to us for help. We on this side of the aisle, without exception, believe we ought to fund the title I program fully and reach all 10 million children. We challenge our fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle to join with us and ensure that the promise and the pledge of this legislation will be a reality, not empty words. The only way this is going to happen is through a serious commitment to funding. Nothing concerns me more than the reported absence of the Harkin amendment from the final budget agreement. I don't know where it went. I can remember--maybe others can speak to it--when we were briefed by our Democratic budgeteers about how the budget conference came together. They were not allowed to take part in any of the decisionmaking process. I asked them: Whatever happened to the Harkin amendment? They said: You have to look through the numbers and try to find it, but Republicans haven't released the numbers yet. We went over and talked to the staff. Whatever happened to the Harkin amendment? We still want to know. When Senators are explaining the budget this afternoon, I hope they will tell us what happened to it because you can't find it. It is not there. It is not here; it is not there. It has just disappeared. The need has not disappeared. The need for those Head Start Programs has not disappeared. The need for the supplementary services on title I has not disappeared. The need to do something about better trained teachers and assisting professional development remains today as it existed on the day the Senate passed the Harkin amendment. Those schools that are crumbling; they haven't disappeared. The vote on Senator Harkin's amendment, and the significance of the vote, after a very full and complete debate, has not disappeared. It is still there in the history books. What has disappeared somewhere is the commitment of the Congress to take action and reflect our Nation's priorities in the budget. We're fortunate to have the resources to say, ``All right, we are going to have a tax cut, but we are not going to do it at the expense of the children of this country.'' But that is what evidently has happened. That is the regrettable choice made by the GOP. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object--and I will not object--as far as our side goes, we know it will be the Dodd amendment. Could we leave the discretion to your side as to what amendment you offer, but could we at least have it in the consent agreement that the next amendment from our side would be the Dodd amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I commend the Senator for an excellent presentation and, more importantly, for all of his good work in the past weeks in helping move the process along and for the work that has been done in the past. As the Senator spoke, one of the points he underlined was the need for additional funding. As we understand funding, for the Senator from Connecticut and myself, we are talking about investments. We are talking about investing in children and in their future and our Nation's future. The Senator has made that case very effectively. I join with the Senator from Connecticut in the importance of developing the kind of blueprint which has been developed which we believe can really make a difference if it reaches out to the children who are out there who need the assistance. One of the major struggles and one of the major battles has been over funding. Yesterday, we saw the President and our Republican friends make the announcement on the budget for this year and projected over future years. In that budget, the negotiators found $1.35 trillion in tax cuts over the next 11 years. Yet they declined to find the funding which would be necessary to support the amendment of our colleague and friend, Senator Harkin. As my colleague remembers, Senator Harkin, during the budget debate, initiated an amendment that was passed with strong bipartisan support for $250 billion for education over the life of the budget. That virtually disappeared in these negotiations. That cannot be found. The position of the Senate, which was bipartisan, and the majority, is virtually eliminated. I find it difficult. In looking over this budget and consulting with members of the Budget Committee and asking them whatever happened to it, it just disappeared. It virtually was eliminated. In that was the funding, as the Senator remembers, for the expansion of Head Start Programs. It had funding in terms of increased funding on title I. It had additional programs in terms of child care support, the block grant program, other programs that were targeted on children and needy children. We have been told in these conversations that we have had with the administration: We are prepared to give some funds, some additional funds for title I, but we are unable to make a commitment in future years. I notice in those budget figures that came out from the Budget Committee, they are prepared to list for millionaires what the reduction of their inheritance tax will be in the year 2011. Here we have, for the wealthiest individuals, a very clear roadmap about how their taxes are going to be reduced in 2011, but we can't get the administration to commit that over the next 4 years they are prepared to allocate sufficient funds so that the benefits of this bill will reach the children who are qualified to benefit from the program. Is the Senator from Connecticut troubled by that development?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator would be good enough to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Prior to the passage of the Class Size Reduction program in 1998, under the leadership of Senator Murray, more than 85 percent of the Nation's students were in classes with more than 18 students, and 33 percent were in classes of 25 or more students. Because of the Class Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are benefitting from smaller classes this year: 29,000 were hired with fiscal year 1999 funds; 1,247 are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from 23 to 17; 6,670 are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size from 23 to 18; 6,960 are teaching in the third grade, reducing class size from 24 to 18; 2,900 are in grades 4-12; 290 special education teachers have been hired. And, on average, 7 percent of the funds are being used for professional development for these new teachers. We should continue the Class Size Reduction Act. When we send childen to crumbling schools, we send them the message that they don't matter. Fourteen million children attend schools in need of at least one major repair, such as fixed heating or plumbing systems. Half of all schools have at least one environmental hazard, like inadequate ventilation. One-third of all schools are more than 50 years old. Urban, rural, and suburban communities are struggling with national school modernization costs of more than $127 billion. The BEST bill as reported by the committee is silent on school construction needs. We should really commit to leaving no child behind by fully funding title I. It takes resources, as well as testing and accountability, to do school reform right. We should maintain our commitment to reduce class sizes for 2 million children instead of backing away from it. Senator Murray will address that issue. We should provide subject matter training for every teacher in high poverty schools. New teachers should have mentors to pass on wisdom and keep them in the profession. We should fix 5,000 crumbling schools over the next 10 years. And we should ensure every child has a safe and supportive place to go after-school. Without these types of investments, our efforts at school reform will fall of their own weight. Mr. President, in order to reach the elements of this legislation, we have to provide the resources. The fact is only one-third of the neediest children are going to benefit from what we have developed if we do not increase the funding. We are going to leave behind two-thirds of the children who qualify for assistance. The fact remains, we have approximately 12 million poor children in America. We made a decision in the early 1960s to give special assistance to those children. It is still primarily a State and local responsibility. When I listen to my colleagues on the other side talk about the failure of these programs, it is really an indictment of the failure