Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1996, what is basically the most important document that has been published on the need for getting high-quality teachers for the children of this country has been published by the National Commission on Teaching in America's Future, in September of 1996--``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future.'' There are many other studies and documents, but I think this is about as fine a document as we could have. In our Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we relied on it very substantially, but not completely. We had over 20 days of hearings on our elementary and secondary education bill. Nonetheless, this document was, I thought, very profound. The problem in making recommendations is about how to address them. I will take a moment to read the major flaws in teacher preparation: For new teachers, improving standards begins with teacher preparation. Prospective teachers learn just as other students do: by studying, practicing, and reflecting; by collaborating with others; by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing what they see. For prospective teachers, this kind of learning cannot occur in college classrooms divorced from schools or in schools divorced from current research. Yet, until recently, most teacher education programs taught theory separately from application. Teachers were taught to teach in lecture halls from texts and teachers who frequently had not themselves ever practiced what they were teaching. Students' courses on subject matter were disconnected from their courses on teaching methods, which were in turn disconnected from their courses on learning and development. They often encountered entirely different ideas in their student teaching, which made up a tiny taste of practice added on, without connections, to the end of their course work. Mr. President, they made a series of recommendations about what we ought to do. One was to reinvent teacher preparation and professional development. It included professional development in the schools themselves. Also, it talked about the importance of mentoring. Those are two very important features which have been left out in terms of this underlying appropriations bill which were included in our authorization bill. Then, further, it goes on and says: . . . fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in every classroom. That was one of the very strong commitments that we had in our Democratic proposal, our Democratic commitment for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--a commitment to American families that we would put a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in this country within 4 years. Look at what happened last year across this country, where school districts hired 50,000 unqualified teachers. This isn't a problem of just 1996, this is a problem of the year 2000 and 2001. We have to address it. So where are we in terms of these recommendations that we took to heart in a very bipartisan way--which I will come back to--in terms of our Elementary and Secondary Education Act? In this legislation, there is effectively no new money for teacher preparation. We are going to have level funding for title II of the Higher Education Act. This is what is requested; $98 million was requested last year and $98 million for this year. So there is virtually no increase. There will be absolutely no new Federal participation in working with States and local communities in terms of enhanced teacher recruitment--zero, none. If you look at what is happening in this last year, as this money is being expended in 2000, where the grants are being made, now, it is only the difference between $77 million and $98 million because about 95 percent of the $77 million is carried through in 2- to 3-year programs. So the current situation is that over a 2-year period, with the demand for 2.2 million teachers, our Federal response has been to provide $21 million to help States and local communities go out and recruit teachers, when we have a need for 2.2 million of them. That is effectively wrong. We cannot do that. It is so important, and I will come back to this. Let me just show you here what happened. For the $77 million that we had, we had 366 total applicants, but only 77 applications could be funded. We had 5 times the number of applications for the number of grants available. The desire is out there. The interest is out there. Parents and local communities want this kind of help and assistance. We are funding one out of five. And this is what is happening, also: We are expecting $21 million in grants for this current year, zero for next year. We expect that 11 applications will be funded out of 141 total applications. That is more than 12 times the number. People across this country--States, educational centers, local communities-- want the help. One of the most important aspects of education is having well-trained teachers. What I find so troublesome is the fact that we worked out a bipartisan effort in the Higher Education Act of 1998, which is basically what this is all about. It is about funding the provisions in the 1998 Higher Education Act. When we authorized the Higher Education Act in 1998, we had strong bipartisan support. Efforts were led by Senators Reed, Bingaman, Jeffords, and Gregg. Our goal was to create a program to address the Nation's needs and to recruit better qualified teachers to enter the classroom. Each day, we agreed on that basic principle. I hope our colleagues will agree to give it the full support it deserves. Senator DeWine during the course of the debate on title II: Really, there is nothing more important in regard to education than the teacher. Our children deserve to be taught by teachers who really understand their subject, understand the subject matter. I have worked hard to incorporate measures concerning good teaching into this bill. I want to thank Chairman Jeffords for the assistance that he has given me and the cooperation in getting these sections incorporated into this very good bill. Senator Jeffords: As its foundation, Title II embraces the notion that investing in the preparation of our nation's teachers is a good one. Well-prepared teachers play a key role in making it possible for our students to achieve the standards required to assure both their own well being and the ability of our country to compete internationally. Senator McCain on July 8: Another important component of this bill is the establishment