Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I think we had an understanding with our colleagues that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was going to be recognized to speak at this time for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his comments. I agree with them 100 percent. We will have an opportunity to consider this in amendment form. Senator Harkin intends to address this issue in an amendment later in this debate--hopefully soon, if we can move along on some of our votes. Again, as the good Senator has mentioned, what we are trying to do is target scarce resources on problems that we know exist, and with scarce resources we can make a difference that is going to enhance academic achievement. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will take 2 minutes. I thank the Senator for yielding. I had the pleasure of talking with the President of the United States on Wednesday evening after he came back from his trip. He told me about the school in Owensboro. I want to just give the assurance to the Senate that he told me it is one of the schools with the highest number of children receiving nutrition programs, which defines the disadvantaged children. They have a superb literacy program. They had small class size. They had a great emphasis on teacher training. It moved from one of the lower level schools, in terms of academic achievement, up to one of the top ones in Kentucky. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I want to object. I thought we might be going back and forth on this. If the Senator is on a particular schedule, I will ask the Senator from Rhode Island to withhold, but he indicated to me a preference.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. We are awaiting Senators either on that side or on this side. I will withhold when they arrive. I yield myself 5 minutes. I have heard the Senator from North Dakota speak to this issue about the General Accounting Office report that estimates we have about $110 billion worth of modernization or rehabilitation of schools. Is the Senator familiar with that report?

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator not agree with me that we tell children every single day that education is important, a high priority, the future of our country depends upon it, your future is essential to the meaning of this country and what this country is going to be throughout the world? What kind of message does the Senator think a child gets who goes to a school that has windows open in the wintertime, an insufficient heating system, or a dilapidated electrical system so they can't plug in computers? What kind of subtle message does the Senator think that sends to the child where, on the one hand, we say it is important to get a good education, but on the other hand the child goes to a crumbling school, whether it is in the urban or rural areas, or Indian reservations?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to see if we could give at least some assurances to the Members about when we would come back to deal with the education legislation. As the Senator himself knows, this is our one chance every 5 or 6 years to try to deal with this issue. We have been making some progress during the course of these last few days. We do not have a whole long list of amendments, and we are prepared to deal with short time limits. I am wondering now whether the leader could give us at least some idea when we are going to come back to it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just further reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I take the assurances of the leader that we will return to this in every expectation next week. I think there are many of us who believe this issue is of equal importance to a number of the appropriations bills, since we are talking about appropriations next fall, next October, and we are running late in terms of the ESEA. So there is a real sense of urgency about it. But I am grateful to the leader for giving us those assurances. I do not object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for the purpose of a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Maine and our chairman of the committee for urging the Senate to accept this amendment. I join with her in making that recommendation. In 1998, with the reauthorization of the Perkins Act, we made improvements in the coordination of vocational education, adult education and job training. We did this in a bipartisan way with Senator Jeffords and Senator DeWine. We took valuable lessons that we learned from the school-to-work program, emphasizing the importance of partnerships between education and business. Unfortunately, the school-to-work legislation is not being considered for reauthorization. I hope that my colleague will work with me to make sure this important program finds a way to exist in ESEA. What we have found is the importance of integrating academic skills with state of the art career and technical skills. Every child should graduate from high school with the academic credentials necessary to give him or her a wide variety of career choices within a given industry. Children should be able to choose to go on to post-secondary education or directly enter the workforce, with a competitive edge. So there have been, as she pointed out, very important and significant changes in these vocational and professional schools. I think we are at a place where they are offering great opportunities for young people in an economic climate of higher academic challenge and higher skill challenge. I think the value of her amendment is it is going to complete the process rather than undermine it, which I think was one of the principal dangers of having it as a block grant. I thank the Senator. We in Massachusetts, as in Maine, as in other States in New England, place a very high value on these training programs and academic programs. They have been a lifeline to many of our communities and to our economy over a very long period of time. Nothing is more dramatic of an example than the ability to channel our career and vocational education students directly into high skill, high wage jobs in industry. They are enormously important and they do good work and their work will be enhanced because of the Senator. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think it is worthwhile to know the authority for these allegations. I think it is important. