Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, James Foreman, a distinguished citizen of Stamford, CT, celebrated his 90th birthday on February 12. Raised in Stamford and a World War II Army veteran, James Foreman was the first full-time African-American police officer hired by the City of Stamford Police Department. Prior to his official hiring in 1947, Jim had served as a ``special hire,'' or auxiliary officer, for 12 years. As a police officer, he served with great courage, often in the most difficult areas of the city. Jim retired as a patrolman from the Stamford Police Department in 1977, with a total of 42 years of service. Since his 1977 retirement from the police force, Jim Foreman has remained very active and dedicated to public service in the community. He is a Justice of the Peace for the City of Stamford, and he volunteers in service to other senior citizens. Jim is well respected and greatly admired in the City of Stamford. I remember him with fondness and respect from the years of my youth, and after, in Stamford. I am delighted to join with the current and past members of the Stamford Police Department, the citizens of Stamford, and Jim Foreman's family and friends in honoring him on his 90th birthday. We are eternally grateful to him for all the years he put his life on the line to enforce the law and protect the citizens of Stamford regardless of their race or creed. We are grateful, too, for all Jim Foreman accomplished through his long and dedicated service to help break down racial barriers in the department and throughout my home town of Stamford.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his kind words and for his leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment offered by Senator Burns be set aside for a moment so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, this is an amendment that I am introducing and will then withdraw. I thought it was important to put this issue before the Chamber while we are considering comprehensive election reform legislation because in our country the right to vote is a sacred right. The vote is a civic entitlement of every American citizen. We believe the vote to be democracy's most essential tool. Not only is the vote the indispensable sparkplug of our democracy, the vote is the sine qua non of democracy and equality because each person's vote is of equal weight, no matter what their wealth is or their station in life--or is it? That is the question this amendment poses. As we engage in this debate to remedy the voting problems that arose in the election of 2000, we have to acknowledge the most longstanding denial of voting representation in our country, and that is the denial of voting rights to the citizens who live right here in our Nation's Capital. The nearly 600,000 people who live in the Nation's Capital are denied voting representation in the Congress of the United States. Citizens of DC have a nonvoting delegate in the House who may vote in committees but not on the House floor. DC citizens--our fellow citizens--are not represented in this body at all. Yet, as we speak, residents of the District of Columbia are engaged abroad and at home in the current war against terrorism alongside other Americans. The people who live here in our Nation's Capital have always met each and every obligation of citizenship. They have fought and died in all of our wars, often in greater numbers proportionately, and even absolutely, than larger States. In fact, sadly, the casualties of District residents in our wars have been increasing. In World War I, the district suffered more casualties than three States. In World War II, it suffered more casualties than four States. In Korea, it suffered more casualties than eight States. And in Vietnam, more residents of the District of Columbia were casualties than in 10 States. I am the sponsor of legislation before the Finance Committee at this point which is called the No Taxation Without Representation Act. Its name is taken, of course, from our own revolution because our forebears went to war rather than pay taxes without being represented. Citizens of our Capital believe in the principles of the Nation's revolutionary heroes established as a result of our own revolution. Today, they are using the only tools of democracy available to them to secure voting representation in Congress. They are seeking redress of their legitimate grievances from us in Congress. Madam President, despite the bill's title--No Taxation Without Representation Act--the people of the District seek voting representation, not exemption from taxes. I must admit there are employees of our office who are residents of the District who have been tempted to have the exclusion go the other way. The tax provision is in the bill for effect--perhaps an ironic effect--to remind us of the American principle that gave birth to the Nation--that no man or woman should be required to pay taxes to a government until represented by a vote on what that government does or requires. No other taxpaying Americans are required to pay taxes without representation in Congress. Indeed, residents of the District of Columbia are second per capita in taxes paid to the Federal Government--comparing them to all the States of the Union. Tax issues, of course, are some of the most contentious issues that come before the Congress. We cannot even begin to contemplate how our own constituents would react if we could not vote one way or another on pending tax legislation that would have so personal an effect on them. I support voting rights for District residents for the same reason I support the historic election reform bill before us today. The great principle of voting rights is riding on both bills. I know the American people believe their national credo requires that no taxpaying Americans are to be excluded from voting representation in Congress. A national public opinion poll suggests as much. The majority of Americans believe that DC residents already have congressional voting rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent say, around the country, that DC residents should have full representation. Like the bill before us, our No Taxation Without Representation Act seeks to vindicate the precious right of voting representation. As I said at the outset, I do not intend to press for a vote on this amendment at this time. That is a decision that I have made in cooperation with those in the District who most advocate voting rights, including Eleanor Holmes Norton. I raise voting rights for the citizens of our Capital during this discussion because these rights are a related issue of great importance to our country. Last year was the 225th anniversary of the American Revolution, and the 200th anniversary of the establishment of the Nation's Capital. The revolutionaries who fought to establish our country, and later the wise Framers who wrote our Constitution, did not intend to penalize and deny basic rights to the citizens who settled and built our Capital into a great American city. The city had not yet been established or come under congressional jurisdiction when the Constitution was signed. In fact, the first DC residents continued to vote in Maryland and Virginia, the States from which the land for the District was ceded, for 10 years following the ratification of the Constitution. In placing our Capital under the jurisdiction of the Congress, the Framers intended to pass to us the responsibility, I believe, to assure the rights of the citizens of the Capital once the city was established. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years. So I intend to withdraw this amendment. As I do, I ask that we reconsider the denial of voting representation to the citizens of our Nation's Capital, those who live here at the heart of our democracy. The time has long since passed for Congress to extend voting representation to those who live where we do the people's business. I hope we will find a way to remedy this wrong soon. I want to state that Senator Feingold is my cosponsor and, at the appropriate time, we will submit a statement for the record in support of this amendment. I now withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut, the distinguished chair and manager of this very critical piece of legislation. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell for the bipartisan agreement they have that brings forth this historic reform legislation. As the Presiding Officer knows well, I have a particularly personal and poignant series of memories related to the election of 2000, most of them really quite good until post-election day. As my mother, if I may quote her in this great Chamber, said: There must have been a reason that happened. Maybe one of the reasons was to lead to the election reform proposal that is before this Chamber which I think will take significant strides forward in making sure that if we ever have a national election as close as the one in 2000 again, there will be a series of laws and procedures in place, an ongoing commission in place that will make certain, one, that the right of citizens to vote is not just the right to cast their ballot but the right to have that vote counted, of which millions were not counted throughout the country, and that there be a more orderly process for determining, without resort to courts, what the result of that election was. Bottom line: I thank Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell for bringing this bill forward. I call up amendment No. 2889, which I have placed at the desk.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am honored to do it. The amendment (No. 2889) was withdrawn.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, this amendment will address one of the most critical problems in our electoral process. It is consistent with the overall purpose of the bill, and that is the pressing need for more trained and able poll workers to serve during Federal elections. Obviously, our democracy is run by a cast of millions of voters who deserve to cast their ballots in the full confidence that they will be counted. This landmark legislation will provide much needed funding to States and localities to improve voting systems and standards, to create computerized statewide voter registration systems, to improve accessibility for voters with disabilities, and it will provide provisional voting so that all eligible voters who go to the polls can be assured they can cast their vote. These are all very important improvements, the fruit of constructive, broad-ranging, and bipartisan discussion on election reform that has been conducted over the last 14 months and led with great purpose and ability by my friend and colleague from Connecticut. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to solving another problem that affects our electoral process, and that is the difficulty that local jurisdictions have in recruiting and training enough people to work at the polls on election day. We need an army of trained, responsible, reliable, experienced people to work at the polls on election day to ensure that the laws we adopt, including the one before us, are implemented fully and that the elections are conducted efficiently and fairly. Right now, from all that the experts tell us, that army of poll workers is without sufficient support. There are not enough troops to carry out the responsibilities that they have. In fact, the General Accounting Office, the National Commission on Election Reform, which was chaired by former Presidents Carter and Ford, and a host of others who have examined the whole question of the way we cast our votes, have documented the extent of this problem of inadequacy of numbers of poll workers. In most locations, the recruiting and training of qualified poll workers is one of the most crucial, yet difficult, tasks that election officials face. Fifty-seven percent of local election officials responding to a GAO mail survey said they encountered major problems in conducting the 2000 election. GAO estimated that more than half of the election jurisdictions encountered problems finding a sufficient number of poll workers. I repeat that. GAO estimated that more than half of the election jurisdictions in the United States in the 2000 Presidential election had problems finding a sufficient number of poll workers. There are many reasons why local jurisdictions have had these difficulties. Obviously, the hours are long, the pay is low, and funding for training workers is in short supply. That is a particular problem given the fact that advanced new voting systems that will be unfamiliar to many voters will soon be deployed in many jurisdictions as a result of the difficulties in the 2000 election and, in fact, hopefully as a result of the funding and requirements established and provided for in this bill. Many poll workers are now drawn from the ranks of senior citizens and retirees. This legislation already addresses some of these issues by providing States with additional funding and holding them accountable for improving management of the polling place, but we can and should do more. We often lament how voter turnout rates have fallen in our democracy. I regret today that given our shortage of poll workers, if our dreams of civic participation were to become true and voter turnout were to surge upward, it would present a logistical nightmare in many jurisdictions because the poll workers are stretched, stressed, and strained as it is, and they need their ranks to be bolstered. I support such efforts as those in the legislation passed by our colleagues in the other body to encourage students