of a comprehensive program promoting statewide reforms to enhance the performance of teachers in the classroom by improving the quality of teacher training. Having professional, well-trained teachers is an essential component for ensuring that our children achieve high educational standards. Senator Smith of Oregon: By improving the quality of teacher training and recruitment, increasing the purchasing power of students through Pell grants and other forms of student assistance, and by improving access to higher education for students with disabilities, this legislation provides opportunity for the young people of our Nation to seek a higher education. The list goes on and on. It keeps going on, with the exception to stop when it comes to putting funding into these kinds of commitments. These are efforts that have been made in a bipartisan way to try to get an effective program and partnership with the State and local communities. Effectively, we are zeroing this out. We had $21 million provided for this last year. That is wrong. Research shows that the national need for high-quality teachers is growing: Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching, November 1997: Nationally, relatively few teachers have access to sustained, intensive professional development about their subject matter, teaching methods, or new technologies. National Center for Education Services, The Baby Boom Echo Report, 1998: An estimated 2.2 million teachers will be needed over the next 10 years to make up for a large number of teachers nearing retirement and rapid enrollment growth. One thing is for sure: They are not getting them in here. The Federal Government is AWOL on that issue of education. What matters most is teaching for America's future. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that more than 50,000 people who lack the training for the job enter teaching annually on emergency or provisional licenses. And, 30-50% of teachers leave within the first three to five years. In urban district, the attrition rate can be 30-50% in the first year. That is what is happening. You get them in there, and they leave, unless you have some very important changes, such as providing skills for teachers who will be working with newer teachers in situations involving mentoring, where we have seen these figures change dramatically and where teachers will remain and work in these communities. The Urban Teacher Challenge Report of January 2000: One hundred percent of 40 urban school districts surveyed have an urgent need for teachers in at least one subject area. 95% of urban districts report a critical need for match teachers; 98% report a critical need in science; and 97% report a critical need in special education. There it is. In urban areas across the country: No math, no science, no special education. We are asking ourselves: What can we do as a nation to try to make a difference for children in our country? I don't know how many more studies we have to have. I am not saying if you just pour buckets of money, it is going to solve the problem. But one thing we know is that without the investment of resources in these areas, we are not going to solve it either. My colleagues will speak about other aspects. But we need investment in terms of recruitment and professional development and in terms of mentoring. Listen to the results of some of these studies. ``Teacher Quality and Student Achievement'', Linda Darling- Hammond, December 1999: The states that repeatedly lead the nation in math and reading achievement have among the nation's most highly qualified teachers and have made long- standing investments in the quality of teaching. The top scoring states--Minnesota, North Dakota, and Iowa, recently joined by Wisconsin, Maine, and Montana--all have rigorous standards for teaching that include requiring extensive study of education plus a major in the field to be taught. By contrast, states such as Georgia and South Carolina, where reform initiatives across a comparable period focused on curriculum and testing but invested less in teacher learning, showed little success in raising student achievement within this timeframe. Do we have that? What are the conclusions? If you invest more in quality teachers and recruiting, and providing and keeping professional enhancement and mentoring, you are going to have the corresponding results in enhanced academic achievement. That is what these reports show. If you do not do this, and spend the money in other ways, which you could do with the general funds--which I would call the block grant way--you find that you are failing the children in those particular areas. 1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, and 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States (National Assessment of Education Progress): Over the last decade of reform, North Carolina and Connecticut have made sizable investments in major statewide increases in teacher salaries and intensive recruitment efforts and initiatives to improve preservice teacher education, licensing, beginning teacher mentoring, and ongoing professional development. Since then, North Carolina has posted among the largest students achievement gains in math and reading of any state in the nation, now scoring well above the national average in 4th grade reading and math, although it entered the 1990s near the bottom of the state rankings. Connecticut has also posted significant gains, becoming one of the top scoring states in the nation in math and reading, despite an increase in the proportion of students with special needs during that time. That has impacted many of our communities. Many of our communities are increasingly challenged with a wide expansion of diversity that eventually, of course, adds such extraordinary value to these communities. But they initially put additional kinds of pressures on education institutions and other institutions. That has been true in Connecticut, and it has been true in my own State of Massachusetts. What does this report say? The report says that when you have sizable investments and intensive recruitment efforts and initiatives to improve preservice teacher educating, licensing, beginning teacher mentoring, and ongoing professional development, you see dramatic increases in the quality of education for these children. I think that would be fairly self-evident for people in this Chamber to understand. We certainly understood it in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. It was