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. This was a 1990 study done by the Ohio General Assembly Legislative Office, Education Oversight of Public Schools reporting requirements. That study attributed only 20 percent of paperwork requirements to the Federal Government. If the Senator will be good enough to put in the Record the authority for that, I am going to put in the Record the authority rebutting that, and we will let the Members look at it.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we took a valuable and useful step a few moments ago when we preserved the vocational education legislation outside of the block grant, the basic Perkins program, which affects some 6 million children in the K-12 and some 3 million students in post-secondary programs. I intend to offer an amendment on teacher quality tomorrow. I have spoken on it this afternoon. Before this legislation is finished, there will be efforts made by members of our committee to also exclude the block granting of the Migrant Education Program and the homeless programs. I will take a moment to mention what the current situation is with regard to the Migrant Education Program. The Migrant Education Program provides financial assistance to State educational agencies to establish and improve programs of education for children of migratory farm workers that enable them to meet the same academic standards as other children. To help achieve this objective, program services help migrant children overcome the educational disruption and other problems that result from repeated moves. Program funds also promote coordination of needed services across the States. The most recent data reported by States indicate more than 750,000 migrant children are eligible for services. The Federal Migrant Education Program is the only ongoing source of support for these highly mobile migrant children. The poverty and mobility, and often limited English proficiency, characteristics of the migrant student population combine to make demands for educational services go well beyond the services traditionally supported under State and local education budgets. No State currently provides ongoing funding for migrant programs to help these children. We are wiping out the Federal commitment. For example, the Migrant Education Program supports supplementary instruction in core academic subjects, beyond which title I typically provides, often provided outside the regular schoolday and in the summer designed to address the special educational needs of children who move and are out of school frequently. Without these funds, many highly mobile migrant children may attend school sporadically throughout the year or not attend school at all. Without the funds, the local education groups are unlikely to provide the normal range of services to children who attend their schools for brief periods of time, or go out to find and enroll migrant children outside of normal school enrollment procedures, or grapple with either the school interruption problems faced by migrant children or their needs for special summer programs. Without this program, States and the local educational authorities would have little incentive to identify and serve migrant children, who cross school districts and/or State boundaries. No single local educational agency, and, in many cases, no single State, is responsible for the education of a migrant child. No single local educational agency, and, in many cases, no single State, provides educational services to a migrant child during a single year. The Migrant Education Program encourages and supports collaborative efforts and interventions across State lines to accommodate the needs of migrant children. The Migrant Education Program provides support services that link migrant children and their families to community services. For example, during the regular school year, almost half of migrant students receive social work/outreach services, about 30 percent receive guidance and counseling, and almost a fourth receive health services under the Migrant Education Program. Effectively, the point is that certainly at the national level we are dropping the commitment to try to do something about all of these children. With regard to the homeless children, nationally there were 625,000 school age children identified as homeless during the 1997-1998 school year. Without separate funding for this national program, it is unlikely that significant numbers of these children and their unique problems will be addressed. They have higher than average rates of poor health, anxiety, depression, withdrawal, delinquency, aggressive behavior, learning disabilities, and suicides. Those problems will not be addressed. Through participation in the existing program, the States are focusing on reducing the barriers homeless children face in enrolling in and attending school on a regular basis. Because of national leadership, almost all the States have revised their laws. Almost all the States revised their laws, regulations, and policies to improve the access to education for homeless students. Twenty-seven States changed their residency laws or regulations. Otherwise, the children would not be able to be eligible. Almost all State coordinators report either that all the students can enroll without school records--that previously stopped children from being able to participate in the schools--or that they have made special allowances to expedite their record transfers. Thirty-five States eliminated the barriers of immunization and guardianship requirements, otherwise some homeless children would be prohibited from participating in services. These are enormously vulnerable children. There is absolutely no reason or justification to eliminate these programs, block grant them, and send them to the States. The States have not responded to this population's unique needs. In the absence of the homeless program, I think States would not have the resources to employ a State coordinator for homeless children and youth, a position that is responsible for ensuring that homeless children and youth have access to a free, appropriate public education. Without the homeless program, the local educational authorities that rely on Federal funds to provide services to homeless children would have to find funds in their own operating budgets, which are already overextended, or stop providing supplemental services to these children, who are among the neediest. Last year, we provided $29 million for the education of homeless children. That is going to be eliminated. These funds most likely will not be made up by the States. These children are going to be ill served. It is basically and fundamentally wrong. I think we are going to be abdicating our responsibilities if we do not target some resources to what I think has been an effective program. We have had some hearings on this problem in the past. People have just been extraordinary in how committed and dedicated they have been and how they have stretched scarce resources to make a real difference in children's lives. We in this body rarely go a day when someone isn't talking about our future being our children and our responsibility to them. We ought to understand what we are doing to the most vulnerable children in our society, the poorest children, the homeless children, the migrant children, the immigrant children, and others in failing to guarantee their protection. I take strong exception. And I will offer an amendment, with others. Others have offered an amendment to restore those programs. I look forward to that. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to address that. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have the Gregg-Lott amendment before us. The Senator has spoken about the liability provisions that have been included. There are four other provisions that are included in the amendment. At the appropriate time, I am going to urge the Senate to accept the Gregg amendment. It seems to me the case ought to be made within the States, since the States have the power to take action on the matter discussed here during the course of this afternoon. The liability provision the Senator has mentioned would say if the States have weaker provisions, then these standards would stand. If they have stronger standards in order to deal with the problems of protecting those who are involved in education, than those would stand. A number of States have taken it. It always seemed we were focused on what was going to happen in the classroom. If the States wanted to take that action, they should take it. A number of them have. The Senator has offered an amendment which includes these provisions. We are going to recommend they move ahead and they be accepted. There were other provisions that were included in the Gregg amendment. It makes some small adjustments to what they call the TOPS Program by requiring every local district to take advantage of what the TOPS Program would be. They change the requirements to say that every local district has to do it, instead of just failing ones. I think that is an improvement. It adds a part of our Democratic teacher quality accountability provision, so after 3 years, if the local district is not improving, the district cannot get the fourth and fifth year funds. We do that plus provide additional kinds of protections. Theirs is a modest change, but a useful one. As I said, it provides teacher liability, which is acceptable. Then, as I understand it--I read it--there is, in addition, a small pot of money for financial incentives for certifications of teachers. That is not objectionable. It is a very modest program. It might provide some value for teachers. But I want to come back to the underlying themes of where we are in this legislation. The amendment itself can be easily wiped out by the Governors of the States; the teacher quality program is blockgranted under Straight A's in S. 2. So in effect, if the Governor wanted to block grant the whole TOPS Program--their basis for recruitment, mentoring, and upgrading skills for teachers in classrooms, which is their teacher education program, they could do it. It disappears. The teacher quality program can be block granted in the 50-State block grant and the 15-State block grant. So we are effectively eliminating--or under the Republican program we are giving the Governor, at his own whim, the ability to eliminate all the teacher enhancement programs. We are not there. Democrats are not there. We believe in having a strong emphasis in our program, a $2 billion program, that recognizes high quality recruitment, mentoring, and professional development. Just on page 630, there is the treatment of the eligible programs, those which can be block granted. Here we have subparts 1, 2, and 3 of part (A) of title II, that is teacher empowerment. That is true on page 656, which is the 15-State block grant. Why do we have this debate on a Monday afternoon? We say OK, we will accept it. If we are going to eventually pass S. 2, it will not be in effect in any event. So let's get on to other issues. This is what has bothered many of us during the course of this whole debate. There is this fundamental commitment of our Republican friends to block grant these programs and issue a blank check for these programs. But, on the other hand, they say that they are really serious about these programs. How can we accept the fact that they are serious about putting a well-qualified teacher in every classroom when they give an opportunity to the Governors to wipe out that entire program? We do not do that. We say it is essential, as part of the program to which we are committed, that you are going to have an effective program in recruiting and also in professional development. Let's take another look at page 632 under the block grant program. We call it the blank check--block grant program. On page 632 it says: (d) Uses of funds under agreement.--Funds made available to a State under this part shall be used for educational purposes . . . Educational purposes. Do my colleagues know what qualifies for educational purposes? State administrators and their offices. That qualifies for State educational purposes. We have heard a great deal of rhetoric about how they want to get the money where it ought to be, with needy students, and, under their own definitions, they say it can be used for any educational purpose. It can be used by local administrators for their needs, it can be used for sports facilities, it can be used for band uniforms, because States spend their educational money for those purposes. What the Republicans say is that they can use the money we are going to provide to them on whatever the States want to use it. The States use it for band uniforms. They use it for administrative funds. They use it for State departments of education. Not our program, but theirs does. On the one hand, we have an amendment to the TOPS Program that effectively can be wiped out by the Governors and the block grant, and then we look at how they define what are educational purposes under this legislation. They create a loophole for the Governors to drive a truck through. The Governors will make those decisions, not the local educators. It is not going to be the parents. It is not going to be the local school boards. It is the Governors. One asks: Why, Senator, is it the Governors? Because