of States and local communities to provide the kind of assistance which is necessary to make a difference to these children. We know what it takes to educate children. That is not a great mystery. We have many schools that annually produce very talented and creative students. I will tell you, Mr. President, what I fear about this legislation. Looking at the funding levels for this legislation, we see we are currently reaching one-third of these children. We state in this legislation that all of these children, the 12 million who are basically poor and somewhat smaller numbers who are actually eligible who are very poor. None of these children should be left behind. Under the President's budget, in fiscal year 2001, 3.5 million children are served under title I funding; fiscal year 2002, 3.7 million; fiscal year 2003, 3.9 million; fiscal year 2004, 4.1 million, and fiscal year 2005, 5.2 million children. The Democrats start off with the same base at 3.5 million, up to 5.2 million, 6.9 million, 8.6 million, and by fiscal year 2005, no child is left behind. That is the basic and fundamental gap. This legislation offers these opportunities to only a small percent of the eligible children, and that is wrong. We have fashioned a good bill that can benefit all children. So it is a reasonable question to ask: Why aren't we taking care of all the children? Why are we taking care of just one-third? Do we have the resources? Yes. Do we have the will? Evidently not. Do we have other priorities? Apparently so. A small percentage of the extraordinary tax cut of $1.3 trillion, about $5.3 billion a year over 4-years, would allow every one of these children to get the assistance they need to achieve success. There is a high demand for afterschool programs. Last year, there were more than 2,250 applications for afterschool programs, and only 310 were funded. What happens in these afterschool programs if we do not have enough resources? Why are afterschool programs so important? First, we have 7 million children between ages 9 and 13, who are left unsupervised after school hours. Afterschool opportunities are necessary to keep children safe, help parents work, and expand children's learning opportunities. Do parents want this service? Yes. Do children need it? Yes. Are they effective? Yes. Do we have the money? No. We are talking about the future of the country. We are talking about 80 percent of the children going to inner-city schools in the eighth grade are without an adequate math teacher who can teach them algebra. We know all educators will effectively agree if children do not learn algebra, they have a difficult time advancing on to college. Unless someone is going to help provide the well-trained teachers who can teach student necessary math skills, we are effectively saying to millions of children in the country, that opportunity is closed to them. This issue effects the future of our Nation. We are talking about a world economy, a highly educated society; we are talking about updating skills; we are talking about continuing training programs for people in jobs so they can compete. Are we meeting that challenge at the local level? We are not. That is the extraordinary tragedy in this program. This legislation is the basis of something that can be enormously important and, I believe, can make a real difference in the education of some of the neediest children in our country. However, we are going to fail to meet that test unless we have the resources. Unless we are going to provide those resources, we are going to fail our children. We know that many poorer schools are more challenged today. We have added approximately 5 million specially challenged children, who were not in the schools 10 years ago. They are taking the tests. We have seen the expansion of the number of homeless children in our schools, some 600,000 homeless children. We have approximately 500,000 seasonal workers' children, a third attending school, and then moving on. We have migrant children in our school. We have challenges with different languages, with more than 4 million school age children who are either limited English Proficient or immigrants. We have seen an increase in separations and divorces, which has placed pressure on children. We have also seen the explosion of violence in our society-- and in our schools. Many of the schools and teachers bear the brunt for dealing with those special needs. All of these factors are impacting children as they go to school. We must not fail to do what works. That means a well-trained teacher in every classroom. It is amazing so many teachers in the inner-city schools working as long and as hard under such circumstances. They are extraordinary individuals making a difference in people's lives under extraordinary conditions. We need to give them help, assistance, and confidence. We need to make sure they will have the equipment they need to get a first-class education. Why do we say education counts and then have children go to a crumbling school? It makes no sense. We can talk the talk but unless we are prepared to walk the walk, we fail the children. We need accountability to make sure the children are actually learning. We want to make sure those schools will be safe. We want smaller class sizes in the early grades, so a teacher can take a little time with a child that has a particular need during the course of the day, rather than looking at the child as a number. On this side of the aisle, we are virtually united in insisting we are going to get the resources to be able to do that. We know now there are 10,000 failing schools. We also know that it costs about $180,000 to turn a school around. There are a series of 57 different options that have been tried and tested that are suitable for different schools. It would take $1.8 billion out of a trillion dollar budget, to try and turn schools around. We are missing an extraordinary opportunity and responsibility in doing something about these children's education. If this is going to be a first priority for the administration, it ought to draw on first priority dollars and resources and invest in the children who need it. We ought to provide the resources necessary to leave no child behind, to reach every child before we even consider providing the tax breaks in the President's budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I request just 15 minutes. I thank the Senator from Texas. She is always gracious and courteous, as well as a gifted Senator. I want to just take a few moments to go over the basic elements of the Elementary and Secondary Education legislation that will be before us this afternoon and then speak on what I consider to be the outstanding missing element in this bill. I ask the Chair to tell me when I use 10 minutes of my time. The legislation we will be considering builds upon the excellent work done in a bipartisan way on the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee. The bill includes the elements of our Committee bill plus some of the other agreements that have been worked out over the recent days. The Nation's schools face many challenges that must be addressed if all students are to be challenged to achieve high academic standards. School enrollments are at record high levels and continue to rise. Large segments of the teaching force are preparing to retire. Diversity is increasing, bringing new languages and cultures into the classrooms, and family structures are changing. More women are participating in the workforce, creating a greater demand for quality before, after, and during summer school activities. In addition, many of the Nation's school buildings are deteriorating and must be renovated and modernized so all students can learn in a safe learning environment. The demand for Internet skills is at an all- time high, but the supply of computers connected to the Internet is inadequate in school buildings located in the poorest districts. The BEST bill is a good start toward improving student achievement in the Nation's public schools. This bill creates tough standards that must be established for States, districts, and schools which hold them accountable for improving student achievement. We must drive resources and support the most chronically failing schools to ensure they get the help they need to turn around and to succeed. The bill requires that every child should be tested each year in