to become active in politics and work at the polls. However, I do not think that is enough. We need to do more. Fortunately, there is an able reserve force of civic-minded people. I am speaking of Federal employees. I am convinced many are ready to spring into action if they are encouraged to do so by a law and their agencies. I believe the Federal Government should welcome its employees' service on the front lines of our democracy. This amendment would allow Federal civil servants, not political appointees, to take time off with pay for training and then to work as nonpartisan poll workers in Federal elections. We are not talking about election workers for either party but nonpartisan poll workers. Most civil servants demonstrate daily they have the temperament and maturity necessary to serve citizens at the polls. Moreover, because many Federal employees are bilingual, they would be a particular asset to foreign-language-speaking voters, addressing yet another problem facing many jurisdictions as they organize elections. I stress that this amendment would authorize civil servants to be paid by their agency only to work in nonpartisan capacities. Anyone who wants to serve in a partisan capacity must do so on their own time at their own expense. I am also not proposing in this amendment that we establish a general election day holiday for all Federal employees. That is a separate question which we are not touching in this amendment. Under the amendment, employees who want to participate would be allowed to do so unless their absence would impede the agency's ability to accomplish its mission. That is an exception written into the amendment which would be exercised by their supervisors. Employees' service at the polls would have to be substantiated in writing by election officials and would be limited to up to 3 days with pay in any single calendar year. The Office of Personnel Management would be required to draft regulations to provide guidance to agencies and employees on how to fulfill the intent of this amendment and to report to Congress on how they are doing. It is important to note that there is some precedent for this idea. Federal employees under law are now serving in nonpartisan capacities as examiners and observers under a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. During fiscal year 2000, the Office of Personnel Management provided some 550 observers and 40 examiners, either current or retired employees, to work in 10 States. They worked in areas where there were allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination in the voting process or in areas where jurisdictions have not provided the required language assistance or ballot translation. So there is a precedent for what I am proposing. There is no way to predict with any degree of certainty how many of the 2.8 million Federal civilian employees who live and work in jurisdictions across the country would be willing to receive training and work at polls under this amendment, but Los Angeles County has already implemented a similar program for its employees, and the results have been very encouraging. In fact, because of those results, the State of California passed legislation encouraging its employees to serve as poll workers as well. If the Federal Government leads by example and implements this amendment, I am hopeful we will see the same thing happen across America, and State and local governments, perhaps even private employers, will follow suit to strengthen the implementation of our election laws, their fairness, and the health of our democracy. I believe we would be remiss in passing this excellent broad legislation aimed at improving our election system without also providing a way to have an influx of new, trained, experienced workers to implement the rights we are securing with this proposal. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to modify the amendment. Apparently one of the pages of the amendment was inadvertently left off.

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act of 2002.'' I am pleased that my colleagues Senators Collins, Torricelli, Snowe and Cochran have joined me in introducing this very important bill. As many of my colleagues know from personal experience, colon cancer is a devastating disease. Nearly 57,000 people die each year from colon cancer. It is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in both men and women and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in America. But colon cancer can be combated, controlled and potentially conquered if it's caught in the earliest stages. In fact, colon cancer is a rare form of cancer in that it can even be prevented through screening, if pre-cancerous polyps are quickly identified and removed. The survival rate when colon cancer is detected at an early, localized stage is 90 percent. But only 37 percent of such cancers are discovered at that stage. The later the disease is caught, the lower the survival rate. That's why in 1997, Congress led the fight against colon cancer by making screening for the disease a covered benefit for every Medicare recipient. That is especially significant because the risk of colon cancer rises with age. Heightened awareness and greater access to treatment are working. Over the last 15 years, we've seen steady, if slow, annual declines in both incidence rates and mortality rates tied to colon cancer. But we can do more, because barriers to screening still exist. Modern technology has blessed us with extremely accurate screening tools, in particular the colonoscopy, which results in higher colon cancer identification rates and better long-term survival rates due to early detection. A consultation with a doctor before a colonoscopy is required to ensure that patients are properly prepared before they undergo the procedure. Unfortunately, Medicare does not pay for that consultation before a screening, creating an obvious obstacle to preventive treatment for many men and women. The Colon Cancer ``Screen for Life'' Act would cover these medical visits so that more Medicare beneficiaries will have easy access to screening. Further, with this legislation, just as Congress has done for screening mammography, screening colonoscopy will not count toward a senior's Medicare deductible. This will remove additional financial disincentives to screening. Finally, with this bill, we're breaking through another big barrier to early detection and treatment. The medical reality is that colonoscopy procedures are invasive and require sedation to perform, making it safer for them to be conducted in the hospital or an outpatient setting, where safety standards and emergency procedures are in place, rather than in a private doctor's office. But when doctors perform colonoscopies for Medicare patients in an outpatient setting, they take a hit on cost, because reimbursement for the procedure performed there has decreased by nearly 36 percent since 1997, while reimbursement for the procedure performed in a doctor's private office has increased by 52 percent. As a result, to balance their budgets, doctors and hospitals are typically forced to space out their Medicare patients, creating long waits for and limited access to these vital screenings. That financial incentive structure is indefensible. The job of medical services should be cutting cancer, not cutting costs. Unfortunately, today something as critical as colon cancer screening is moderated not by the real needs of patients and their medical doctors, but by market incentives. To address the problem, the ``Screen for Life'' Act would increase the payment rates for colonoscopies performed in hospitals and outpatient facilities by 30 percent. The result will be more access to early detection and treatment and thousands of lives saved. Colon cancer is a formidable foe, but we can make a difference in the fight against it. Early detection and treatment is our first line of defense. With the help of the Colon Cancer ``Screen for Life'' Act, I hope that in a decade we'll have fewer cancer cases to contend with and more survivors to celebrate the simple fact that screening saves lives.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am truly proud to join Senators Santorum, Bayh, Brownback, Bill Nelson, Cochran, Carnahan, Lugar, Clinton and Hatch in introducing the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, or CARE, Act. This important bill responds to a significant problem facing our nation: the social service needs of far too many of our fellow citizens continue to go unmet, and we in Congress must do more to bring additional resources to people in need and to assist and empower the community and charitable groups seeking to serve them. A little over a year ago, Senator Santorum and I stood with President Bush as he unveiled his Faith-based and Community Initiative. At the time, I embraced the plan's worthy goals, to strengthen our partnerships with charitable organizations and help them help more people in need, but I cautioned that the devil truly would be in the details. As it turned out, those details, particularly as they related to creating a larger, lawful space for faith-based groups at the public policy table, proved more than devilish when it came to translating our outline into legislation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that many people had lost faith in ever seeing anything remotely resembling a faith-based and community initiative. But after many months of discussion, debate, and disappointments, I am proud to report that we have finally reached a balanced, bipartisan agreement, one that avoids the controversies that have to date bogged down the President's plan in Congress, and that advances our common interest in turning the growing good will in our country into more good works in our communities. The truly bipartisan and diverse group of cosponsors who join me today testify to that. That good will is an unmistakable outgrowth of the September 11 attacks. I have never seen our country more united or more committed to our common values, to freedom and tolerance, faith and family, responsibility and community. With this bill, we hope to harness that renewed American spirit to help make our country as good as our values, and to help restore hope to people and places it has too often gone missing. We start by acknowledging that, in the wake of September 11 and the weakened economy, there is an ongoing and consequential charity crunch. With so much of our generosity focused on relief efforts, contributions to other groups have dropped markedly and resources have dwindled considerably, severely constraining the ability of many vital charities to meet rising demands. A survey released this week by the Association of Fundraising Professionals found that 44 percent of charities are experiencing shortfalls in contributions. This bill is designed in part to respond directly to that charity crunch with a targeted two-year strategy to help leverage new public and private funding for the nation's non-profits. It would create a series of new tax incentives, including a meaningful deduction for non- itemizers, to spur more charitable giving. And it would substantially increase Federal funding for the Social Services Block Grant program, which underwrites a broad range of critical programs, by more than $1 billion. But this is not a short-term or short-sighted proposal. The CARE Act employs a number of other tools to help empower community and faith- based groups over the long haul and expand their capabilities, by providing new forms of technical assistance that will make it easier for smaller grassroots organizations to qualify for Federal aid. And it builds on a proposal that Senator Santorum and I have long advocated to expand the use of innovative Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, to help low-income working families save and build assets and attain self- sufficiency. As you can tell, this is not just a faith-based bill. It is a civil society bill. It is aimed at strengthening support for the broad range of community, civic, and philanthropic groups, including the religiously-affiliated, that are strengthening our social fabric. It contains none of the troubling charitable choice provisions that were in the House bill, H.R. 7, that undermined or preempted civil rights laws and raised constitutional concerns. What it does do, though, is to take some common-sense, narrowly- targeted steps to knock down specific, documented barriers preventing many smaller faith-based social service providers from fairly competing for Federal funding. There's just no good reason to disqualify an otherwise qualified faith-based group just because they have a cross on their wall or a mezuzah on their door, or because they have a religious name in their title, or they have praise for God in their mission statement. In moving forward with this bill, we as Democrats and Republicans recognize that while charities are not a replacement for government, government cannot do it all, either. In fact, there are some things that government cannot do at all, like repairing the human spirit. That is why it is so important for us to partner with the agents of civil society, who, as we saw again and again after September 11, can fill in those holes and fill up our hearts. And that is why I am so pleased with this proposal, and proud of the work we have done together to make it viable. In the end, the Good Lord, not the devil, is in the details. I want to thank the President for his leadership and his cooperation, and to thank my friend Senator Santorum for his steadfast faith in that process. This is one CARE package that will, I am confident, deliver a lot of good to a lot of people, and which I believe a lot of Democrats and Republicans will eagerly support. People in need and the groups that help them are waiting for our help. The CARE Act will bring it to them. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am truly proud to join Senators Santorum, Bayh, Brownback, Bill Nelson, Cochran, Carnahan, Lugar, Clinton and Hatch in introducing the Charity Aid, Recovery, and Empowerment, or CARE, Act. This important bill responds to a significant problem facing our nation: the social service needs of far too many of our fellow citizens continue to go unmet, and we in Congress must do more to bring additional resources to people in need and to assist and empower the community and charitable groups seeking to serve them. A little over a year ago, Senator Santorum and I stood with President Bush as he unveiled his Faith-based and Community Initiative. At the time, I embraced the plan's worthy goals, to strengthen our partnerships with charitable organizations and help them help more people in need, but I cautioned that the devil truly would be in the details. As it turned out, those details, particularly as they related to creating a larger, lawful space for faith-based groups at the public policy table, proved more than devilish when it came to translating our outline into legislation. It would not be an exaggeration to say that many people had lost faith in ever seeing anything remotely resembling a faith-based and community initiative. But after many months of discussion, debate, and disappointments, I am proud to report that we have finally reached a balanced, bipartisan agreement, one that avoids the controversies that have to date bogged down the President's plan in Congress, and that advances our common interest in turning the growing good will in our country into more good works in our communities. The truly bipartisan and diverse group of cosponsors who join me today testify to that. That good will is an unmistakable outgrowth of the September 11 attacks. I have never seen our country more united or more committed to our common values, to freedom and tolerance, faith and family, responsibility and community. With this bill, we hope to harness that renewed American spirit to help make our country as good as our values, and to help restore hope to people and places it has too often gone missing. We start by acknowledging that, in the wake of September 11 and the weakened economy, there is an ongoing and consequential charity crunch. With so much of our generosity focused on relief efforts, contributions to other groups have dropped markedly and resources have dwindled considerably, severely constraining the ability of many vital charities to meet rising demands. A survey released this week by the Association of Fundraising Professionals found that 44 percent of charities are experiencing shortfalls in contributions. This bill is designed in part to respond directly to that charity crunch with a targeted two-year strategy to help leverage new public and private funding for the nation's non-profits. It would create a series of new tax incentives, including a meaningful deduction for non- itemizers, to spur more charitable giving. And it would substantially increase Federal funding for the Social Services Block Grant program, which underwrites a broad range of critical programs, by more than $1 billion. But this is not a short-term or short-sighted proposal. The CARE Act employs a number of other tools to help empower community and faith- based groups over the long haul and expand their capabilities, by providing new forms of technical assistance that will make it easier for smaller grassroots organizations to qualify for Federal aid. And it builds on a proposal that Senator Santorum and I have long advocated to expand the use of innovative Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, to help low-income working families save and build assets and attain self- sufficiency. As you can tell, this is not just a faith-based bill. It is a civil society bill. It is aimed at strengthening support for the broad range of community, civic, and philanthropic groups, including the religiously-affiliated, that are strengthening our social fabric. It contains none of the troubling charitable choice provisions that were in the House bill, H.R. 7, that undermined or preempted civil rights laws and raised constitutional concerns. What it does do, though, is to take some common-sense, narrowly- targeted steps to knock down specific, documented barriers preventing many smaller faith-based social service providers from fairly competing for Federal funding. There's just no good reason to disqualify an otherwise qualified faith-based group just because they have a cross on their wall or a mezuzah on their door, or because they have a religious name in their title, or they have praise for God in their mission statement. In moving forward with this bill, we as Democrats and Republicans recognize that while charities are not a replacement for government, government cannot do it all, either. In fact, there are some things that government cannot do at all, like repairing the human spirit. That is why it is so important for us to partner with the agents of civil society, who, as we saw again and again after September 11, can fill in those holes and fill up our hearts. And that is why I am so pleased with this proposal, and proud of the work we have done together to make it viable. In the end, the Good Lord, not the devil, is in the details. I want to thank the President for his leadership and his cooperation, and to thank my friend Senator Santorum for his steadfast faith in that process. This is one CARE package that will, I am confident, deliver a lot of good to a lot of people, and which I believe a lot of Democrats and Republicans will eagerly support. People in need and the groups that help them are waiting for our help. The CARE Act will bring it to them. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with sorrow and profound respect to honor the life of Michael ``Mickey'' Miano, a Connecticut institution and personal friend who passed away earlier this month, just 2 months shy of his 96th birthday. By trade, Mickey was a restaurateur and businessman, but that doesn't begin to describe the depth of his influence on Connecticut's capital city or the State that was his home. Anyone who wanted to understand Hartford's social and political life in a glance needed only to visit Mickey in his restaurant or in the office of one of the many other businesses he ran over the course of his life. He was a political leader without political office--a man who understood that communities are held together not by government but by the private citizens who live, work, own homes, and raise their families in them. Mickey came to this country from Italy at age 6 in 1912, left school after the fifth grade to work in the tobacco fields, later joined the merchant marines, and then went into business. His life's trajectory exemplified the rise of a whole generation of Italian-American immigrants, and immigrants of every nationality throughout American history. The fact that Mickey had an uphill climb did not slow his ascent one bit. By age 30, he was well on his way to being a force in Connecticut politics, earning it all through his hard work and the power of his personality. Mickey's place in the history of Connecticut politics is secure. It was an attempt to secure that place that led me to include him in two books I wrote about Connecticut politics earlier in my own life. And over the years that followed, as more people came to learn how generous he was in spirit and how committed he was to improving his city and state, he grew more and more instrumental in Connecticut's political life, and my home State grew more and more indebted to him. I was privileged to have Mickey as a friend. Despite many attempts to draft him into official public service, Mickey never ran for political office--perhaps because he understood that in America, there's no greater honor or privilege than an active and caring private citizen. That is what he was: a grassroots leader who cared about the common good and got results. I know that his optimism and patriotism will continue to inspire all those who knew him as long as we live. I ask to print the following tribute to his life by Tom Condon, another good guy who also happens to write for the Hartford Courant, in the Record. The tribute follows: [From the Hartford Courant, Jan. 16, 2002] Mickey Miano Dies At 95 Restaurateur Helped Define An Era In City Politics (By Tom Condon) Michael ``Mickey'' Miano, restaurateur, businessman and an enduring figure in Hartford politics for much of the last century, died last weekend, two months shy of his 96th birthday. Miano, street-savvy and stylishly stout, feisty and flamboyant, got his start in politics at age 9, handing out fliers for Woodrow Wilson in the 1916 election. He gained local prominence in the rough-and-tumble world of East Side politics in the 1930s. He was part of the first generation of Italian American politicians to gain power in the city, a group that included such figures as Anthony Zazzaro, Rocco Pallotti, Joseph Fauliso and Dominick DeLucco. Miano declined many requests to run for office, preferring the behind-the-scenes neighborhood and committee work where a job, a favor or a remembered birthday translated into votes and power. He was so good at it that even in his 80s, when he'd lost a step and his influence had waned, politicians still stopped at his memento-filled Franklin Avenue office to pay homage. ``You don't want him against you,'' then-State Rep. Anthony Palermino told a reporter. He was a soft touch for a favor, but if a situation called for a firm hand, Miano provided it. As a precinct moderator in 1933, he twice settled disputes with his dukes. But he could also be a diplomat. His East Side restaurant, Mickey's Villanova, was the hot spot for politicians and reporters in the World War II years. Shortly after a bruising municipal election in 1943, heads of the three factions that had been fighting it out all appeared at Mickey's. Miano tactfully seated them in different corners of the restaurant, and shuttled back and forth until each group was buying drinks for the others. Miano was born in Sicily and came to this country at age 6 in 1912. He left school after the fifth grade to work in the tobacco fields. After a stint in the merchant marine he came back to Hartford and went into a remarkable number of businesses in the next 70-plus years. He sold wholesale grapes, drove a fruit wagon, brought the circus to town, promoted fights, ran a nightclub and finally got into the restaurant business. Mickey's Villanova, on Market Street, was central to the political action in a way that Frank's, Scoler's and Carbone's would later be. During the war, Bob Steele, Willie Pep and others broadcast to American troops from the restaurant. The Constitution Plaza redevelopment project took away the restaurant and the beloved East Side neighborhood, over Miano's strenuous objection, but he persevered. He made salad dressing, started a rubbish removal company and sold incinerators. In his last decades, he was in real estate and mortgages from the Franklin Avenue office. He made no concession to age, his son Paul Miano said, and was as hungry to do a deal at 87 as he was at 17. ``The only way we got him to stop was by closing the office when he went in for surgery. He was 88, and we wanted him to take it easy.'' But Mickey came through the surgery, lost more than 100 pounds and was raring to go again. During his last illness, at 95, he'd say to Paul, ``When I get out of here, let's open up a little office, just a couple days a week.'' His daughter, Michelle Bradley, said the family was never more proud of her father than when U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman was nominated for vice president. Lieberman mentioned Mickey in both of his books about Connecticut politics. ``The Power Broker'' and ``The Legacy.'' ``That a prospective vice president of the United States would write about this man of humble origin is remarkable,'' she said. And, Paul said, his dad got a lot of mileage out of the mentions. He was vacationing in Florida during the campaign.