the Governors are the only ones who, at the end of 5 years, are held accountable. They are the ones held accountable. All they need is to have substantial compliance, and then they can reapply for 5 more years. If this goes on--and I do not believe it will because I do not think they are going to get the results under this program. I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to come back to why we feel so strongly about targeting these programs. I am going to speak about the importance of recruitment and professional development and the importance of mentoring. As I have said at other times during this debate, we are committed to having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in this country by the time this legislation has expired. What is happening at the present time? This is the most recent report from 1999, using statistics from 1994. We see that about two-thirds of individuals who went into teaching had a regular or advanced license. ``No license,'' ``substandard license,'' or ``probationary license'' are terms used by the States to describe those who have not met certification. They use them interchangeably for the most part. Basically, a third have not met the rigorous standards. We are setting rigorous standards to make sure we have good teachers. Let's see what is happening. This legislation was developed to meet the challenges of the neediest students in the country. We know approximately 25 percent of the teachers do not have competency in the subject matter or in training skills. Let's see where those teachers are going and what students they are teaching. Let's look at ``by income.'' Where are these unqualified teachers teaching? 4.4 percent are in low-income communities, and 17.6 percent are in communities with more than 50 percent poverty. As this chart shows, they are not teaching in the wealthy suburbs of this country. They are not teaching where there are middle-income and high-income families in this country. They are teaching basically the lower-income students in this country. This is the very group on which this program and the ESEA is supposed to focus. That is what this whole program is about. That is why in 1965 we had a national concern about the poorest of the poor children in our country, and we decided to focus attention on their needs. Now, when we are talking about one aspect of education, and that is the quality of our teachers, we are finding in excess of 17 percent are teaching low-income students. If we take this by race, this column shows in schools with 1 to 10 percent minority students, 3.2 percent of these unqualified teachers are teaching in those areas which have the wealthier schools. Again, 17 percent are teaching in schools with a higher percentage of minority students. This clearly indicates that if we are going to provide the funds, let's try to make some difference. When we give it to the Governors-- the Governors are the ones who are giving these numbers to us now. They are the ones responsible for this. They have 93 cents out of every dollar. We are saying that we want to have better qualified teachers. Let's look at this next chart. This is another way of looking at the teachers in this country. This is the better prepared and the poorly prepared. This is alternative certification program, B.A., and summer training. Designated in red, of those who enter training, 80 percent went into teaching, and about a third remained after 3 years. Seventy percent went into teaching with a 4-year program, B.A., and a major in a subject field or in education. They are better trained, 70 percent; 53 percent remain after 3 years. The 5-year program: They get a B.A. and a major in a subject and master's in education. Of the 90 percent who went in after 3 years, 84 percent stayed. What does this say? If we develop the teachers professionally in their competency and skills and additional certification, they will remain in teaching. And they will make a difference to the underserved in our communities. That is what these charts are all about. This is another feature, the mentoring. The three provisions are professional development, recruitment, and mentoring. When you have mentors for new teachers, they stay in the profession. This chart shows the percentage of teachers who leave the profession after the first 3 years without mentoring, which is 23 percent; but with mentors, it is 7 percent. Teachers will stay in teaching when they have mentors. Those teachers who have better opportunities for continuing their education will remain in teaching. We know how to help retain teachers. We can ask ourselves: What does all this mean in terms of academic achievement? This is from the Teacher Quality and Student Achievement, of December 1999: Increasingly, the States that repeatedly lead the Nation in mathematics and reading achievement have among the Nation's most highly qualified teachers and have made the longstanding investment in the quality of teaching. Top scoring States-- Minnesota, North Dakota, and Iowa; recently joined by Wisconsin, Maine, and Montana--all have rigorous standards for teaching that include requiring the extensive study of education plus a major in the field to be taught. Case studies of States that undertook the most comprehensive teaching policy initiatives during the 1980s, especially Connecticut, North Carolina, and other States, such as Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, that pursued comprehensive reform initiatives in which teacher quality figured prominently showed evidence of steep gains in student performance. We are not doing this as an academic exercise. We are trying to say what works for children. What is happening now can make a difference in terms of children: There have been steep gains in student performance from the early to mid-1990s for those States that have given a high priority to recruitment, mentoring, and professional development. Listen to this. The study continues: By contrast, States, such as Georgia and South Carolina, where reform initiatives across a comparable period focused on curriculum and testing, but where they invested less in teacher learning, showed less success in raising student achievement within this timeframe. Can we not learn, in terms of using scarce resources, what works and what does not work? This is only one aspect. This is one aspect of our effort here on the floor of the Senate. We know what works, based upon the kinds of reports and evaluations that have been done. Here is the study: ``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. This was done by Republicans and Democrats