grades 3-8, not as a punishment, but so that parents and educators know where every child stands and what more needs to be done to help them. We hope to strengthen provisions within the bill to ensure that these State tests are high quality, so that parents will know that the results of these tests are meaningful for their children. All parents deserve a complete picture of what is happening in their child's school. A recent survey by the Center For Community Change found that 36 States produce some variation of a school report card that includes student achievement in other factors. Report cards will highlight school challenges and provide parents with information they can use to become more involved in their child's education. They will include information on student achievement by desegregated groups of students; graduation and dropout rates; teacher quality; information on how schools have progressed in relation to their State standards and assessments; and information on schools identified for improvement. Reading is the golden door to opportunity. Unfortunately, forty percent of fourth grade students do not achieve the basic reading level, and 70 percent of fourth graders are not proficient in reading. Children who fail to acquire basic reading skills early in life are at a disadvantage throughout their education and later careers. They are more likely to drop out of school and be unemployed. The BEST Act triples funding for the reading programs and strengthens the Reading Excellence Act to ensure that all children learn to read--and learn to read well early--so they have a greater chance for successful lives and careers. Over the next 10 years, we will need to recruit more than 2 million teachers to teach the record number of elementary and secondary students in our public schools. Nothing in education is more important than ensuring a highly qualified teacher for every classroom. Research shows that what teachers know and can do is the most important influence on what students learn. Increased knowledge of academic content by teachers and effective teaching skills are associated with increases in student achievements. The BEST bill includes strong definitions of professional development, mentoring, and highly qualified teacher and contains strong accountability and application requirements. In particular, the bill contains many of the elements that research indicates constitute effective mentoring and professional development--sustained, intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers' knowledge of content, collaborative working environments, and training that is aligned with standards and embedded in the daily work of the school. Under this bill, limited-English-proficient students will get substantially more support to help them learn English and achieve high academic standards. We are experiencing a tremendous growth in the number of limited-English-proficient and immigrant students in our Nation's classrooms--from 3.4 million students in the 1997-98 school year to an estimated 4.1 million of our school children today. Dramatic shifts are taking place in the growth of our immigrant population in the United States, and immigrant students are emerging in areas where their presence had previously been invisible. The most recent census data shows that, between 1990 and 1998, our States in the South have experienced a growth in the Hispanic population by 93 percent. The BEST Act responds to this challenge by providing additional opportunities for success. The BEST Act increases the federal commitment to provide educational assistance to our limited English proficient students through the Bilingual Education Act. When the program is appropriated at $700 million, it will become a state formula program based on 67 percent LEP population, and 33 percent new immigrant population. Our bill responds to States in which the limited English proficient population has grown at a tremendous rate, and where there is little or no infrastructure in place to provide for the educational needs of these students. Research shows that children who are home alone after school hours report higher use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. Nearly 45 million children ages 14 years and younger are injured in their homes every year and most unintentional, injury-related deaths occur when children are out of school and unsupervised. The bill expands the successful 21st Century Community Learning Centers, increasing the authorization from $846 million to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. It also changes the program to a state formula program, ensuring students in every state will have expanded after-school opportunities. After- school opportunities are necessary to keep children safe before, after, and during summer school to keep children safe, help parents work, and expand children's learning opportunities. Yet demand for these programs continues outpace supply. According to a report from the U.S. Census Bureau last year, almost 7 million children aged 5 to 14 are left unsupervised on a regular basis during the after school hours.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to use up to 9 minutes, which would be the total amount allocated to the Democrats.

Mr. KENNEDY. So is it possible for me to use that 20 minutes and then use a few minutes of the minority time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that we are now going to have a real opportunity for debate on education policy in the Senate. I expect that it will take a number of days in order to address many of the interests of our colleagues, but I think the time could hardly be more well spent. This is the major debate that we will have on a matter that is of central importance to families all over this country. I thank our two leaders for working to make sure that we could have this debate. As the ranking minority member on the Education Committee, I thank our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, Senator Jeffords and others, who have been active and involved in helping to bring us here. I am enormously grateful to all of the members on the full committee who have spent a great deal of time on education matters and have provided leadership in the past in so many different aspects of the education debate. We are looking forward to this debate. We are looking forward to taking action on education here in the Senate Chamber. Just to review the bidding, we have filed a cloture motion to proceed to a bill which was reported out of the committee virtually unanimously. However, this vote should not be taken to indicate that a clear consensus has been reached between the administration's best judgment of what is needed and the best judgment of a number of us on how we can really deal with strengthening our educational system. The legislation will be the basis for amendments, although under the rules of the Senate it will be possible, as I understand it, to amend the bill that will be before us, but I expect it is going to take at least a day before we have real answers. It is important that our colleagues be given a chance to talk about the areas where this legislation is strong and also the areas where it is weak. I take this brief time to make a couple of points. First, this legislation is not just about education, it is about the future of our country and the kind of country we are going to have. We know we are talking about the most important quality of our society; that is, for all young people to have a chance for academic achievement and, hopefully, academic excellence. It has been, since the mid-1960s, the priority of this Congress to ensure that the neediest children in our country and to get the special focus, attention, and help that they deserve. It was a national finding in the early 1960s that, despite state efforts in the area of education, we had not really met our responsibility to these needy children. It has been a long march since that time. There have been many failings in schools along the way. There have been some remarkable successes along the way. There have been some very notable achievements in the more recent years. We have to look at the fact that even with the investment that has been made by the Federal Government, federal spending on education amounts to about 2 cents out of every federal dollar. We spend close to $30 billion a year on elementary and secondary