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I honor Dr. Donald J. Cohen, a doctor, an author, an outstanding psychiatrist, a true professional, and caregiver and friend to the thousands of people who had the good fortune of knowing him. Today I grieve for my friend, as he recently passed away after only 61 short years on this Earth. I could think of no better tribute to this great man than to name the very program he envisioned so many years ago to help the victims of violence-related stress in his honor. Thus, I submitted an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill to amend Section 582 of the Public Health Service Act to rename this critically important grant program, the ``Donald J. Cohen National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative.'' I am proud to say that this amendment has been accepted by both the House and Senate and for that I thank my colleagues. Dr. Cohen did more in his 61 years than most anyone else could ever hope to accomplish in a lifetime. He started at Brandeis University in 1961 on the course to a medical career and then went on to graduate from Yale University School of Medicine in 1966. Over the following 35 years, Dr. Cohen dedicated his life to helping children and adolescents. Donald spent virtually all of his adult life working tirelessly to develop and promote programs to assist children. I recently learned from my colleague, Senator Dodd, that Dr. Cohen was the first person to suggest a special health insurance program for children that ultimately became the Childrens' Health Insurance Program. Today, this program throughout the Nation provides health care for millions of children who would otherwise go without the basic care they need to grow up healthy and flourish. Dr. Cohen was a well-respected and world-renowned physician and teacher. Over the course of his illustrious career, he held many faculty positions at the Yale University School of Medicine, culminating with his appointment as the child Psychiatrist-in-Chief of the Yale Children's Hospital and Director of the Child Study Center at Yale School of Medicine. He held these positions for the past 18 years, which, as anyone in medicine will tell you, is an incredible testimony to his stature and leadership. He has been honored by the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on Children, and the American Psychiatric association for his outstanding work. He received numerous lifetime research awards, including the Strecker Award from the Institute of the Pennsylvania Hospital and the Agnes Purcell McGavin Award for Prevention from the APA. He was recognized as a Sterling Professor of Child Psychiatry, Pediatrics and Psychology. He served as President of the International Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Allied Professions since 1993 and published over 300 papers and books. Dr. Cohen was also awarded a Doctor of Philosophy, Honoris Causa, from the Bar Ilan University in Israel. As you can see, Dr. Donald Cohen was quite a remarkable man. So many people have been touched in some way by this great man's dedication. It can be said that Dr. Cohen indeed achieved what most of us strive for, to make a difference. For those of us who knew him, for those of us in whose life Donald made a difference, his passing comes painfully too soon. We mourn and pray that Donald's soul will be embraced in the warmth of eternal life and that God will comfort and strengthen Phyllis, his wife, their children and grandchildren, and all of the family, friends, colleagues and patients who will miss him. I know the spirit and warmth of Dr. Donald J. Cohen will burn on in the hearts of those who grieve him. It is with spirit that I ask my colleagues to honor this man with the dedication of the Donald J. Cohen National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague Senator McCain legislation to establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. This Commission will have a broad mandate to examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurring at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, and it will be charged with making a ``full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and response to, the attacks.'' It will ``investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.'' Certain events stand out in our history for having left an indelible mark of pain and sorrow on America. The infamous attack on Pearl Harbor not only roused a slumbering giant, but also raised difficult questions about why our great Navy had been caught unawares. The tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy evoked powerful feelings of sorrow and loss, but also searching questions about the identity and motives of the assassin. And on this past September 11, the United States suffered assaults on its territory unparalleled in their cruelty, destruction and loss of life. Americans were stunned both by the magnitude of the loss and the maliciously simple plan that had caused the carnage. Here too, alongside their grief and rage, the American people have been asking questions: Why was this plan so successful in achieving its evil goals? Were opportunities missed to prevent the destruction? What additional steps should be taken now to prevent any future attacks? In the immediate aftermath of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, special commissions were formed to conduct investigations and answer similar questions. These precedents provide us with important models as we seek answers to such questions, and then use the findings to move forward with strategies to respond to the scourge of terrorism. Like many of my constituents, I too want to know how September 11 happened, why it happened, and what corrective measures can be taken to prevent it from ever occurring again. The American people deserve answers to these very legitimate questions about how the terrorists succeeded in achieving their brutal objectives, and in so doing, forever changing the way in which we Americans lead our lives. To be successful, this Commission must have a number of resources, including enough time, a top level staff, ample investigatory powers, and adequate funding, all of which we have provided for in this legislation. But most critically, it must have broad bipartisan support. This Commission must not become a witch-hunt. The events of September 11 were so cataclysmic that there is enough responsibility to be shouldered by multiple parties. The overriding purpose of the inquiry must be a learning exercise, to understand what happened without preconceptions about its ultimate findings. Just as Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson turned to national leaders of their day, Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Warren, to spearhead the Pearl Harbor and Kennedy assassination inquiries, respectively, this Commission must also draw upon the great reservoir of bipartisan talent that our nation possesses to answer crucial and fundamental questions. We expect that members appointed to this blue-ribbon Commission will be prominent U.S. citizens, though not currently serving in public office, with ``national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, legal practice, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce, including aviation matters, and foreign affairs.'' To help ensure that members of the Commission will possess some of these substantive areas of expertise, which are so critical to understanding and analyzing the events of September 11, 10 of its 14 members will be appointed by the Senate and House chairmen, in consultation with their ranking minority members, of the Congressional committees that oversee Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Judiciary, and Commerce. President Bush will appoint the four remaining members of the Commission, including the Chairman, who in turn will appoint the staff. In an effort to mandate bipartisanship, or perhaps more accurately, non-partisanship, no more than 7 of the Commission's 14 members may be from one political party. Though some of the Commission's recommendations may include ``proposing organization, coordination, planning, management arrangements, procedures, rules, and regulations,'' we cannot wait for the findings of this report to begin the process of strengthening our Nation's homeland defense. That process, of course, is already underway, and must continue to occur at a rapid pace to ensure the continued protection of American lives and property. This Commission will not issue its first report until six months after its first meeting, and its final report will be issued another year after that. Rather than wait for these reports to be researched and submitted, we must continue the process we have already started to pro-actively address vulnerabilities that undermine our daily safety. We have already received the valuable input of numerous other experts and Commissions, some of which even issued their prescient warnings before the events of September, such as the Hart-Rudman Commission. When this proposed Commission completes its investigation and makes its final recommendations, those suggestions and conclusions will augment the record we have already developed on ways we can continue to safeguard our nation. The Commission is not only the right thing to do, but this is the right time to do it. Understandably, the initial months after September 11 were preoccupied first with mourning, and then with prosecution of the war. There were legitimate concerns that a robust investigation into the causes of September 11 would siphon resources from the ongoing war effort. But with the first stage of the war against terrorism now drawing to a close, and with many perplexing questions still before us, we must now begin in earnest the process of finding answers to how it happened. This Commission should not be at odds with the war effort of any federal agency; rather, its efforts will complement the internal review processes some agencies are undergoing. Determining the causes and circumstances of the terrorist attacks will ensure that those who lost their lives on this second American ``day of infamy'' did not die in vain. In so doing, this Commission will not only pay tribute to those who perished, but it will ensure that their survivors, and all the citizens of this great nation, continue to live life secure in the knowledge that the U.S. government is doing all within its powers to preserve their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Nurse Reinvestment Act of 2001. I want to congratulate my colleagues, particularly Senators Mikulski, Hutchinson, Kerry and Jeffords, for their extraordinary efforts to put together this excellent bill. I also want to thank the Committee for including the provisions of the Lieberman-Ensign ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative Act of 2001'' in the bill. By now, everyone knows that the nation faces a critical shortage of nurses. The shortage has already severely impacted states in many areas of the country, including Connecticut, and I fear it will jeopardize our ability to provide quality health care to patients. A recent report by the Government Accounting Office projected that the growing national nursing shortage will hit a peak in ten years. While pay is a major factor cited in the report, it is not the primary reason nurses are leaving the profession. The study also cites poor or unsafe working conditions, lack of respect from physicians and patients, barriers to participation in the hospital administration decision-making process, lack of opportunity to continue their education, and lack of recognition for accomplishments. We must do more to attract new people to the nursing profession and retain the quality nurses who currently provide us care. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will do just that. I want to take just a minute to talk about the specific provisions that were part of the ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative Act.'' This legislation contained two proposals to help retain nurses in the hospital setting: a competitive grant program that would provide funding to hospitals that actively work to retain their nurses and a scholarship program for registered nurses who hold an associates or diploma degree who wish to obtain a bachelor's degree in nursing. As part of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, these incentives have been broadened to apply to the nursing workforce in all health care facilities, providing a critical stimulus for these facilities to retain their nurses. While the ominous projections about the growing nursing shortage looms over the health care industry, it is clear that now is the time to act. I am encouraged that Congress is acting quickly and decisively to actively add to the nurse workforce and to provide critical incentives to keep nurses on the job.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Nurse Reinvestment Act of 2001. I want to congratulate my colleagues, particularly Senators Mikulski, Hutchinson, Kerry and Jeffords, for their extraordinary efforts to put together this excellent bill. I also want to thank the Committee for including the provisions of the Lieberman-Ensign ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative Act of 2001'' in the bill. By now, everyone knows that the nation faces a critical shortage of nurses. The shortage has already severely impacted states in many areas of the country, including Connecticut, and I fear it will jeopardize our ability to provide quality health care to patients. A recent report by the Government Accounting Office projected that the growing national nursing shortage will hit a peak in ten years. While pay is a major factor cited in the report, it is not the primary reason nurses are leaving the profession. The study also cites poor or unsafe working conditions, lack of respect from physicians and patients, barriers to participation in the hospital administration decision-making process, lack of opportunity to continue their education, and lack of recognition for accomplishments. We must do more to attract new people to the nursing profession and retain the quality nurses who currently provide us care. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will do just that. I want to take just a minute to talk about the specific provisions that were part of the ``Hospital Based Nursing Initiative Act.'' This legislation contained two proposals to help retain nurses in the hospital setting: a competitive grant program that would provide funding to hospitals that actively work to retain their nurses and a scholarship program for registered nurses who hold an associates or diploma degree who wish to obtain a bachelor's degree in nursing. As part of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, these incentives have been broadened to apply to the nursing workforce in all health care facilities, providing a critical stimulus for these facilities to retain their nurses. While the ominous projections about the growing nursing shortage looms over the health care industry, it is clear that now is the time to act. I am encouraged that Congress is acting quickly and decisively to actively add to the nurse workforce and to provide critical incentives to keep nurses on the job.