alike. What do they point out in this area? They say: Some problems, however, are national in scope and require special attention: There is no coordinated system for helping colleges decide how many teachers in which fields should be prepared or where they will be needed. Neither is there regular support of the kind long provided in medicine to recruit teachers for high-need fields and locations. Critical areas like mathematics and science have long had shortages of qualified teachers that were only temporarily solved by federal recruitment incentives during the post-Sputnik years. Currently, more than 40% of math teachers and 40% of science teachers are not fully qualified for their assignments. Since the successful recruitment programs of the 1970s ended (Teacher Corps), only a few States have created support in the form of scholarships or loans to prepare teachers for high-need areas and fields. In addition, investing once again in the targeted recruitment and preparation of teachers for high-need fields and location is a national need. That is just with regard to the recruitment. They say it is a national need, a national responsibility. On the issue of mentoring: The weight of accumulated evidence clearly shows that traditional sink-or-swim induction contributes to high attrition and to lower levels of teacher effectiveness. That is just what the chart showed. Further: The kinds of supervised internships or residencies regularly provided for new entrants in other professions-- architects, psychologists, nurses, doctors, engineers--are rare in teaching, but they have proven to be quite effective where they do exist. Beginning teachers who receive mentoring focus on student learning much sooner; they become more effective as teachers because they are learning from guided practice rather than trial-and-error; and they leave teaching at much lower rates. Then it continues: Although some states have created programs for new teacher induction, few have maintained the commitment required. With a few exceptions, initiatives during the 1980s focused on evaluation and failed to fund mentoring. Others provided mentoring that reached only a few eligible teachers or withered as funds evaporated. Again, the problem is not that we don't know how to support beginning teachers; it is that we have not yet developed the commitment to do so routinely. This isn't only Democrats who are saying this. This is the most comprehensive report on how to get high-quality teachers, mentoring programs, professional development, and what it means in terms of academic achievement. That is what we stand for. Further, on the issues of professional development, let me mention this: (Pg. 41) Most U.S. teachers have almost no regular time to consult together or learn about new teaching strategies, unlike their peers in many European and Asian countries. Remember all the debate we heard last week about: Look what is happening in these European countries. Look what is happening there. One of the things they are doing in many of the European countries, where teachers have substantial time to plan and study with one another-- In Germany, Japan, and China, for example, teachers spend between 15 and 20 hours per week working with colleagues on developing curriculum, counseling students, and pursuing their own learning. . . . The result is a rich environment for continuous learning about teaching and the needs of students. Instead of these ongoing learning opportunities, U.S. teachers get a few brief workshops offering packaged prescriptions from outside consultants on ``in-service days'' that contribute little to deepening their subject knowledge or teaching skills. We challenge our Republican colleagues to point out in their bill where they are going to do these kinds of things and meet these kinds of challenges that have been outlined for our students. We ask them: Where is it? It is nonexistent. It just isn't there. I will show you why it isn't there. Let us compare the various provisions under our amendment to S. 2. This is where we say: Well, let's see where your program is. Let's take the issue of professional development and mentoring. The allocation of funds goes to States by formula based on 60 percent poverty and 40 percent population. At the State level, funds go to districts by formula based on 80 percent poverty and 20 percent population. Funds are targeted and focused on the neediest areas. We guarantee funds for these two purposes. In terms of recruitment, we provide that 30 percent of the State's allocation shall be used by the State agency to provide grants to recruitment partnerships under the sections that we have for recruitment activities. We guarantee funds in terms of the recruitment. Pass this bill, and it is $2 billion for high quality professional development, mentoring, and recruitment. We are guaranteeing the funds for these activities. We spell it out in the bill. They haven't done it yet in their bill. And they can't do it because it is just not there. When it comes to the professional development, under the basic Republican bill, they say it doesn't guarantee substantial funds for professional development. They say a portion of the funds can be used. This could be as little as one dollar. It is an allowable use for professional development. It is an allowable use in terms of mentoring. It is an allowable use in terms of recruitment. There is no guarantee of any funds for these two activities. Also, there are no assurances to parents that they are going to have qualified teachers in the classroom. On our side, we say if you are going to end up on the back end of this legislation with results, you have to invest in quality in the front end. You have to set criteria at the beginning of this legislation about what you are going to do in these particular areas. That is what we have done because that is what is overwhelmingly called for. Our amendment also guarantees that teachers are going to be prepared to teach children with disabilities along with other students with special needs. We have accountability not only at the State level in terms of teachers but also for every class at the local level. Our amendment says if you do not make progress in student achievement after 3 years, you cannot continue in terms of the funds. There is a dramatic contrast in the two different proposals on issues which are so incredibly important in terms of the children of this country. We have tried in other areas as well: Afterschool programs, construction programs, accountability programs, and parental involvement. Also, we have tried to find out the importance