education in the K-12 programs. This current bill would only account for $8 billion of that total. Through current Title I we only reach a third of eligible children. Even if we had all the programs right in this bill, we are still only reaching a third of Title I eligible children. This has been a long process. We will hear many of those on the other side talk about the failures of our education policy. There are some remarkable changes that have taken place. Fifteen years ago we didn't have the 4.5 million children who have disabilities in our public schools. They were shunted off into state hospitals, into special schools, not really mainstreamed. Today, they are in our public school system attending school alongside their friends and family. Fifteen years ago, we did not have programs like those in my State today, at Revere High School, a wonderful high school where 43 different languages are being taught. That was not true 20 years ago or 30 years ago. We didn't have the number of single parent families, 20, or 30 years ago, that we have today that puts additional stress on children attending schools. We didn't have the levels of violence that is so prevalent in many of our inner cities where so many of these children live and attend school. We didn't have the levels of substance abuse that we have at the present time. Children are growing up in more complicated and difficult circumstances, and their teachers are facing much more complicated and difficult circumstances. They need our help. There are so many dedicated teachers in our inner-city schools who have the opportunity to go to other schools and make a good deal more money. They would most likely have a more modern building, a smaller class size, better access to technology, more professional development opportunities, but they decide to stay. They continue working with challenging situations in the inner-city schools and with the children who so desperately need dedicated, highly-qualified teachers. We must provide these teachers with the educational resources they need, and the professional opportunities they deserve. This bill can do quite a bit for education in this country, however, it's promise will remain unfulfilled if it is not adequately funded. We know the importance of investing in children at an early age. We have, over the last 25 years, seen the results of the Carnegie Commission studies and many others that discuss the importance of child development in the early years, the zero to 2 years when brain synapses develop. At that early time their minds begin to develop some ability to learn, an ability that is being awakened as children are being supported and nurtured and given additional kinds of help and assistance. We know the importance of Early Head Start. We know the importance of Head Start Programs, if they are good Head Start Programs. We are troubled by the fact that we see so many Head Start teachers leaving. There has been a serious decline in their incomes. Even though their incomes are $8 or $9 or $10,000 a year, their purchasing power has deteriorated as we have failed to have any increase in the minimum wage. We see children now in the Head Start Programs that have two or three teachers in the space of one year. They are not able to develop the kind of ongoing relationship with a caring adult that they need at that stage of their life. We are not providing sufficient support to these programs. When we talk about education in this bill, Democrats on this side and many of our Republican friends on the other side know that this is only one part of the whole education puzzle. It is important that we get it right. But it is also important, if we are really interested in strengthening our education system, that we come back and revisit the priorities of the Early Head start Programs, the early interventions, the Head Start Programs, adequate funding, the child care programs, all the kinds of outreaches that impact these children along the pathway as they come to school. When we talk about leaving no child behind, at a composite of different times during the children's development, we have to make sure, to the extent that we can, through policy and through priorities, to reach out to those children. We understand, all of us, that the first way the children learn is through their parents and their families--we understand that--and by working through their faiths and other support programs. But to the extent we can impact it, we ought to make sure we get the policy right, but also that we are going to make sure no child is going to be left behind. That brings me to my third point, and that is the issue of resources. I welcome the opportunity, unlike last year when, quite frankly, with all respect, there was more of an effort to deny President Clinton a win on the extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act than there really was a serious effort to pass a decent bill. But that is in the past. What we have been trying to do is to respond to the President's invitation to work with him on what he considers to be the No. 1 priority. For us, it is the No. 1 priority. For the parents and the children, it is the No. 1 priority. But we believe strongly--I do, and I know others of our colleagues do--if it is going to be the No. 1 priority, it has to be the No. 1 priority in terms of resources. That is not where this legislation is headed. We have seen the request of the budget for $659 million, when we are talking about 7 million children who are left out. Their increase is $659 million. That just is not going to respond. The President has indicated they are prepared to do somewhat more. We said at the start of this debate, we cover a third of the children at the present time. Title I funding should cover all children. No child should be left behind when it comes to providing funds for students who most need educational resources. We hope that by the end of the first term of the Bush Presidency the Title I program will cover all eligible children. We need full funding for the title I program to make sure that no child will be left behind in this program. We are going to then come back on these other programs as well, to the Head Start Programs, and early intervention programs. We are also going to have an important debate on funding of the IDEA for the education of children with special needs. There are cross currents of children who need special kinds of help and attention who are included in that program. Some of the children are, obviously, the same who need additional help in reading and other programs. We will have the chance at the end of this debate to find out who is truly committed to leaving no child behind because that is going to take resources. We heard a bit of the debate yesterday which tried to make the case that Democrats simply want to spend more money. Money, say some, is not the answer to our problems in education. But reform, without the necessary resources, is not reform--it is a formula for failure. If a child doesn't learn algebra in the eighth grade, they are less likely to go on to college. Eighty percent of the children in the inner cities do not have a math teacher who can teach algebra. That is a fact today. We know that. But you cannot bridge the gap between our poorest and wealthiest schools, without providing them the resources to train their teachers and to hire new, fully qualified teachers. Only with these resources will more of our students in the inner cities have a better chance of taking classes like algebra and a better chance of going on to college We know the problems we are facing in reading today. We know what it takes to catch up. We heard discussions about the Sylvan Learning Centers. Will they be permitted to provide tutorial services? Yes, they will be. We will use those, even though they are for-profit. Sylvan says they need 36 hours to work with a child to bring that child up 1 year in reading achievement. But the average child spends 50 hours over the course of a year. That would cost $1,900 per child. We cannot say we are for reading and then fail to provide the necessary investment to improve the performance of our nation's students in reading. But today many of our children aren't reading. We know many children aren't reading and we know what it takes to get them reading. It is going to mean an investment: an investment in our neediest students so that their