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague Senator McCain legislation to establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. This Commission will have a broad mandate to examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurring at the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, and it will be charged with making a ``full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and response to, the attacks.'' It will ``investigate and report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures that can be taken to prevent acts of terrorism.'' Certain events stand out in our history for having left an indelible mark of pain and sorrow on America. The infamous attack on Pearl Harbor not only roused a slumbering giant, but also raised difficult questions about why our great Navy had been caught unawares. The tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy evoked powerful feelings of sorrow and loss, but also searching questions about the identity and motives of the assassin. And on this past September 11, the United States suffered assaults on its territory unparalleled in their cruelty, destruction and loss of life. Americans were stunned both by the magnitude of the loss and the maliciously simple plan that had caused the carnage. Here too, alongside their grief and rage, the American people have been asking questions: Why was this plan so successful in achieving its evil goals? Were opportunities missed to prevent the destruction? What additional steps should be taken now to prevent any future attacks? In the immediate aftermath of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, special commissions were formed to conduct investigations and answer similar questions. These precedents provide us with important models as we seek answers to such questions, and then use the findings to move forward with strategies to respond to the scourge of terrorism. Like many of my constituents, I too want to know how September 11 happened, why it happened, and what corrective measures can be taken to prevent it from ever occurring again. The American people deserve answers to these very legitimate questions about how the terrorists succeeded in achieving their brutal objectives, and in so doing, forever changing the way in which we Americans lead our lives. To be successful, this Commission must have a number of resources, including enough time, a top level staff, ample investigatory powers, and adequate funding, all of which we have provided for in this legislation. But most critically, it must have broad bipartisan support. This Commission must not become a witch-hunt. The events of September 11 were so cataclysmic that there is enough responsibility to be shouldered by multiple parties. The overriding purpose of the inquiry must be a learning exercise, to understand what happened without preconceptions about its ultimate findings. Just as Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson turned to national leaders of their day, Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Warren, to spearhead the Pearl Harbor and Kennedy assassination inquiries, respectively, this Commission must also draw upon the great reservoir of bipartisan talent that our nation possesses to answer crucial and fundamental questions. We expect that members appointed to this blue-ribbon Commission will be prominent U.S. citizens, though not currently serving in public office, with ``national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as governmental service, law enforcement, the armed services, legal practice, public administration, intelligence gathering, commerce, including aviation matters, and foreign affairs.'' To help ensure that members of the Commission will possess some of these substantive areas of expertise, which are so critical to understanding and analyzing the events of September 11, 10 of its 14 members will be appointed by the Senate and House chairmen, in consultation with their ranking minority members, of the Congressional committees that oversee Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Judiciary, and Commerce. President Bush will appoint the four remaining members of the Commission, including the Chairman, who in turn will appoint the staff. In an effort to mandate bipartisanship, or perhaps more accurately, non-partisanship, no more than 7 of the Commission's 14 members may be from one political party. Though some of the Commission's recommendations may include ``proposing organization, coordination, planning, management arrangements, procedures, rules, and regulations,'' we cannot wait for the findings of this report to begin the process of strengthening our Nation's homeland defense. That process, of course, is already underway, and must continue to occur at a rapid pace to ensure the continued protection of American lives and property. This Commission will not issue its first report until six months after its first meeting, and its final report will be issued another year after that. Rather than wait for these reports to be researched and submitted, we must continue the process we have already started to pro-actively address vulnerabilities that undermine our daily safety. We have already received the valuable input of numerous other experts and Commissions, some of which even issued their prescient warnings before the events of September, such as the Hart-Rudman Commission. When this proposed Commission completes its investigation and makes its final recommendations, those suggestions and conclusions will augment the record we have already developed on ways we can continue to safeguard our nation. The Commission is not only the right thing to do, but this is the right time to do it. Understandably, the initial months after September 11 were preoccupied first with mourning, and then with prosecution of the war. There were legitimate concerns that a robust investigation into the causes of September 11 would siphon resources from the ongoing war effort. But with the first stage of the war against terrorism now drawing to a close, and with many perplexing questions still before us, we must now begin in earnest the process of finding answers to how it happened. This Commission should not be at odds with the war effort of any federal agency; rather, its efforts will complement the internal review processes some agencies are undergoing. Determining the causes and circumstances of the terrorist attacks will ensure that those who lost their lives on this second American ``day of infamy'' did not die in vain. In so doing, this Commission will not only pay tribute to those who perished, but it will ensure that their survivors, and all the citizens of this great nation, continue to live life secure in the knowledge that the U.S. government is doing all within its powers to preserve their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have one simple message regarding the terror insurance legislation. We need to act now, before we adjourn, and we need to get this right. I fear that if we don't act, or don't get this right, we will need to return early in January to address this problem. Unfortunately, it is now obvious that we won't enact this critical legislation. This is irresponsible. Let me say clearly, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, should be commended for his valiant effort to secure an agreement. It is not his fault that this did not get done. He has had his eyes focused clearly on the goal line every day on this bill. He has been practical, energetic, tough, and patient. We are not able to act before we leave, but I want to congratulate Senator Dodd for his valiant effort. Let me explain why this issue is so important. As part of their property and casualty insurance, many businesses have insurance against the costs that arise if their business is interrupted. If we don't pass an effective terror insurance bill, the government will, in effect, cause massive interruption in the business community. We will create the interruption. We could have avoided this result by passing this legislation. Property and casualty insurance is not optional for most businesses. Not every business owner buys life insurance, but nearly every business buys property and casualty insurance, to protect its property, to protect it against being sued, and to protect its employees under the state workers compensation laws. Property and casualty insurance is required by investors and shareholders. It is required by banks that lend for construction and other projects. We all know that home mortgage companies require the homeowners to maintain homeowners property insurance, and it's the same with business lending. Maintaining property and casualty insurance is mandated as part of the fiduciary obligation to the business. And if property and casualty insurance for major causes of loss is not available, businesses face a difficult choice about going forward with construction projects, and other ventures. If no insurance is available, banks won't lend and the business activity that is depending on the loans will stop. The impact on the real estate, energy, construction, and transportation sectors will be severe. Insurance companies must be able to ``underwrite'' their policies. This means that they need to be able to assess their exposure or risk of a claim. They need to know if their exposure to claims is acceptable, excessive, or indeterminate. In the case of claims for damages caused by terrorist strikes, there is no way to assess their risk and no way to underwrite the policy. There are too many uncertainties. There is only one experience and the experience could not be more troubling. One thing that is certain, as it was not before September 11, is that losses from terrorist acts can cost tens of billions of dollars. In fact, under worst-case scenarios, losses could easily reach hundreds of billions of dollars. I recently introduced legislation focusing on the need to develop medicines to treat the victims of a bioterror attack. The Dark Winter exercise simulated a smallpox bioterror attack and it found that 15,000 Americans could die and 80 million could die worldwide. This is why it is so important to develop medicines we can use to contain the infections and deaths. My point here is that we could well have claims much larger than we had with the World Trade Center attack. There are hundreds of insurers in any given market. It is a highly competitive industry. But when reinsurers are not renewing their contracts without terrorism exclusions, many if not most of these companies will not be able to provide terrorism coverage--at any cost. At the business decision level, each individual insurance company considering whether to issue policies that cover terrorism must assess the costs that might result if the terrorists succeed in massive and horrific attacks, perhaps in many areas at which the insurance company may insure various businesses. Because no one knows where the terrorists might strike, insurers must ask questions like: How much insured property value are we covering in a given location? How many workers are we covering under workers' compensation laws, keeping in mind that workers' compensation death claims vary by state but are as high as $1 to 2 million dollars per claim in some jurisdictions, including here in the District. What would we lose on business interruption claims if damage in a metropolitan area causes a large number of businesses to be shut down by the civil authorities? What about multiple attacks in different locations?