understood there. As I pointed out, there is broad bipartisan support for those particular provisions. We find that the various studies--I mentioned just a few of them--are compelling and convincing, and those who wrote those studies made presentations which were compelling. Others, in response to those measures, indicated they were compelling. I see Senator Reed. I understand I only have 10 minutes left. I yield myself 3 more minutes. Let me point out exactly what this amendment does. My amendment increases the appropriation for the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants from $98 million in the underlying FY2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to the full authorization level of $300 million to enable much greater participation in this vital program to improve teacher preparation and recruitment. This increase in appropriations from $98 million to $300 million will help fund over 100 additional partnerships. The Teacher Quality Enhancement Program provides three types of grants to improve teacher training and recruitment: One, local partnership grant to improve teacher training; two, State grants are to implement statewide teacher reform efforts; and three, local partnerships for State grants to focus on innovative teacher recruit programs. The teacher quality enhancement grants support local partnerships among teachers, institutions, and local schools to help improve in many ways the quality of teachers entering the classroom. By increasing the cooperation between college programs that prepare new teachers in the schools that hire the teachers, teachers obtain the effective training they need to teach in classroom settings. The prospective teachers have more opportunities to observe successful veteran teachers and obtain feedback. I urge the Senate to support this amendment to increase the funding for this critical program so more of the Nation's schools and communities can improve teacher training programs. The Nation's children deserve no less. Under the current proposal in the Senate, there is no new money for teacher preparation level for title II. There is minimal increase in the Eisenhower program, which effectively had been block granted in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so it may disappear completely. There are no funds for mentoring or recruitment. I think the bipartisan program that passed out of our human resources committee on higher education considered these various measures and had bipartisan support. I think we ought to give life to those recommendations. That is what this amendment does. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments and his explanation. But the fact remains, these allocations are within a context about how we are going to allocate resources in the Federal Government. This explanation we heard is in the context of a 10-year, $792 billion tax cut. If we did not have the $792 billion tax cut, we would have the opportunity to do more. I personally believe this is a higher priority. I think most of us on this side of the aisle believe that it is a higher priority than having a tax cut and putting on the squeeze, in terms of improving quality of education. That is philosophical and that is decided in this body, where the majority are the Republicans and where they have had the votes in order to be able to do that. But that is the harsh truth. The fact is, in more recent years, between 1980 and 1999, we are finding out the support for elementary and secondary education is falling down, and in higher education it is falling down. Against that background, we have the explosion of the number of children who are going on to schools, K-12 schools. These are the numbers--54 million. I don't think we can do business as usual. I don't think it is a matter of shifting priorities from here to there on this matter, and shuffling the debt. I respect the Senator from Pennsylvania's strong commitment to education and health. There is nobody in this body who doubts it. But we are talking about the broader issue, and that is, given the announcement yesterday that we are going to have a $750 billion surplus in addition to what was expected, whether we are going to be able to find some $300 million to improve the quality of education, and do it in a program that has strong bipartisan support, that is what this is about. That is really what is at issue. With regard to our program, in the legislation, the national commission, they say: We recommend that colleges and schools work with the States to redesign teacher education so that the 2 million teachers hired in the next decade are adequately prepared. Then they list the various criteria: . . . stronger disciplinary preparation, greater focus on learning, more knowledge about curricula, greater understanding of special needs, multicultural competence, preparation for collaboration, technological skills, and strong emphasis on reflection. Those have all been incorporated in our underlying amendment, which we are trying to fund. That is why it had the strong bipartisan support. Without this amendment, we have, effectively, flat funding. In our appropriation priorities, we are saying to the American people that we are not going to fund resources to provide the best teachers in the classrooms of America. I think we ought to be able to do so.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment is based upon a rather basic and fundamental concept; that is, every worker who enters the job market is going to have seven or eight jobs over the course of his or her lifetime. A number of years ago when I first entered the Senate many of the workers in my own State got a job at the Fall River Shipyard, and their father or mother had a job there, and many times their grandfather had a job there, as well. They knew early in their lives that they would enter the same career as their family before them. They acquired their skills through training. They lived their lives more often than not with only a high school diploma. They acquired their skills and upgraded their skills at the place of employment, but usually their job changed very little. They were able to have a very useful and constructive and satisfying life. The job market has changed dramatically in recent years. It is changing more every single day with the obvious globalization and the move towards the information economy. New technologies are creating new careers and new businesses, and many people are in jobs that didn't exist a generation