schools can work effectively to improve their performance in reading; an investment in training for our teachers in the latest methods of teaching reading; an investment in providing educational opportunities after school. It also means an investment to make sure that we have the best tests that will fairly and accurately assess students. Investment is necessary to ensure that we will test a child's ability to reason, rationalize and distinguish. We have seen those developed in a number of our States. The MCAS test in Massachusetts is this sort of a test. We need to make a lot of progress. But we are not for a quick, slick, easy examination. We want to make sure we are going to have thoughtful teachers. We want to make sure the teachers are going to be quality teachers for our children. We want to make sure the schools are going to be quality schools to the extent that we can help and assist them. We know we have 10,000 failing schools today. That is the last projection. We know that the average cost to bring those schools along and turn them around is $180,000. There is a whole series of different ways they can be turned around that have been tested and examined. There are 57 proven, research-based comprehensive reform models that have been identified by the New American Schools Development Corporation, a creation of the first Bush Administration. These models, including Success for All and Reading Recovery among others, cost an average of $180,000. That would cost a total of $1.8 billion to turn around all 10,000 failing schools. If you are going to turn around schools, you are going to have to invest. Currently the Department of Education is able to fund less than 20 percent of after-school grant applications. There are 7 million latch key children nationwide. In the first hour after school lets out, the juvenile crime rate triples. If we are going to use the afterschool programs to help strengthen and tutor the children, we are going to have to invest. We are going to have to invest in our children. So what are we asking? Is this something that just the Democrats are asking for or speaking for? Absolutely not. Later, when we get into the real debate, I will put in the Record what the National Governors have said in terms of funding for this program. I will put into the Record what 38 organizations that have represented children and parents and schools have said in terms of the full funding of this program. I will put into the Record what the League of Cities, who have a direct insight into what is happening in the inner cities, say in terms of full funding. They say if you are going to do the job right, you need to have the resources. That is what we are saying at the outset of this debate. We have to have the resources to be able to do the job, or we are failing these children and failing them in a very important way. That is why this debate is so important, because it is about the future. We know that as we move into a global society and economy, that only about 20 percent of the new entrants into the job market have the skills which 60 percent of them need at the present time. We are not giving them the kind of training they need. We are lagging in education and in investing in people and training. The Republicans act as if the tax cut is an economic program--it is not. It is not. We need to invest in the quality of education, which is basic and fundamental in a democracy. We have to invest in terms of the training, and we have to ask this Nation what its priorities are. Should we trade in a small fraction of a $1.6 billion tax cut to invest approximately $5 billion a year in title I to cover every child by the end of FY 05? We are going to be asked, according to the Wall Street Journal in a recent report, to increase our budget $25 to $30 billion a year for defense. That is going to pass in this body. Are we saying that we are unwilling to provide approximately 5 billion a year for the next 4 years to get to full funding for Title I? Are we saying that we are unwilling to provide the additional resources for afterschool programs, or professional training, or for libraries or smaller class sizes? We are saying we are going to spend the $25 billion a year. You can expect that for the next 6 to 8 years, but we are not going to give you the $5.5 billion. This is about priorities. I guess we can't do that. That $1.6 trillion tax cut is too sacred to say we are going to reduce that a little in order to fund this program. We think it should be reduced. We believe the American people believe so, too. We are going to give the opportunity to this body to express itself on that issue. We are going to give them the opportunity to do so today, tomorrow, every single day that we debate this. Then we are going to have the opportunity to vote on it every time we are going to face the budget when it comes back from conference and every time in appropriations. So get used to it because we are going to give this institution the opportunity to vote and vote and vote about whether they are going to put the children as the first priority. We guarantee it. That is going to be it. Hopefully, if we are able to get that kind of commitment, we can move along and join hands together and say we have a bill that is worthy of the children of this country. But it is not there yet. I see others who want to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that I may follow the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to give an update to our colleagues about the efforts to resolve some final items in the pending Elementary and Secondary Education bill negotiations. As my friend from Minnesota pointed out earlier, we don't have the final product. We have legislation that was reported out of Committee, but at the time of reading of the Committee bill and the report, there were a number of additional areas we were tasked to try to resolve, if we could, in order to be able to fairly represent the best judgment of the President of the United States and the Committee. That has been an ongoing process. Members of our Education Committee, as well as other Senators--including Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh--indicated a particular interest to our leadership. A number of our colleagues, as well as the majority leader's staff will be very much involved in these negotiations. I was interested in the statements and comments made last Friday about the state of these negotiations by the majority leader, because they really did not reflect what I think has been the ongoing effort that all of us have been making to find common ground in this very important area of public policy. I must say that I think we have moved in a very significant way in trying to listen to each position and work through some of the differences. I think in the area of policy conclusions we have made very important and substantial progress. It does not reflect all of my priorities. I would have liked to have seen a good deal more investment in smaller class sizes and school construction and modernization. I would like to see firmer language for professional development, and some other areas as well. I will speak to those items when the legislation is considered by the full Senate. But we have made important progress in a number of very important areas, particularly in putting the final touches on the accountability and Straight A's compromise. We resolved the key issues on bilingual education, on after-school programs, on teacher quality, supplementary services, on report cards, and on testing. The points that my friend, Senator Wellstone, mentioned about ensuring good quality testing is going to still be a matter that I hope we can address in the Chamber. I think the examples he gave about these quick, slick, easy tests that are easily taught do not really test the depth of a child's mind and their ability to really develop his or her grasp of different educational concepts are telling. There are many good tests that are being given. I think the NAEP test that is given in my own State of Massachusetts, is a high-quality test. We've worked through important language in the assessment area. Senators may need to meet tomorrow though to work through remaining items that have not been resolved at the staff level. But, I still say to my colleagues, we have not reached a final agreement on the question of funding. As we have heard from a