of those particular programs and what their impact has been on children to advance their academic achievement, accomplishment, enhance their sense of self- confidence, and advance their interests in learning. These are all extremely important. We have tried to include those various programs in the legislation we have advanced. We believe this is a much more valuable way of proceeding than just giving a blank check to the Governors. How can we in good conscience vote for legislation that is going to send the money back to the States when the States are absolutely failing to do their job today? We hear: Well, we want something different. We want something that is new. We want something revolutionary. We want something that will sound like it is something completely different from the past. We are saying we have tried revenue sharing and block grants in the past. That is what we had from 1956 to 1969, and it didn't work. The studies and statistics demonstrate that it didn't work. But this is a very different approach. We didn't have the technology concepts and legislation 6 or 10 years ago. We have a new effort in the way we are going to use that technology, ways that will reduce the division in terms of the digital divide. Years ago, we didn't understand the importance of well-qualified teachers and the relationship between well-qualified teachers and the academic achievement of students. But, we have the statistics, the information, and the studies now, and we want to do something to make a difference. We didn't really have afterschool programs years ago, because quite frankly, children went home, and more often than not, one of their parents was home working with the child and helping and assisting the child with their homework. That is entirely different today. We didn't know the importance of trying to develop afterschool programs. When you look at the demand for those afterschool programs in communities across the country, we know the importance and significance of giving help and assistance to those children with afterschool programs, which means they are going to continue to make progress academically in these afterschool programs. That is enormously important. These are matters which are enormously important. They are tried and tested. They are different from where we were before. But there is compelling evidence that these kinds of efforts result in enhanced academic achievement and accomplishment. The alternative just baffles me. I have been listening and have been on the floor for just about the whole time through: Monday of last week and during the brief time on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. We continue to hear that we are having a lot of trouble with children in underserved and disadvantaged areas, and what we have tried in the past doesn't work. Therefore, we have to try something else. What is ``something else''? What is ``something new''? Block grants. They call that something new? That is an old word for revenue sharing. That has been a discarded and discredited program. If the Governors want to do all these things, there is no reason they cannot do them. Debating merit pay. They said let's have merit pay. Well, the Governors can do that if they want to. If they don't want to, they don't. We are waiting to hear from any State that wants to develop the merit pay program for individual teachers rather than doing it on a schoolwide basis, which, as Governor Riley learned, is the way to go. Governors can go ahead and do it. As we spelled out last week, different Governors made statements that they were committed to trying to do something about underserved schools. They made those commitments over a long period of time. There are notable exceptions, and I mentioned those States earlier today. They are Republican and Democrat Governors. In the Governors' Association report of 1986, ``Time for Results,'' the task force was chaired by Governors Alexander, Riley, Clinton, and Keene. Intervene in low-performing schools and school districts and take over or close down academically bankrupt school districts--they urged the Governor to do that in 1986. By 1997, there were nine States that moved ahead. In 1998, the support for the State focused on schools reiterating a position first taken in 1988 by the National Governors Policy. They say States should have the responsibility for enforcing accountability, including establishing clear penalties in cases of sustained failure to improve student performance. By the year 2000, we will have 20 States providing assistance to low-performing schools. Some have not done it. Some Governors have not shaped up. Some have, and those Governors ought to be commended. If we go at this rate from 1986 to the year 2000, from 9 States to 20, it will take 50 more years to get these programs active in the local community. Who wants to wait? If you were able to demonstrate you had 10 States out of 50 with Governors who had turned that around, you would have some legitimacy on the floor of the Senate in desiring to try it in the other 40. But we haven't seen it. Our Republican friends want to give them another chance to take all of this money and use it in the capitals of their States, use it for educational purposes which include bureaucracies, and permit them to use it for a wide range of different activities outside of the needs of underserved children. It is absolutely wrong. I will discuss another offensive part of this legislation. That is the provision that eliminates our national commitment to help and assist the three categories of children which are the most vulnerable in our society: The homeless, migrant children, and immigrant children. The immigrant children come from families impacted by federal immigration law and will eventually be eligible to become American citizens. Nonetheless, they have some very special needs. By and large, the States have never paid any attention to them. We have the homeless children. As recently as 1987, the Center for Law and Education sent out a questionnaire regarding the State practices and policies for homeless students to the chief State officials in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The majority of the respondents had no statewide data on the number of homeless children in their jurisdictions or whether those children were able to obtain an education. The majority of States had no uniform plan for ensuring homeless students receive an education. I asked over the weekend, outside of Federal funds, what are the States doing for homeless children. We have been unable to get any indication from any State. Madam