ago. These new businesses are an important part of our new economy, and they also create many new jobs. But they have also created new challenges for our workers. Education has become increasingly important to move up the ladder in the job market. And the idea of continuous skill development has become a critical part of workplace success. We have learned that continuing ongoing training has to be a lifetime experience. We know that some companies are providing training programs. More often than not, those training programs are directed to those in the upper levels of the management of those companies. For too long we have left behind those who have been the real backbone of so many of these companies--the workers who often lack basic academic and technical skills. These programs which have been included in the amendment that I have offered are basically to try to make sure we are going to offer more workers the skills necessary in order to continue to be the world leader in terms of our economy. I don't know how many others in this body go back home over the weekends and meet with various groups, including various business groups. I find in my State of Massachusetts and generally throughout New England that the first issue people raise is: When are we going to do something about the H-1B issue? People who listen to talk about H-1B wonder what in the world it is. H-1B is a visa program. It permits importation of highly skilled foreign nationals to work in our plants and corporations. That is a key question on the minds of those involved in so many of the expanding economies in this country. I always say: Yes. We ought to move ahead. I hope we can move ahead and expand that program before we leave this Congress. H-1B visa provides a temporary solution to a labor market shortage of highly skilled workers. I think the answer to this is not only in the temporary way to have an expansion of the highly skilled workers coming to the United States, but to develop the skills for American workers so they can have those jobs in the future. Those are good jobs. They are well-paying jobs. Americans ought to be qualified for those. The only thing that is between Americans gaining those jobs are the training programs for upgrading their skills. We need to strengthen our secondary education and provide better access to post-secondary education for more students. And we have to improve the access to on- the-job training for current workers, and provide the resources to support dislocated workers with training and re-employment services. What happened in the Senate? It is almost as if this appropriations bill just fell off the ceiling. It has lacked, with all due respect, the focus and attention to what we have tried to do in some of the authorizing committees. This fall, for the first time, we will put in place the Workforce Investment Act, which I was proud to cosponsor with Senators Jeffords, DeWine and Wellstone, to consolidate the 126 different workforce programs in 12 different agencies that too often are tied up with a good deal of bureaucracy. We started working on that legislation with Senator Kassebaum and it took three years before we passed that program. I had the opportunity on Monday of this last week to go out to Worcester, MA. There were 800 people gathered there interested in the work training programs from all over New England. They are eager to know how they are going to get the resources to try to put together this consolidation of training programs in order to get the skills for people in our region of the country. Workers know that they have to increase their skills, especially in the area of computer technology, and they want to know how to access those programs. Those discussions are taking place in cities and towns all over the country. Part of that consolidation was what we call one-stop shopping where a worker, for example, who has been dislocated or has lost their job, maybe because of the merging of various industries, would be able to come to one place to learn about all the options that they have for training. They would be able to have their skills assessed. They could get information on jobs that are available in their areas and the skills that they would need to compete for those jobs. And they would get an accurate assessment of their current skills. They could see how long each training program takes, and a look at the employment prospects. They also get information about how many former participants in those programs did in the job market. How many of them got jobs right away, and at what salary? They also get a look at how many of those workers were still employed after a year, and how many were able to move up in those jobs to better paying jobs with their companies. The person can make up their mind. They can say: OK. I want to take that particular program, and they are going to be able to go to that program and acquire the skills. It could be at a community college, a four year college or at a private center. Wherever they choose, they are aware of how participants of that program performed in the workplace. That is what we attempted to do in a bipartisan way 3 years ago. Those programs are ready to go. What happens? The appropriations bill pulls the rug out from under those programs. Our amendment is trying to restore the funding at the President's request to make sure we are going to have the training programs that are necessary so American workers can get the skills to be able to compete in the modern economy. That is what this is all about. It may not be a ``front-page issue.'' It may not be a ``first-10-pages issue.'' But as workers can tell you all over this country, skills are the defining issue as to what your future is going to be and what you are going to be able to provide for your family. This provides additional resources out of the surplus to be able to fund these programs in the way that the President has recommended. There has been a lack of serious attention to the various programs which we mentioned. Tragically, I think the most dramatic has been in the Summer Jobs Program. Here is the story in the Wall Street Journal: ``Fewer youths get a shot at the Summer Jobs Program. This summer the Workforce Investment Act replaces the Nation's previous federally supported summer jobs.'' We tried to upgrade it and tighten it to eliminate some of the bureaucracy. We know that there needs to be a year-round connection to the job experiences that young people have in the summer. What happens? The