number of our colleagues, I stand with those who believe that having the changes in policy are important, but to really breathe life into changes provided for in this bill, we need to have the adequate funding. I listened to my colleague from Arkansas talk about money, money, money--that is what others are going to say. The fact is, it isn't just us on this side of the aisle who are talking about enhanced resources. In any fair, open examination of the number of children who need the services that we are trying to provide, and who are not receiving those services, if we are going to cover them, it is going to take an investment. It is as simple as that. We are only reaching a third of the nation's neediest children. We say in our legislation, on page 41, that there must be a timeline for ensuring that each group of students must meet or exceed the State's proficient level of performance on the State assessment--within 10 years from the date of enactment. Ten years is mentioned throughout this piece of legislation--this is the commitment, that we are going to have proficiency for the economically challenged children of this country who present severe needs in our society. If we are going to meet our responsibility, it is going to take additional resources. I listened to my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, talk about the Sylvan Learning Centers services that are offered to students across the nation. It costs $38 an hour for those services, and approximately 50 hours over the course of a school year in order for a student to show improvement. That adds up to $1,900 a year for extra services to one child. Sylvan guarantees that after 36 hours of learning session, children go advance one grade level. We know that without adequate funding we're still going to be failing to respond to the needs for supplementary services for children. As we begin this debate we need to understand what is really missing in the legislation. We are not reaching one-third of the children eligible for supplemental assistance. This Administration has made a commitment to ensure that all children will be guaranteed at least the benefits of this legislation. If done well and right, that will mean a well-trained teacher in the classroom, a reformed curriculum, tough accountability, and the opportunity for parents to understand how well their children are doing or not doing, and how well that school is doing or not doing. We seek strong accountability of schools, of teachers, and of children. The question is, Are we going to be accountable? Are we going to be accountable for ensuring that all the children are going to be covered? I think that is the fundamental issue in terms of funding. Unless we are going to do that, we do a real disservice to the children in this country. This is not going to be the only education debate we are going to have. We also understand the importance of early intervention programs for children. I was very disappointed that the President's budget eliminated the early education program. This is a program that was supported by Senator Stevens, Senator Jeffords, myself, Senator Dodd, and Senator Kerry--a strong bipartisan program that gave a great deal of flexibility. It includes part of our effort to try to make sure children are going to be ready to learn when they enter school. As all the various studies, including the Carnegie Commission reports, demonstrate that early intervention add immeasurably to children's interest in learning, their ability to learn, and in the development of their interpersonal skills. If we say we are going to benefit from the knowledge that we have discovered over recent years, we ought to be supporting early intervention for children, and in many instances, for parents. Many times, particularly in the areas of reading, parents also have difficulty reading. Some of the most successful reading programs involve parents as well as the children. We are also going to come back to the debate on the funding of the Head Start Program. We are still in some States, only serving 40 to 43 percent of eligible children. In some major urban centers in our country approximately 25 percent of the children that are eligible to go to Head Start, are able to find the slots to do so. The Head Start Program has been examined, and it has been shown that the benefits from it in the early education years, add immeasurably to the child's development during the period of their education, and can even last through middle school and high school, if done and well supported. Many of us are disheartened, from recent studies on child care, which show a high level of turnover that is taking place in Head Start Programs. Some children are exposed to two or three teachers over the course of one year. This means confusion to the children and a lost opportunity. Early intervention is key for enhanced academic achievement for the children, and in many respects are as important as many of the issues we are going to be dealing with in the Elementary and Secondary Education act. I am strongly committed to a strong partnership between the Federal Government, the State, and the local community. Parents want the best for their children and they will take it wherever they can find it. We have the opportunity and the responsibility to provide these resources. That is what the Federal role is today. It may be expanded in the future, but today it is targeted to the neediest children. The prime responsibility for education funding still remains with the State and local community. If there has been a failure--and there has been--in trying to bring substandard schools up to the point where they are going to be benefitting children, the blame lies with the States and local communities, as well as with the efforts the Federal government has made in the past. We are spending about $400 billion a year, and with $8.6 billion dedicated to title I. This works out to approximately 2 cents in terms of interventions directly with the neediest children. Our elementary schools are much different than they were 10 or 15 years ago. We are bringing children who have special needs into our public schools and attempting to mainstream them. They take the test along with everybody else in the class. Schools are also dealing with a large population of students who do not speak English as a first language, which creates an increasing complexity in terms of having well-trained teachers. I recently went to the Revere High School, just outside of Boston, where there are 43 different languages being spoken by students. These challenges are compounded by increased divisions of families, the explosion of substance abuse, and the growth of violence in society--all falling primarily on the same children and then we wonder why these students are not getting all A's and B's in school. Then the finger is pointed at the Federal Government saying, they have failed us on this--that is a simplistic explanation and observation about what has been happening to elementary and secondary schools across the nation. We have been attempting to do the best we can, through strong accountability measures to give the parents the information and then ultimately empower them at the time, if a school has been failing, to make some choices and decisions on what they find to be in the best interests of their children. We are going to strengthen the supplementary services for children so that those children who have been found in need as a result of the tests are going to get the supplementary services. Unless we provide the resources, we are only, according to the best judgment, now providing the additional services for probably 15 to 18 percent of the children in need. We are going to make sure that schools are held accountable. We are going to insist on a strong professional development opportunities for teachers. I was recently in a school just outside of Quincy, Massachusetts, where they implemented professional development programs. They had a 100 percent turnout of teachers for this program. They say the thirst and interest of teachers in being able to have that professional development is replicated all across this country. We ought to make these opportunities available for teachers, especially in the inner cities that do not have the kind of professional training, but in many instances, have dedicated teachers who are pouring their life into trying to