President, there were 625,000 homeless children in 1997 and 1998, and only 231,000 of those children were getting some additional help and assistance for educational services. I hope our friends on the other side will tell us the things States are doing for homeless kids at the present time. I think we will wait a long time. They have not done it in the past, and they are not doing it today. That is true with regard to the migrant children, 718,000 children. They live in poverty, and only 40 percent have completed eighth grade. The instance of sickness among these children--not only physical, but also in terms of mental needs--is overwhelming. We are saying we will not continue that program as we know it. We are going to send the money targeted for that program back to the States. The reason we created the program is because States were not doing anything for those students. We have had 4 days of debate on this bill. I hope the other side will tell us--if not tonight, then tomorrow--what all the States are doing with regard to homeless children. We are not taking care of these children in the way we should, even with the funds being provided under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are still reaching perhaps half of those children who need help and assistance. Is any person going to tell us, Senator, when we send these funds back to the States, the Governor will look out after the homeless children, the migrant children, and the immigrant children? Can any person demonstrate any history where the States have been willing to do it? That is our challenge. We want to hear it. We have not been able to find that. To block grant all of these funds, send them back to the States, and say they will be able to deal with them, rather than at least have coordinated programs that help track the children as they move down from Florida, through Georgia, through the Carolinas, some all the way into New England and the west coast--they have worked with different communities knowing when the crops change--try to coordinate this. There has been a positive response from some of the States to work in a coordinated way. We have had some leadership from the Department of Education. Why are going to leave that out? That does not make sense. I hope when the time comes, there will be an acceptance of the Gregg amendment and then we will look forward to having a good discussion on some of the other matters as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, the Senator from Utah said 48 percent of the paperwork done by teachers and principals is mandated by the Federal Government.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege for me to commend the new sister cities of North Adams, Massachusetts and Noisiel, France. They will officially establish a sister-city relationship on May 20. I extend my warmest congratulations to both cities as they embark on this excellent opportunity. North Adams and Noisiel have a great deal in common. They have similar population sizes, and they are communities that worked effectively to overcome economic difficulties during the 1980's. Both cities have revitalized former manufacturing plants to create contemporary arts facilities that will attract visitors from many other nations. These two cities have shared remarkably similar experiences, and I commend them both for their impressive success. Last year, the City of North Adams welcomed Deputy Mayor Daniel Vachez of Noisiel. He visited the many cultural and historic treasures that make North Adams a wonderful example of New England's history and heritage. Mayor John Barrett III has done an outstanding job of supporting impressive development initiatives for the city, and I commend him for his leadership. I'm sure that the new sister city relationship will be a successful initiative. The relationship is a tribute to the vision and dedication of Mayor Barrett, Deputy Mayor Vachez and the many others in both cities whose enthusiasm and energy have made this project possible. I'm confident that both North Adams and Noisiel will benefit significantly from this relationship, and that their program will be an outstanding example to cities worldwide. I congratulate them for their achievement, and I look forward to a very productive sister city relationship.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, first of all, we all reach out again to Mike's family. I think all of us in the Senate, just a few days ago, were very grateful of our good friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, for giving us the opportunity to add a word to the comments on the extraordinary life of Mike Epstein. As Paul--Senator Wellstone--had pointed out last week, the hours were passing along and there was very little time left. But I think the challenge for all of us is to live a productive and useful life. That is the criterion the great philosophers have defined as the purpose in life, and Mike lived that. We all are the beneficiaries of it. Our hearts reach out to Paul at this time, and to all the members of the family. I think Mike would feel right at home here this afternoon, where we are debating the education act. He had strong views about these issues, as well as many others. He made life better for people in this country. We will think of him during the course of this debate, too. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will speak briefly. As soon as the Senator from New Hampshire is on the floor, I will be glad to yield so he will be able to make a presentation on his amendment. I have had the chance, over the weekend, to study it closely. I will reserve my comments on it until we have had an opportunity to hear his presentation in the Senate this afternoon. Just to review very briefly, we have had, now, as I understand it, probably 4 days of discussion of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Of those 4 days, 1 day was a general kind of presentation, although that was a good presentation by the speakers who had different views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We had five votes: on Senator Gorton's amendment, what they call Straight A's; our Democratic alternative, which was introduced by Senator Daschle and a number of us; Senator Abraham's merit pay amendment--I offered a second-degree on the Abraham amendment; and then on the Murray class size amendment. We had indicated there would be a number of others, although a relatively small number. Actually, the total number that would be offered by this side would be somewhat less than has been usually offered in past