--keeping in mind the coordinated events on September 11. Unfortunately, at the individual insurer level, capital is finite, and the companies that insure commercial businesses have already taken a major hit due to the September 11 losses, as well as having lost their reinsurance for terrorist acts. Even a hypothetical good-sized company, one that would be in the top half dozen or so commercial insurers in the U.S., with perhaps 5 percent of the commercial lines market and capital of $7 or $8 billion, would have to ask, do we want to roll the dice on our very survival by writing terrorism coverage? Because that is what they would be doing absent this legislation, particularly if they incurred a disproportionate share of the losses. For example, if one or more events caused even $100 billion in insured losses, not that much more than the WTC, and they were lucky enough to have only 3-5 percent of the losses, they'd be severely crippled but might survive. But if their share of the losses was 8-9 percent, they'd be out of business. That is not a risk that an insurance company can reasonably take. If we do not pass this legislation, therefore, insurers will be forced to take whatever steps they consider necessary to ensure they do not drive themselves into bankruptcy. Make no mistake about it. The insurance industry can protect itself by reducing its exposure to terrorism going forward. There is nothing we can do in the Congress, within the limits of our Constitution, to require insurance companies to write policies. They don't have to write policies. If they don't write policies, the companies may not be as profitable in the short run, but they will at least be protecting themselves against insolvency, as any business has to do. State regulators are already considering terrorism exclusions, as they must do, consistent with their responsibilities to oversee the solvency of the insurance industry. And absent exclusions, in states where they might not be approved for one reason or another, the insurers will have no choice but to limit their business. If insurance companies are permitted to write policies with no coverage for claims connected to terrorism, then businesses will have to decide if they will self-insure against these losses. Many of them will conclude that they cannot accept this exposure. It is clear, therefore, that when we fail to pass this legislation, it will be both the insurance industry and everyone they insure that loses. Insurance companies can protect themselves by not writing policies, or writing only policies without any coverage for acts of terror. But companies that need insurance coverage may have even harsher options. What will be the effect on individual businesses and ultimately the economic recovery if we do not pass this legislation? At the individual company level, if a business in what appears to be a potential target area can only buy insurance with a terrorism exclusion, the owners would have to consider whether they want to commit new capital or even sell their current equity interests. Banks would have to ask whether they could make new loans or perhaps even default existing loans and mortgages, based on their determinations that insurance without coverage for terrorism was unsatisfactory. If insurers could not exclude terrorism and were forced to reduce their writing generally, the problem could be even worse, at least in whatever areas or for whatever types of business were considered most at risk. Companies would find that they could not get coverage for their properties or their liability exposure or their workers' compensation liabilities, because insurers were no longer able to provide it. This is why the real estate industry and a cross section of the business community have been pushing for this legislation. So, the issue is how we enable insurance companies to determine that the risk of terrorist claims is a risk that they can assume. That is what this legislation is all about, defining the risk so that insurers can assess and put a price on it. This legislation is about facilitating insurance companies' ability to continue to write property and casualty insurance policies. It is about providing business owners with the opportunity to buy insurance against terror claims and doing so in the private market to the extent that is possible. This is, of course, not the first time we have faced this kind of an issue. The Federal Government has a history of partnering with the insurance industry to provide coverages for risks that are too big, too uninsurable, for the industry alone. Current examples are the flood, crop, and nuclear liability programs, and in the past we've seen partnerships on vaccine liability and riot reinsurance. From an insurability standpoint, it is beyond dispute that these risks are far more insurable than terrorism, yet we continue to struggle on this bill. First, the existing programs cover fortuitous or accidental events, unlike terrorism, in which the risk is manmade, with the perpetrators measuring success by how much damage they can cause and how many people they can kill. Second, the dollar exposures are far less under the existing programs. Average annual losses on these programs, flood, crop, and nuclear liability, are probably only about $5 billion combined, a full order of magnitude lower than the losses on September 11 alone. Some might debate whether we should have passed the existing programs, or whether they are operated efficiently. But there should be no debate about the need for a terrorism program, and we have structured this one the right way, with retentions and loss sharing by the industry so the incentives are there for efficient operations. This legislative effort has failed in part because there are some who would use this legislation as an opportunity to enact wide-ranging reform of the tort claims system. While I have supported tort reform in the past, it is clear that these reforms are not possible now. If these reforms are attached to the bill, as was the case in the House-passed bill and as proposed in the Senate, the bill will die. This is what has happened. This legislative effort has failed in part because there are some who would use this legislation as an opportunity to use this legislation as an excuse to enact a wide-ranging and unprecedented venture in Federal regulation of the insurance industry. Some would, for example, seek to impose Federal Government price controls on the property and casualty insurance policies. If such controls are added to this bill, it is clear that the bill will die. Price controls are obviously unacceptable to many in the Senate and clearly unacceptable to the other body. A vote for price controls is a vote to collapse the property and casualty insurance market. Price controls in this sector would distort markets, create incentives to vacate the marketplace, and stifle competition. We do know that the cost of property and casualty insurance will rise. The current rates do not contemplate claims for acts of terror. Like it or not, there will have to be price increases to cover the risk of terrorism. The World Trade Center attack was the biggest manmade casualty loss in history. It was the biggest by a multiple of 40 or 50. The previous biggest manmade loss was the LA riots, which cost less than a billion dollars. The current estimates are that WTC will cost $40 to $50 billion or more. The WTC losses exceeded the insurance industry's total losses for commercial property & liability coverage, general liability, and workers' compensation combined for the entire 2000 year. Insurance companies cannot now cover this loss, and restore reserves, without price increases. Insurance industry is one of the most competitive industries in the U.S. If rates are rising too high, companies will be falling all over themselves to enter or re-enter the market. But so far, all signs point in the opposite direction, with insurers and reinsurers running as fast as they can from this--hardly an indication that they're gouging and planning on realizing egregious profits. There's a state regulatory system in place that can clamp down on rates if insurers overreach--and the bill leaves the state regulators with the full authority to disapprove rates that are excessive. I can't think of a better way to do the opposite of what we want to do, to prevent the return of a terrorism insurance marketplace, than to impose price controls. It is clear that the price of terror insurance will be less because of the Federal guarantee. If insurance companies were forced to write terror insurance without this guarantee, they would have to set a worst-case-scenario price. They would have to protect the company from insolvency. It is clear that these rates would make the insurance unaffordable. Again, however, the problem is that companies would not be able to set a price because of the indeterminate nature of the risk. This legislative effort has failed in part because there are some who would use this legislation as an opportunity to require the insurance companies to repay the government for its expenditures. This is the case in the House-passed bill. While requiring payment is intuitively attractive, the financial assistance and payback mechanism in their bill would discourage the return of a healthy private marketplace. One of our most important objectives is to encourage the return to the marketplace of insurers and reinsurers. The problem with the House bill's financial assistance and payback approach is that it mutualizes the losses within the program itself, reducing incentives for private innovation in the development of pooling and reinsurance mechanisms. If we're going to sunset this program, we can't provide for mutualization of losses throughout its duration and then expect that there will be a healthy reinsurance market to the day after it terminates. Even if we did not adopt the other body's first dollar mutualization concept, our objective of building a healthy marketplace, real work practicality considerations, and public policy all argue for not requiring industry payback. First, a payback requirement would be contrary to our objective of developing a healthy marketplace. A payback requirement would, from day one, raise the specter that in the event of substantial terrorism losses, insurers would not only have to pay their share of the losses but would also have to go to their regulators for substantial rate increases to repay the government--with no guarantees that such rate increases would be allowed. That is not the way to facilitate a healthy marketplace. Second, from a practical standpoint, let's also recognize that under our bill any government payments would not really go to insurers, that any repayments would not really come from insurers, and that it is the public in either event that will bear the cost of this program. The government payments are all keyed to amounts paid to claimants, and any repayments would or at least should be funded by policyholders, either indirectly through subsequent rate increases or directly through policyholder surcharges. Therefore, as long as an insurer's rates for terrorism coverage are based only on its deductible and quota share, government payments would not give a windfall to the insurers. That is of course how rates should be determined, since the state insurance commissioners will have the authority to disapprove excessive or unfairly discriminatory rates. It is of course the public that will also bear the cost of this program whether or not we require insurers to pay back the government. The costs of any such repayments would ultimately be paid by commercial businesses, which would in turn pass the costs back to the customers, employees, and shareholders, which is to say back to the public. Finally, from a public policy standpoint, I would refer you to the very simple fact that it is losses caused by terrorist attacks on our country that we are talking about here. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the people against attacks from without and within, and to the extent that terrorists succeed in causing losses that exceed our bill's insurance industry retentions, it is because the government has failed in this most fundamental responsibility. Of all the various programs through which the government and the insurance partner together to provide coverage for risks thought to be uninsurable, this one stands out as presenting the best case for a taxpayer role. In terms of price, we know that every cent of any funds the Federal government contributes to pay claims will go to the insured, not to the insurance companies. There is no Federal payment to any insurance company that does not go through to the victims. This makes it very hard to understand the arguments some have made in the other body about the insurance companies repaying the amounts that the Federal government might contribute. If the government contributions are passed through to the victims, what is the benefit to the insurance companies that needs to be paid? Do the companies then increase their rates to cover the cost of the repayment? If repayment is required, it would have to come, directly or indirectly, from the victims, not the insurance companies. There are some who would seek to add provisions to the legislation focused on ``cherry-picking,'' that is seeking to reduce the risk of the portfolio of clients and load it with lower risk clients. Insurance, like other financial services, is a very competitive business--and there are a variety of opportunities for large and small businesses to get coverage, with hundreds of insurers operating in any given market. For the largest businesses, which are probably most at risk due to the staggering workers' compensation exposures they present, in addition to traditional insurers, there are sophisticated offshore, excess and non-admitted markets they can tap into, as well as other risk-spreading devices. For the smaller companies, if coverage isn't available from standard private market insurers, most states have legislatively mandated market plans to provide workers' compensation and property insurance. The insurance industry also has a long history of working together to form pools and reinsurance arrangements so risks that are too difficult for one company can be handled as they've done for aircraft, including those that were hijacked on September 11. They can do this if we pass this bill to provide them the financial backstop they need. The fact is that we do not have the expertise to step into this complex arena and set the controls to determine how coverage should be provided and to whom. Since insurance regulation began, it's been the states that have done the job, and until such time as we're ready to change that and enact a federal regulatory scheme, we should be very careful about our involvement. At the state level, insurance departments in each state are much closer to their markets, and they have the expertise and the leverage to assess the availability of insurance and to take appropriate steps if there are problems. I am very disappointed in the failure to enact this legislation. I have supported my Connecticut colleague, Senator Dodd, and will continue to work with him to enact this legislation as soon as possible in January. That we have failed to act in this session and may well see unfortunate consequences.