serve children in need. We are so easy to condemn these teachers where in most circumstances, they would be able to leave, and perhaps with less tension and danger, if they went into a different situation. There are no easy answers. And to those who suggest that this legislation is going to answer our problems, we ought to take a very healthy sense of pause as we begin. I will just say a final word about the investments in education. I can remember not long ago talking with Mary Robinson, President of Ireland, asking her about some of the things that gave her the greatest satisfaction as the President of Ireland. She told me a couple of years ago that she had just gone to the 10 best schools in Ireland. I asked where they were. She said they were in the poorest areas of Ireland. I said: How so? That would not be the situation you would necessarily find here in the United States. She said: We have virtual uniformity in terms of funding of the schools in Ireland. Of course, that is not the case here. You find out that in most urban areas, they are spending about a third of what they spend in the more affluent communities. That happens to be a reality. That makes a great deal of difference in terms of both the physical structures, resources, training, and the programs and the atmosphere and the curriculum the children have. She continued and said: The best teachers in Ireland go to these underserved areas because they find it the most challenging and because they find the children are the hungriest because they know that the key to getting out of many of these areas is an education. And most powerfully, the parents understand that. So they are engaged and involved. They have had extraordinary results. That doesn't surprise me. If children had the opportunity and knew they were getting something that really was as good or the best, they would try to excel and succeed. If they knew they could get support services, they would make all of the additional efforts to try to be the kind of students their parents would be proud of. That is the lesson of history. That happens throughout the whole world. Why we don't think that will happen here is a great misunderstanding. To do it, you have to do it right. Many of us on this side see that we are developing a formulation in terms of this legislation that will have both accountability, flexibility, and responsibility. It will have something that can make a significant and important difference in doing it right. Funding is going to be the key to whether those services are going to be there or not. I will mention the contrast in funding between this side of the aisle and the Administration. We have, on all of the ESEA programs for fiscal year 2001, $3.6 billion, a 24-percent increase. This year, the Administration offered a 3.5 percent increase, as compared to a 24- percent annual increase last year. In fiscal year 2001, the budget increase for the entire Department of Education, was $6.5 billion, as compared to the Administrations proposed budget increase of $2.5 billion, 5.9 percent. Money isn't everything, but it is a clear indication of a nation's priorities. We have had this debate where we have said that our No. 1 priority is going to be the tax reduction. That is our No. 1 priority. The President has said this is a top priority. Well, the point is, if it is a top priority and the first priority is a tax break, somewhere out there they have to meet. They ought to be reflected in the additional kind of resources to be able to fund these programs in a way that will make a difference for the children. The reason I haven't lost some hope of having some assurances from the President is that I look at what happened with school funding in Texas. Between 1994 and 2000, funding went from $16.9 billion to $27.5 billion, which is a 57-percent increase. We saw a corresponding enhancement in the children's achievement levels in Texas. I hear the arguments from the other side that money isn't everything. This President saw the importance of investing in children and investing in the quality of teachers and others, and it has really made the difference. So we will soon have the chance to debate these issues in greater detail. I hope that prior to that time we have a last best judgment from the President that will give assurances we are going to have the funding to enhance this change. I hope to include at least another third of the children in the area of title I. Then we can give an assurance to the American people that during this Presidential term he will fight for the complete funding for the title I program. I think that would be an enormously powerful message. I daresay I think he could be assured of every vote for that full funding from this side of the aisle. I welcome the opportunity to join that. That would really give light to what we believe the children in this country need and deserve.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jay Barth and Nicky Yuen have floor privileges today and for the remainder of the debate on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, who is typically courteous, as always. I am very grateful for his thoughtfulness. I welcome the opportunity to continue to listen to his very fine statements. There are many important things that are happening in the Nation's Capitol and around this country today, but I think if the American people will pause and listen to the good advice of my friend and colleague about the importance of reading as opposed to television, in his excellent presentation, I think this would be a wiser and more thoughtful country. I commend the Senator for his statement and the subject matter. I look forward to continue listening.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, does the Senator intend to mention that wonderful poem about the ambulance in the valley? That was always one of my favorites. I don't know whether the Senator planned to include that.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join my colleagues in this well-deserved tribute to Jim English, who is retiring from the Senate after 30 years of outstanding service. Jim has done a brilliant job over the years as both a majority staff director and a minority staff director on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we will all miss him very much. Jim was talented and always helpful, and he was an enormous source of advice and counsel for all of us on so many aspects of the appropriations process. Whatever the issue, and however complex the process, especially as the annual deadline neared, Jim was always a steady hand and a remarkable source of inspiration and wise counsel. Jim's name may not be well known to the citizens of our states, but over the years, the people of all 50 states have benefitted immensely from Jim's skillful work. It is a tribute as well to our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, that he has had the remarkable service of such an outstanding member of his staff over the years. We will all miss Jim very much. We thank him for his extraordinary services to the Senate and the nation, and we extend our best wishes to Jim and his family for a long and happy retirement in the years ahead.