considerations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We were going to have proposed an amendment that would address the whole issue of the quality of our teachers, to guarantee we would have a well- trained teacher in every classroom at the expiration of the authorization bill. I will come back to that, how we are going to do it, and the importance of it for strengthening the quality of education and what the results are if you do have an excellent teacher, and what the academic results are, from various examinations of whether having a well-trained teacher, who is competent and knowledgeable about the content of the subject matter, and a good teacher. The difference that makes to children's ability to learn is intuitively obvious. Nonetheless, we will have an opportunity to present some very important and powerful evidence about why the way we have approached this will result in more favorable results. Secondly, we have the whole issue about assisting many of the schools in this country that are older and are in great need of repair and modernization. We want an opportunity to make a presentation to make. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has a powerful presentation to make. We need over $112 billion a year to bring our schools up to standard. There is much work that needs to be done, again, through a partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local communities. We want to address the important issue of afterschool programs. Senator Dodd, Senator Boxer, and others have been involved in the development of that program. We have important results as to how that program is working and has worked in advancing the cause of teachers. We want to have a good debate on accountability. We believe the most knowledgeable member is on our side, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, who has, going back to the time of the Governors' conference a number of years ago, made that a speciality of his. Most of the pieces of legislation that are before us reflect a good deal of what he has developed and has broad support. That has been very important. Senator Mikulski has reminded us a number of times about the importance of addressing the digital divide. In a time of new technology, it is important we not look back 10 years from now and find that the new technology has been used in such a way it further divides our children who are attending schools, but instead that we have been creative enough to use technologies in ways that have reduced the divide that exists in our schools rather than exacerbate it. That is very important. Senator Mikulski wants an opportunity to talk about this issue. Senator Reed has made a very important contribution to our legislation. He was a member of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives prior to coming to the Senate, following Senator Pell. He wants to talk about the importance of the involvement of parents in decisionmaking in the local communities. That is very important. Senator Wellstone will be bringing up the issue of fair testing of children. He has spoken about that issue a number of times. We have voted on some aspects of it in the past. Those are the principal education issues. There are some on our side who feel safety and security in our schools is an important issue, and we will be addressing that issue. We have a limited number of amendments. In my conversations with most of our colleagues, we are prepared to enter into very reasonable time limits. I know on six or eight of those subject matters, we are prepared to enter into time agreements of an hour or so evenly divided so we can move this process forward. These are not subjects the Senate has not addressed. We have addressed these issues in the full committee in our markups. We have spoken about these issues during the debate. I intend to speak on the issue of the quality of our teachers because that is relevant to the Gregg amendment. I have talked with our leader, Senator Daschle, who will be talking with the majority leader and hopefully will work out a program so we can reach a determination on these issues in the next few days. There is no reason why we should not do that. There are amendments on the other side as well. We have had an opportunity to look at some of those. There is no reason we cannot pick up the pace and resolve some of these issues in a timely way. We had hoped to do more of these amendments at the end of last week, and we are in the situation today, with the funeral of His Eminence Cardinal O'Connor, of being unable to reach a conclusion on some of these debates this afternoon. Hopefully, we can, by the end of the day, give an indication of how the Senate wants to proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. They dropped that after a very short period of time because it was so ineffective in the outcomes for the students.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Grams and Senator Leahy in offering this Senate resolution expressing our deep concern about the continuing plight of the Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky. Mr. Babitsky, an accomplished journalist working for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, still faces serious charges in Russia after being held captive by Russian authorities, beaten, and kept in a ``filtration camp'' for suspected Chechen collaborators. For 10 years, Mr. Babitsky has helped fulfill the mission of RFE/RL to provide Russian listeners with objective and uncensored reporting. But Russian authorities, displeased with Mr. Babitsky's courageous reporting on the war in Chechnya, accused him of assisting the Chechen forces and had him arrested in the battle zone last January. After six weeks in captivity, Mr. Babitsky was released, and then jailed again by Russian officials for carrying false identity papers. He says the papers were forced upon him. After an international outcry arose over his case, he was again released. But he still is not allowed to leave Moscow, and he still faces charges for carrying false papers and aiding the Chechens. In addition, Russian authorities have continued to condemn Radio Liberty's coverage of the Chechen conflict, and have suggested that Radio Liberty should be forced to abandon its facilities in Moscow and throughout the Russian Republic. The authorities have taken steps to censor Radio Liberty and to intimidate its correspondents and others. The United States should respond vigorously to this harassment and intimidation of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The Russian government should drop its trumped-up charges against Mr. Babitsky.