minute we expand the mission of the Summer Jobs program, they cut out all of the funds for the Summer Jobs Programs for youth. We mandate a year-round approach to getting some of the neediest youth equipped for the world of work and we critically under-fund that effort. In doing that we doom those young people to fail. While local groups agree that the expansion will make the program more effective, it will be more expensive. Washington hasn't provided the funds. The Labor Department estimates participation will drop 25 percent to 50 percent from last year's 500,000 young people. Dropping over 500,000 young people--most of them in the cities of this country--and cutting them loose is probably about as shortsighted of a decision as could be made by this Congress. At a time where we just had the announcement yesterday of surpluses going up through the roof, we are talking about today cutting out effectively the Summer Jobs Program for the most economically challenged urban and rural areas of our country. You can't talk to a mayor in any city of this country, large or small, who won't tell you that is the most shortsighted decision that could possibly be made by the Congress today. I know in my own city of Boston where they have anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000 Summer Jobs Programs, what happens? The private sector comes in and provides maybe 2,000 to 3,000 jobs. They try to build upon the jobs program that existed in previous summers. High school students get a chance to improve their academic skills and learn important workplace skills that enable them to get higher paying jobs in future summers. Many of them make business connections that give them employment opportunities throughout high school and college. They will find children who have completed 1 year in the Summer Jobs Program, a second year in the Summer Jobs Program, and the third year the private sector picks them up, and more often than not they get the job. If the young person is interested enough to continue the Summer Jobs Program and acquire some skills, more often than not in my city of Boston they will be picked up and given a job to move ahead. I wonder how many Members of this body have ever been with a young person in the summer youth program the day they get their first paycheck and see the pride and satisfaction and joy of those young people? They have a paycheck, many of them for the first time. They have a sense of involvement, a sense of participation, a responsibility, a willingness to stay the course. We are saying to those young people: No way, we are cutting back. We have record surpluses, but not for you, young America. Then we wonder around this body about violence in school, we wonder why young people are upset, disoriented, or out of touch with what is going on. We send them back into the confusion of the inner city, send them out there without any supervision, send them out there without any sense of training or pride. That is what we are doing. We are basically abdicating our essential and important responsibility to the children of this country and abandoning our commitment to give workers help and assistance. Soon the Senate will discuss the issue of expanded trade with China. The votes are there to pass it. Many have pointed out that some are concerned because some will benefit, and benefit considerably, while others are going to sacrifice, and sacrifice considerably. We have heard those arguments about this providing new opportunities for many aspects of our American economy. Many have said yes. But what about others who will be laid off? They ought to get a little training to find a future for themselves and their family. What is happening now? We are closing the door for them. We are denying them the right to have that kind of job training. We are denying young people their first job experience and we are denying older workers the training programs to give them job security. It is fine for those who will make the big fortunes. Increase the number of billionaires in our society. What about those men and women who are laid off? The only way they can survive is to get training in a different job. That training will not be there with this budget. Our amendment provides $1 billion additional dollars to the various training programs and the summer job programs. This is a tangible way to show Americans that we are going to provide the tools for them to fully participate in this growing, expanding, and global society. We need to send a clear message that workers are the backbone of this country, the backbone of our economy, and every hard-working American is going to be able to gain skills to be useful and productive workers in the future in our society. This amendment ought to pass. How much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes to each Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, I welcome the superb statement made by my friend and colleague from Illinois. The Commission for Economic Development says that half of manufacturing companies nationwide do not offer any training programs. Nationally, all employer training programs equal just 1 percent of their payroll costs. I have here this ``Opportunity Knocks,'' a study done as a Joint Project of Mellon New England and Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth. It says: Which workers get employer-provided job skills? For large employers with 50 workers or more, 80 percent are management. These employers are more likely to provide job skills training for managers, computer technicians, and sales workers that for production or service workers. How are these lower skilled workers supposed to improve their skills and move up the ladder? This really is the case. Companies are doing more hiring and firing simultaneously than ever before. Workers who need a new set of skills are often replaced rather than retrained. We need to get workers the skills that they need to compete in this information-age economy. That is quite different from Europe, for example, where the companies are required to provide a range of different skills training so there is an investment in a company's workers. They value the individual, and they know that continual, ongoing training programs in each of those major industries makes good business sense. This study goes on to say that the poor odds of an employer offering any training is only part of the problem. Access to employer-provided training is by no means equal across categories of workers. Most