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, victims of crime deserve to have their voices heard and to be notified of important events in the criminal justice system relating to their cases, and they deserve enforceable rights under the law. Today, this is why my colleagues and I are re-introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Act. It is especially appropriate that we do so this week, which is National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Our bill defines the rights of victims and establishes an effective means to implement and enforce these rights. Equally important, it does so without taking the drastic, unnecessary, and time-consuming step of amending the Constitution. Our bill provides enhanced protections to victims of both violent and non-violent federal crimes. It assures victims a greater voice in the prosecution of the criminals who injured them and their families. It gives victims the right to be notified and consulted on detention and plea agreements; the right to be heard at sentencing; the right to be notified of the escape or release of a criminal from prison or a grant of executive clemency; and the right to a speedy trial and prompt disposition, free from unreasonable delay. The rights established by this bill will fill existing gaps in federal criminal law and will be a major step toward guaranteeing that victims of crime receive fair treatment. Our bill achieves these goals in a way that does not interfere with the efforts of the States to protect victims in ways appropriate to each State's unique needs. Rather than mandating that States modify their criminal justice procedures in particular ways, our bill authorizes the use of federal funds to establish effective pilot programs to promote victim-rights compliance. It increases resources for the development of state-of-the- art systems for notifying victims of important dates and developments in their cases. It provides funds for the development of community- based justice programs relating to those rights. Finally, it creates and funds additional personnel in federal law enforcement agencies to assist victims in obtaining their rights. These initiatives will provide victims with the counseling, information, and assistance they need in order to participate in the criminal justice process to the maximum extent possible. There is no need to amend the Constitution to achieve these important goals. The Constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It reflects the enduring principles of our country. The framers deliberately made the Constitution difficult to amend, because it was never intended to be used for normal legislative purposes. If it is not necessary to amend the Constitution to achieve particular goals, it is necessary not to amend it. Our legislation is well-designed to establish effective and enforceable rights for victims of crime, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The senior Senator from New Mexico is correct. The 1992 regulations have not been changed, nor has there been a need to change them because the 1998 Perkins Amendments made no changes concerning which institutions are eligible for the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions funding.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Hagel, Senator Schumer, and Senator Clinton in introducing legislation to extend section 245(i), a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, which enables persons who are eligible for green cards to adjust their status in the U.S., rather than have to return to their country of origin to do so. Last year, Congress made a major effort to bring greater fairness to the nation's immigration laws. The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act was a sensible compromise worked out on a bipartisan basis to deal with many of the injustices that have been so harmful and so unfair to so many immigrant families in recent years. Included in the legislation was a partial restoration of 245(i). Under last year's legislation, however, immigrants are required to file their petition by April 30th to qualify for 245(i). This fast- approaching deadline is causing fear and confusion around the country. Eligible immigrants are struggling to file their petitions by April 30th, but little time remains. Across the country, we hear that many qualified persons will not be able to file their petitions by this deadline, because not enough attorneys and legal service organizations are available to handle their cases. The legislation we are introducing will extend the deadline to April 30, 2002, and provide needed and well-deserved relief to members of our immigrant communities. Spouses, children, parents and siblings of permanent residents and U.S. citizens will be able to adjust their status in the U.S., and avoid needless separation from their loved ones. Similarly, businesses will be able to retain valued employees. In addition, the INS will receive millions of dollars in additional revenues, at no cost to taxpayers. Extending the section 245(i) deadline is pro-family and pro-business, and it is also good economic policy and good immigration policy. It is consistent with the goal of legislation to reunite immigrant families. Representatives Peter King and Charles Rangel have introduced similar legislation in the House. Congress needs to act quickly to pass this important legislation. I hope that our Republic and Democratic colleagues will join us in supporting this needed extension.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Hagel, Senator Schumer, and Senator Clinton in introducing legislation to extend section 245(i), a vital provision of U.S. immigration law, which enables persons who are eligible for green cards to adjust their status in the U.S., rather than have to return to their country of origin to do so. Last year, Congress made a major effort to bring greater fairness to the nation's immigration laws. The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act was a sensible compromise worked out on a bipartisan basis to deal with many of the injustices that have been so harmful and so unfair to so many immigrant families in recent years. Included in the legislation was a partial restoration of 245(i). Under last year's legislation, however, immigrants are required to file their petition by April 30th to qualify for 245(i). This fast- approaching deadline is causing fear and confusion around the country. Eligible immigrants are struggling to file their petitions by April 30th, but little time remains. Across the country, we hear that many qualified persons will not be able to file their petitions by this deadline, because not enough attorneys and legal service organizations are available to handle their cases. The legislation we are introducing will extend the deadline to April 30, 2002, and provide needed and well-deserved relief to members of our immigrant communities. Spouses, children, parents and siblings of permanent residents and U.S. citizens will be able to adjust their status in the U.S., and avoid needless separation from their loved ones. Similarly, businesses will be able to retain valued employees. In addition, the INS will receive millions of dollars in additional revenues, at no cost to taxpayers. Extending the section 245(i) deadline is pro-family and pro-business, and it is also good economic policy and good immigration policy. It is consistent with the goal of legislation to reunite immigrant families. Representatives Peter King and Charles Rangel have introduced similar legislation in the House. Congress needs to act quickly to pass this important legislation. I hope that our Republic and Democratic colleagues will join us in supporting this needed extension.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on April 7, the Boston College Eagles Ice Hockey Team defeated the Fighting Sioux of the University of North Dakota 3-2 in overtime to win the NCAA national championship. The victory marked the first national championship in ice hockey for Boston College since 1949, and all of us in Massachusetts are proud of them for their outstanding season. An overtime goal for Boston College by Krys Kolanos produced the victory and made up for last year's 4-2 defeat by North Dakota in the championship game. Chuck Kobasew and Mike Lephart scored the other two goals for Boston College, and goalie Scott Clemmensen did an excellent job as well, with 34 saves. The Boston College team compiled an extraordinary record of 33 wins, eight loses, and two ties during the season. Coach Jerry York, a native of Watertown, Massachusetts, had been a star for the Eagles in the 1967 season, was an indispensable part of this year's championship achievement as was all the members on the team. The Eagles were led effectively this season by captain Brian Gionta and assistant captains Bobby Allen and Mike Lepart. I welcome this opportunity to commend all of the players for their brilliant success, Bill Cass, Anthony D'Arpino, Ales Dolinar, Justin Dziama, Ben Eaves, Tom Egan, J.D Forrest, Jeff Giuliano, Ty Hennes, Marty Hughes, Tim Kelleher, Mark McLennan, Brooks Orpik, Brett Peterson, Joe Schuman, Rob Scuderi, Dan Sullivan, and Tony Voce. I also commend Coach York's assistant coaches, Mike Cavanaugh, Jim Logue, and Scott Paluch. The Boston College Eagles are flying high. Massachusetts is proud of their championship season, and I urge the Senate to approve this well, deserved resolution. I ask unanimous consent that an article on the championship Eagles from the Boston College newspaper ``The Chronicle'' be printed in the Record.