businesses are unlikely to provide any training opportunities to clerical or production workers and when they do offer training it is in the form of an orientation to their present job. There is no attention to up-grading the skills of those workers. I want to mention, as we reach the end of this presentation, the comments of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. He recently said: [The] rapidity of innovation and unpredictability of the directions it may take imply a need for considerable investment in human capital. Workers in almost every occupation are being asked to strengthen their skills to ensure long-term success in the workplace. The technical know-how that workers need to stay on the cutting edge is being redefined every day. We are being told by the head of the Federal Reserve that this is what is necessary to keep America's economy strong. We are being told that by the business community. We are being told that by workers. We are being urged to do that by the President of the United States. It makes no sense to undermine that. We have taken action in a bipartisan way to develop a workforce development system that will be effective. In the next month every state will come on board to implement the new law. Without this amendment we are effectively undermining this Nation's commitment to provide important, necessary skills for America's workers so they will be able to be full participants in the American economy of tomorrow. It is wrong. I hope the Senate will accept my amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print letters from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the Mayor of Boston.

Mr. KENNEDY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which is a long overdue attempt to deal more effectively with suicide, a serious public health threat in the United States. In 1998, suicide was the cause of more than 29,000 deaths --nearly 60 percent higher than the number of homicides in that year. The nation's Surgeon General, Dr. David Satcher, issued a Call to Action to Prevent Suicide in 1999, in which he recommended a national strategy to reduce the high toll that suicide takes. Our amendment will provide grants through the Center for Mental Health Services to help support a national network of suicide hotlines and crisis centers, and to provide a certification program for the staff members of the network. This program will ensure that people who seek help during a crisis will receive an effective response from appropriately trained and certified personnel. In Massachusetts, the state's 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that one of every five adolescents had seriously considered suicide in the previous year, and one in twelve--more than 20,000 teenagers--made an actual attempt. But this serious problem is not limited to young Americans. It affects all age groups. In fact, suicide rates increase with age, and are highest among men aged 75 years and older. Suicide also affects all racial and ethnic groups. Between 1980 and 1996, the rate of suicide among African-American male teenagers more than doubled. Native American communities have long experienced high suicide rates. Suicide and suicide attempts affect both genders. Although males are four times more likely to die of suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide. Each year in the United States, half a million people require emergency room treatment for a suicide attempt. But suicide and suicide attempts can be prevented. Ninety percent of people who complete suicide have depression or another mental or substance abuse disorder. These disorders respond to effective treatment. The amendment we offer today will ensure that when a person is in crisis anywhere in our nation, there is a network of hotlines and crisis centers to call for help, and that a trained and certified staff member will be available to intervene effectively. Every 17 minutes another American completes suicide. We can do much more to prevent this national tragedy. Our proposal is a small, but significant, step toward preventing the unnecessary loss of American lives, and I urge the Senate to support it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment basically follows the President's recommendation, and that is to provide a cost-of-living increase to the training programs for youth and adult workers in this country. At the present time, half of all the employers in this country provide no training whatsoever, the other half of the employers provide 1 percent of payroll costs, and 80 percent of that training goes to management level workers. We have talked a good deal about H-1B visas and bringing into the United States those guest workers who have special skills, but I think we have a basic responsibility to ensure continuing training programs for America's workers as we continue to expand our economy and compete in the world. That amendment provides an important increase for training programs. Two years ago, along with Senator Jeffords, we consolidated the training programs. We now have an effective one-stop system that will offer real opportunities for workers. Finally, this amendment also restores the Summer Jobs Program. Without this amendment, there will be no Summer Jobs Program for the youth of this country. I hope this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have heard the Senator from Washington tell that story on other occasions, but I find it as powerful and as important hearing it again. Does the Senator remember the first time the Class Size Reduction Amendment was accepted, and later it was promoted as one of the major achievements by the Republican Policy Committee? It was achievement No. 13: Teacher Quality Initiative. It mentions the $1.2 billion additional funds to school districts, returned to local schools for smaller class sizes. Then Mr. Goodling said: This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but more importantly, it is a huge win for local educators and parents who are fed up with Washington mandates, red tape and regulation. We agree with the President's desire to help classroom teachers, but our proposal does not create big, new federal education programs. Rather our proposal will drive dollars directly to the classroom and gives local educators more options for spending federal funds to help disadvantaged children. Mr. Gingrich called it, ``a victory for the American people. There would be more teachers and that is good for Americans.'' Mr. Armey said the same. At one time, there was very strong support. The only thing that happened in the meantime is the record has demonstrated that it is even more effective than we could have imagined. I am hopeful this Senate will go on record in support of the Murray amendment. I am also hopeful it will support the Bingaman amendment on accountability. We spent a great deal of time on that issue. It is enormously compelling. The most recent GAO studies indicate the reasons that should be supported. I hope we will support the Wellstone amendment to make sure we provide resources. At a time when we have the record surpluses in this country, it seems to me we ought to be able to use some resources to reach out, help, and assist children who would otherwise be eligible if there were those resources, and give them a good start from an education point of view. I thank the Senator from Washington for bringing this matter before the Senate. I hope we will have a strong vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Further, there are no provisions to target these funds to the poverty districts, which runs in complete conflict as to what we understand. We are all for additional funding in terms of education, if the States want to do it. But the funding, historically, that we have provided has been targeted to those areas of special needs. I have been enormously impressed with Project STAR in Tennessee, which studied 7,000 students in 80 schools. It was initiated in 1985 and has had extraordinarily positive and constructive results in terms of academic success for children. I was in Wausau, WI, and met with a number of people who are involved in the SAGE Program, which was developed in 1995. Again, it is a program for smaller class size. The SAGE program is intended to help raise student academic achievement by requiring that participating schools do the following: reduce the student-teacher ratio in class sizes from 15 to 1 in K through 3; stay open for extended hours; develop vigorous academic curriculums; and implement plans for staff development and professional accountability. I listened to the Senator speak about each of these issues. In Wisconsin, they had at least one school serving 50% or more children living in poverty was eligible to apply for participation in SAGE. One school, with an enrollment of at least 30% or more children living in poverty, in each eligible district could participate. Again, it is targeted among the most challenged children. The evaluation done on the 30 schools that implemented the program is absolutely remarkable. In the SAGE Program, from 1996 to 1997, and again in 1997 to 1998, first grade classrooms scored significantly higher in all areas tested. In 1997-1998, achievement advantage was maintained in the second grade classrooms. The achievement benefit of SAGE small class size was especially strong for African-American students. In 1997-1998, the SAGE first grade post-test results showed that African-American students were closing the achievement gap. Further, the analysis suggests that the teachers in these classrooms have greater knowledge, to which the Senator from Washington spoke. They spend less time managing their class and they have more time for individualize instruction emphasizing a primarily teacher-centered approach. This has had extraordinary success--it has been tried. When the Murray amendment was first accepted, it had broad bipartisan support. That is why many of us find it troubling. When we have something that we know has been successful, why are we moving in a different direction? Will the Senator help me understand that in some way?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have had the good opportunity to listen to the persuasive arguments of the Senator from Washington. Does the Senator from Washington agree with me that historically the Federal role of helping local schools assist the most economically disadvantaged and challenged children in this country has been very limited? This was basically the origin of the Title I program back in the mid-1960s. We have had some success and we have had some failures. But I think the successes have been in the most recent time. This is where we have been focusing our limited resources. However, the change in the formula in the underlying bill, which is in complete contrast to what the Senator from Washington has drafted, would target 80 percent of the funds for the neediest children, and 20 percent for the population. Now we are finding out that there has been a dramatic shift and the guiding force is going to be the population. So this whole block grant which has been explained to be available for smaller class size really isn't going to be targeted or really available to the children who probably need it the most. Am I correct in my understanding that this is one of the concerns the Senator has pointed out?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator a question. My State of Massachusetts hires an average of about 500 teachers each year. That is certainly not going to solve all of the problems. But it is making an important difference in my State, particularly when we know we have hired qualified teachers, and particularly when we know that across the country we have hired 50,000 unqualified teachers. We are getting qualified teachers who are involved in these programs. The selection of these teachers are worked out through the local process. That is a decision, I understand, that is made locally. Unless the Senator's amendment is successful, what is going to happen to these teachers who have been effectively hired with the understanding that they are going to have the responsibility of teaching children in smaller class sizes? We are now in the summertime. What sort of message does this send to school boards, to teachers, and particularly to parents who may be looking forward to their child staying in a smaller class size in the next year, if the Murray amendment is not accepted?

Mr. KENNEDY. Who loses out, if that is the case?

Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will be good enough to yield for a question or two.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Cochran and Senator Frist, in supporting this important amendment that will provide $25 million for CDC's programs on antimicrobial resistance. Deadly microbes are becoming increasingly resistant to the antibiotics that we have relied on to fight infections for more than half a century. Already, drug-resistant infections claim the lives of 14,000 Americans every year--meaning that every hour of every day, a family suffers the tragedy of losing a loved one to an infection that not long ago could have been cured with a pill. At a time when scientists are making amazing new discoveries in genetic medicine, it is a tragic irony that we are losing our battle against some of humanity's most ancient disease foes. The amendment that we have introduced will strengthen the nation's defenses against disease-causing microbes that are becoming resistant to existing medications. The new resources will be used for research into the best ways to control the spread of resistant infections. The amendment will also fund education programs to make certain that doctors know when to prescribe antibiotics--and when not to. In addition, the extra funds provided by the amendment will help hospitals and clinics establish disease control programs to halt the spread of resistant infections in patients. Finally, new resources will strengthen the nation's public health agencies, which are the front line in the fight against disease. By fortifying these defenses, we can provide the country with increased protection against disease outbreaks of all types, including deliberate bioterrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his leadership in this area, and I commend Senator Moynihan as well for his commitment to this important program. I believe the understanding we have reached is a satisfactory way to protect this program in conference. The rescission of funds for children's health insurance would be a serious mistake. It would come at the expense of 12 million uninsured children in low income families across the nation. It would override the reallocation system established with broad bipartisan support in the original law. It would use the funds to pay for other programs in this year's appropriations bill. While it does promise to restore in the year 2003 the funds taken away this year, the damage would be done long before 2003 arrives. In fact, more than 80 leading organizations have signed a letter urging rejection of this misguided policy. Low-income working families should not be forced to pay the price for the budget pressures facing congress. Those pressures were created by the budget resolution, and its misguided priorities. The committee was operating under the budget instructions they were given. I believe they had good intentions. Unfortunately, however, this rescission robs needy children, and it is unacceptable. Strong bipartisan support in the Senate created the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997. We focused on guaranteeing health insurance to children in working families whose income was too high to be eligible for Medicaid, but too low to be able to afford private insurance. Estimates indicate that more than three-quarters of all uninsured children in the nation will be eligible for assistance through either CHIP or Medicaid in the near future. This rescission would have established a devastating precedent at precisely the wrong time. The Children's Health Insurance Program is working. Every State is now participating. Between 1998 and 1999, enrollment numbers doubled from just under 1 million children to 2 million. States, advocacy groups and other leaders are undertaking and planning impressive outreach efforts in the states. Last year, back-to-school campaigns helped dramatically increase enrollment. A month ago, the Governor of Mississippi announced a new campaign to cover all children in that State. We have every reason to expect that this trend will continue, as the programs become more established and States begin to do all they can to enroll eligible children. If the rescission were enacted, it would penalize needy children in the States that have most actively sought and enrolled eligible children. States could be forced to halt enrollment until more funds are available. That's wrong. The reallocation mechanism in the original legislation is designed to ensure that dollars remain targeted to uninsured children, regardless of location. Next year is the first year that the reallocation fund would be available. Senators should know that no State loses under current law. All States have the right to their allocations for three years. We have encouraged all States to take advantage of their funds. But, it a State cannot spend all its money, the excess dollars should be used by States that can. If the Senate were to adopt this rescission, States would be reluctant to expand their programs or actively enroll more children if they feel that future State allotments are unreliable. The National Governors Association has sent us two letters--one just last week-- expressing their unified strong opposition for this reason. We shouldn't second guess the original policy. It was well designed to direct money where it is most clearly needed. The policy was strongly supported when we enacted CHIP, and States have acted in good faith to implement it. It would be wrong for us to change the ground rules now, when so much progress is being made. We know that lack of insurance is the seventh leading--and most preventable--cause of death in America today. That fact is a national scandal. The majority of uninsured children with asthma--and one in three uninsured children with recurring ear infections--never see a doctor during the year. That's wrong. No child should have to be hospitalized for an acute asthma attack that could have been avoided. We know that uninsured children are 25 percent more likely to miss school. Children who cannot see the blackboard well or hear their teacher clearly miss lessons even when they are at school. That's wrong. No child should suffer permanent hearing loss and developmental or educational delays because of an untreated infection. Every child deserves a healthy start in life, and the health security that comes with insurance. And under CHIP and Medicaid, every child will have a legitimate opportunity for health insurance. Congress should do everything in its power to shore-up these programs, not undermine them. I welcome today's agreement, and I look forward to the continuing effective implementation of this worthwhile program to guarantee good health care for all children. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the letter to which I earlier referred and another related correspondence.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 20 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?