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Senate's action this evening on bioterrorism. Today, the Senate has taken an important step toward improving the Nation's ability to prepare for, and respond to, the threat of bioterrorism by adopting legislation, authored by Senator Kennedy and Senator Frist, and of which I am a cosponsor. The Senate bill, S. 1765, recognizes that any meaningful improvement in this area must begin with improvements in the Nation's public health system, a fact underscored by a series of hearings conducted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs on bioterrorism earlier this year. As a result of those hearings, I believe that there are several areas in which the Senate bill could be further strengthened especially in terms of the way the Federal Government's efforts to combat bioterrorism are organized. In anticipation of Senate consideration, I prepared an amendment to the original Kennedy/Frist bioterrorism bill, S. 1715, to address these concerns. However, given Senate's interest in acting on this important measure before adjournment, I agreed to defer offering this amendment at this time. I do, however, believe that the underlying issues need to be addressed Specifically, I would like to see additional attention given to bioterrorism within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. The underlying bill recognizes the need to strengthen CDC bioterrorism role. Currently, CDC's bioterrorism activities are currently coordinated by the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program within the National Center for Infectious Diseases. While many of the agents of concern are infectious diseases, many are not, including toxins and chemical agents. Even more to the point, many of the elements of the CDC bioterrorism program actually reside in other Programs and Centers. The pharmaceutical stockpile program resides within the National Center of Environmental Health. The Health Alert Network is in the Public Health Practices Program. Surveillance and detection activities are in the Epidemiology Program Office. Coordination of these activities, competition for resources, and line authority is a major problem. The importance and unique nature of the bioterrorism mission also requires creation of a separate ``intellectual'' center. The underlying bill also recognizes both the importance of expanding the role of HHS within the Government to provide leadership on bioterrorism preparedness and response. In addition, it recognizes the need to coordinate such activities within the many parts of HHS, including FDA, CDC, OEP, NIH, etc. The amendment would codify basic government management responsibilities and tools for the new Assistant Secretary position including agency performance measures, performance evaluation capability, technology verification. Detection is key to responding to bioterrorism attacks. Although health agencies have surveillance systems, they do not rely upon standard methodologies or real-time data collection. Though some States and localities have also begun to incorporate ``syndromic'' indicators, this practice is not widespread or standardized and they are not integrated into other health data systems. CDC is working on development of a new internet-based system, the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System, NEDSS, but its deployment is many years in the future. The amendment establishes an accelerated deployment schedule, including the development of data collection and reporting protocols, in consultation with state and local health agencies. CDC has initiated an internet-based Health Alert Network to provide real-time information to state and local health officials. Unfortunately, a number of States are not yet included in the network and very few county and municipal health departments are included. The amendment would establish an accelerated schedule for deployment. Lack of interoperability of communication systems, and more recently in IT systems, is a long-standing problem in emergency response among federal agencies, much less between federal and state agencies. The underlying bill recognizes the need for better interagency coordination through the creation of an interagency working group. The amendment would specifically charge the group with addressing interoperability of IT and communication systems and give the Secretary of HHS authority to provide technical and financial support to resolve such problems. The amendment would require the Secretary of HHS to contract with the Institute of Medicine to analyze the response of the public health system of the recent anthrax attacks and provide a ``lessons-learned'' report to help guide improvements at the federal, state, and local level. Finally, I would note that the House bill also recognizes the need to improve our public health surveillance and communications systems. The House bill also seeks to incorporate performance measures as part of expanded bioterrorism program in a manner similar to what I propose. Now that Senate has acted, I look forward to working with the conferees to ensure that our Nation is prepared for meeting this new threat. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment that I was prepared to submit, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Massachusetts, who has played a pivotal role in bringing us to this extraordinary moment of accomplishment. I rise today to join my colleagues in voicing my enthusiastic support for this conference report to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and help reinvigorate America's public education system. This democracy of ours is a magnificent process, beautiful in its freedom, although often untidy and cumbersome in its execution. We come to one of those wonderful moments when it has worked to provide a revolutionary change in the Federal Government's relationship to public education in our country. This agreement marks a truly unique coming together of parties, ideologies and people behind legislation that will help us deliver a high-quality public education to the children of this Nation and, in doing so, help us deliver on the promise of equal opportunity for every American. With this bill, we are fundamentally changing the educational equation in our country. We are saying public education is no longer a local responsibility, but it is now truly a national priority. We are saying we are no longer going to tolerate failure for our children and from the adults who are supposed to be educating them. We are saying we believe, as a matter of faith, that every child in this country can learn at a high level. And we are doing what has been long overdue-- refocusing our Federal policies and redoubling our national efforts to help realize those expectations of excellence and raise academic achievement for all of our children. refocusing our Federal policies and redoubling our national efforts to help realize those expectations of excellence and raise academic achievement for all of our children. This new educational equation could be summed up in six words: Invest in reform; insist on results. We are proposing to substantially increase Federal funding to better target those dollars to the community and students with the greatest needs, to give States and schools far more freedom in choosing how to spend those dollars and then, in exchange, to demand more accountability for producing results. No longer are we in Washington going to ask: How much are we spending and where is it going? Now we will ask: How much are our children learning and where are they going? This new approach, and the reforms we have developed to implement it, reflect the best thinking of both parties in both branches of our Government and the hard work of a lot of Members, including particularly Senators Kennedy and Gregg in this Chamber, and Representatives Boehner and Miller from the House. I want to express my appreciation to them for their leadership, their vision, and their commitment to rethinking the way we aid and support public education and reengineering our partnership with the States and local districts. I am very proud to have had the opportunity to participate in this enormously constructive process as one of the negotiators of the Senate version of the bill and as a member of the conference committee. For that, I am grateful to Majority Leader Daschle and to Chairman Kennedy, who solicited ideas and input from Senator Bayh and me and other New Democrats, even though we were not members of the HELP Committee, and broke with tradition to appoint us to the conference committee. I am particularly proud of the role we New Democrats played in shaping the framework and ideas behind this reform plan, which incorporates many of the principles and programs of the comprehensive Three R's plan that Senator Bayh and I, and several of our colleagues in this Chamber sponsored last year. When we started out three years ago along this road, our goal was to bring some fresh thinking to Federal education policy and to help break the partisan impasse on this critical matter, to offer a proposal that could bridge the gaps between left and right and forge a new consensus for real school reform for America's children, and to truly reinvent the Federal role in education. With this bill, I think all of us, new and old Democrats--I take the liberty to say new and old Republicans--can fairly say ``mission accomplished.'' We pushed not only for more funding, but to target more of those resources to the poorest districts and to restore the traditional Federal focus on disadvantaged children. This bill does just that. We pushed to streamline the Federal education bureaucracy, reduce the strings attached to funding, empower local educators and encourage innovation. This bill does just that. We pushed to create strong standards of accountability, to impose real consequences for chronic failure, and to demand measurable progress in closing the achievement gap between the haves and have- nots. Again, this bill does just that. Last but not least, we pushed to inject market forces deeper into our public school system, to promote greater choice and better information for parents, and to harness the positive pressure of competition to drive real change. This bill does just that. However, our work is not done. This new vision will take time and money to succeed, and we must be vigilant in following through on the implementation of this legislation. Simply put, these reforms will not work if they are not matched with resources. The significant funding levels provided in the Senate and House appropriations bills of about $22 billion, an increase of over $4 billion, provide a substantial down payment in realizing the necessary investment. But we must do more. We cannot close the achievement gap on the cheap. We must make increased investment a priority for the life of this bill, not just this year. I think the critical factor is for all of us to continue to work together in a bipartisan way to make sure we adequately and aggressively fund the reforms that are part of this proposal. In the meantime, I want to applaud President Bush for working with us in a cooperative, constructive manner to transform a promising blueprint for reform into what will soon be a landmark law. This was a model of bipartisanship and a reminder of what we can accomplish when we leave our partisan agendas at the door. I hope we will soon duplicate it. Mr. President, I wish to expand on my earlier comments to provide more historical background on the development of this conference report and explain its legislative intent. I am extremely pleased that the bill embodies many of the legislative intentions and key concepts that a number of my fellow New Democrats, particularly Senator Evan Bayh, and I, proposed when we first introduced the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act--otherwise known as the ``Three R's'' bill--in March 2000. I believe that we have achieved the same core goals in this conference report. The following analysis outlines the long, complex and ultimately fruitful evolution of the bill, and the concepts and themes underpinning its key provisions. The need for improving the federal role in K-12 public is well established. Too many of our schools have for years been failing to give low-income and minority students the education and skills they need to thrive in our increasingly knowledge-based economy. In addition, our nation faces a large achievement gap between higher- and lower-income students, and between white students and most minority students. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 2000 makes this clear. According to the report, 60 percent of the nation's fourth graders in poverty were reading below the basic proficiency level, compared to 26 percent of more affluent fourth graders. And the gap between children of different races and ethnicities is just as significant as the income gap; 63 percent of African-American fourth grade children and 58 percent of Latino children were reading below the basic proficiency level, compared with 27 percent of white children. The same problems persist at the top of the educational ladder. On average, of every 100 white kindergarten students, 93 will finish high school and 29 will earn at least a bachelor's degree. However, of every 100 African-American kindergarten students, only 86 will finish high school and only 15 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. And of every 100 Latino kindergartners, just 61 will graduate from high school and 10 will obtain at least a bachelor's degree. The result is that almost half of all college graduates by age 24 come from higher income families and only 7 percent from low-income families. These achievement gaps are unacceptable and unnecessary. Every day, more and more schools offering low-income students high standards and real support demonstrate that an underprivileged background does not consign a child to academic failure. In fact, students from low-income families can achieve at similar or higher levels than their more affluent peers. We were convinced that with the right approach, the federal government could help school districts and states spread these successes across the nation. Any reform of the federal role in education must start with the understanding that Washington is most helpful when it empowers states and localities to do their job more effectively, not when it micro- manages the running of schools and districts. Though Congress helped fuel state and local improvements through its last reauthorization of ESEA in 1994 and through its support of charter schools and public school choice, those proved ultimately insufficient to the size of the challenge before the country. To support states and localities as they worked hard to adopt better standards, improve the quality of their teachers, and increase choice and competition in public education, the federal role had to change more profoundly. It was this desire to spur a more accountable, competitive and innovative public education system, and ultimately raise academic achievement among children of all incomes and backgrounds, that led my colleagues and me to propose the Three R's bill. In the winter of 1998, I began early discussions on the issue with my former colleague, Republican Senator Slade Gorton, sharing the belief that a broad, bipartisan education reform agenda could and should be developed. We convened a series of meetings with key think tanks and policymakers--including the Progressive Policy Institute, the Education Trust, the Heritage Foundation, the Fordham Foundation and Empower America--and it soon became clear that we shared goals and approaches to reform that could serve as the basis for a legislative blueprint. Many of the concepts discussed in these meetings were distilled in a white paper in April 1999 on performance-based funding prepared by Andrew Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute in 1999, Toward Performance-Based Federal Education Funding: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Based on this framework, my staff and that of Senator Bayh began working regularly with like-minded moderate Democrats to draft a legislative proposal. Soon thereafter, the moderate Democrats formed the Senate New Democrat Coalition, with Senator Bob Graham as the leader, and selected education reform as the coalition's first legislative priority, with Senator Bayh and myself spearheading the effort. On March 21, 2000, I joined Senator Bayh and other Senate New Democrats, including Senators Mary Landrieu, Bob Graham, John Breaux, Blanche Lincoln, Herb Kohl, Richard Bryan, and Charles Robb, to introduce the Three R's Act, S. 2254, a sweeping piece of legislation designed to fundamentally reform federal education policy to a performance-based system focused on providing states and local school districts with greater resources and flexibility in return for greater accountability for increased student academic achievement. In May of 2000, Representative Cal Dooley, a leader of the New Democrats in the House of Representatives, introduced the Three R's companion bill, H.R. 4518, which was cosponsored by Representative Adam Smith. To correct a system that had grown too rigid, bureaucratic, and unresponsive to the needs of parents, the Three R's Act called for providing states and localities with more federal funding and greater flexibility regarding how to spend those dollars. In return, educators would be held more accountable for academic results. We argued that as a nation, we should ultimately base success on students' real educational outcomes--including test results and other measures--rather than on the number of programs or the size of the federal allocation. The Three R's Act called for streamlining the number of federal education programs and focusing federal dollars and attention on a few critical educational priorities, including serving disadvantaged students, raising teacher quality, increasing English proficiency, expanding public school choice, and stimulating innovation. Overall, it would have increased federal investment in public education by $35 billion over the next five years, targeting most of those new dollars to the poorest school districts in the nation. In April 2000, in conjunction with the introduction of our Three R's bill, the New Democrats held a forum on Capitol Hill to foster dialogue on the need for education reform. Participants included Bob Schwartz of ACHIEVE, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, Amy Wilkins of The Education Trust, University of Maryland Professor Dr. Bill Galston, and Joseph Olshefske, Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools. Although some participants offered constructive criticism on certain provisions in the Three R's bill, they largely cited the bill as the building block for a broad and bipartisan consensus. In the Spring of 2000, Republican Senators Gorton and Gregg approached Senator Bayh and myself to discuss the possibility of producing just such a reform package, and together we reached agreement on a number of provisions later to appear in the Conference Report before us today, such as the concept known as ``supplemental services.'' Despite our inability to reach a final compromise at that stage, these negotiations significantly furthered the framework for a comprehensive bipartisan bill. During the May 2000 debate over S. 2, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization bill, my fellow Senate New Democrats and I successfully pushed for the inclusion of provisions enhancing accountability for educational performance in the Democratic Caucus' alternative amendment, Amdt. 3111, to S. 2. In addition, our coalition successfully pushed for a separate debate on our Three R's proposal, which we offered as a substitute amendment, Amdt. 3127 to S. 2. That amendment was one of the few to be considered on the Senate floor before the ESEA bill was withdrawn. Though our amendment only garnered 13 votes, all Democratic, its defeat could not obscure the fact that the basis for bipartisan agreement was building. Also in June of that year, I joined with Senator Landrieu in cosponsoring her amendment, S. 3645, to the Labor-HHS-Education FY 2001 Appropriations Bill, H.R. 4577, which proposed focusing $750 million in federal funds on serving the poorest school districts. Unfortunately, that amendment was tabled, and thus defeated, despite bipartisan support for improving the distribution of federal funds to better serve all students. However, on behalf of the New Democrats, I successfully garnered inclusion of language requesting a GAO study of the formulas used to distribute federal education funds under Title I of the ESEA, including an assessment of their effectiveness in meeting the needs of the highest poverty districts. The GAO full report is expected in January 2002. As 2000 advanced, progress on the Three R's reform model was slowed by special interests, partisan politics, and the Presidential campaign of which I was a part. Congress failed to reauthorize ESEA on time for the first time since its enactment in 1965. Nonetheless, New Democrats and members supporting reform on the Republican side managed to take significant steps in the 106th Congress toward furthering the framework for the bipartisan compromise reached in the 107th Congress. Key among our victories were building on the consensus for greater accountability for academic results and agreeing to examine better targeting of federal resources on our nation's most disadvantaged communities. In August 2000, the Presidential elections went into full swing, taking up much of my time. It was encouraging for me to see both Presidential candidates adopting into their campaign platforms many of the concepts in the Three R's bill. Sandy Kress, current education advisor to President Bush and then advisor to Governor Bush, was widely reported to be a key architect of his education blueprint. I was not surprised to later learn that as a member of the Democratic Leadership Council in Texas, Sandy was intrigued by many of the concepts contained in the Progressive Policy Institute's education reform plan and our Three R's legislation in the Senate. I am pleased that President Bush embraced so many of these reforms in his blueprint for education reform. After the election, President-elect Bush invited several key education reformers, including Senator Bayh and Representative Tim Roemer, to Austin to discuss the reauthorization of ESEA. By including key New Democrats at this meeting, the President-elect sent a clear signal that to his administration, a bipartisan bill centered around a moderate message of reform would be a top priority. That message proved valuable in guiding us toward a compromise this year. On February 13, 2001, early in the 107th Congress, I joined other New Democrat cosponsors in reintroducing the Three R's bill as S. 303. The same day, the White House released a white paper outlining the Administration's education plan, ``No Child Left Behind,'' which shared significant common ground with the Three R's Act. Also that winter, Representative Tim Roemer reintroduced the Three R's companion bill, H.R. 345, in the House of Representatives, together with 18 other New Democrat cosponsors including Cal Dooley and Adam Smith, who had introduced the first House bill. Over the same period, Senate New Democrats were approached by Senator Gregg with the backing of the White House about the introduction of a bipartisan bill using the Three R's as a base. In late February and March 2001, Senators Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln, and myself began bipartisan negotiations with Sandy Kress of the White House and Republican Senators Gregg, Hutchinson, Collins, and Frist. The Senate Education Committee was simultaneously beginning work on ESEA legislation, and on March 28, 2001, Senator Jeffords, Chairman of the HELP Committee, reported out of committee an education bill, S. 1, entitled ``Better Education for Students and Teachers Act,'' or ``BEST.'' Understanding that lasting reform requires broad bipartisan support, Senator Bayh and I encouraged the White House and our Republican colleagues to bring all interested parties--many of whom had the same reform goals--together. I am appreciative of the leadership shown by Senators Lott and Daschle in uniting these efforts and to have been included in those negotiations. However, the bill that emerged from the Senate was not as strong on accountability as the Three R's Act. I was disappointed, for example, that concerns raised by some members of Congress and many outside groups prompted the White House and others to abandon strong accountability tools to measure the performance of all students of all racial groups. Nonetheless, I believe that the language ultimately reached, while not as strong as I would have preferred, marked a dramatic step forward in holding schools, districts and states accountable for making annual progress in student academic achievement. In the first week of May 2001, this bipartisan substitute bill, S. 1, was brought to the floor. The Senate had a very lively debate on the bill for several weeks, with hundreds of amendments introduced and passed. The debate was interrupted periodically for other debates, most notably the consideration of the final conference report on the budget and tax relief bill, which itself included several education amendments. Several New Democrats, myself included, were concerned that insufficient funds were being provided for investments in important priorities such as education. An amendment to support full funding of IDEA was introduced and passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. Immediately thereafter, Senator Jeffords changed his membership in the Republican Party to independent status and the Senate was reorganized. Senator Kennedy became Chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and Senator Gregg became the Ranking Member of the Committee. Fortunately, the bipartisan working spirit was not harmed by this change, and work on the education bill continued. During the debate on S. 1, I cosponsored with Senator Landrieu an amendment to restore the original purpose of Title I funding by prohibiting the allocation of Title I funds to school districts unless new funds were appropriated to the Targeted Grant formula, focusing these funds on the communities and schools with the greatest need. The amendment, S. Amdt. 475, passed by a vote of 57 to 36. We were able to secure $1 billion in funding for these targeted grants in a subsequent amendment, S. Admt. 2058, to the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, S. 1536, for fiscal year 2002 which passed the Senate on November 6, 2001. The amendment, cosponsored by Senator Landrieu, Senator Cochran, and myself, passed the Senate by a vote of 81 to 19. I also cosponsored, with Senators Tom Carper and Gregg, an amendment to S. 1, S. Amdt. 518, to make public school choice a reality for children trapped in failing schools by encouraging states and local districts with low-performing schools to implement programs of universal public school choice and eliminating many of the existing barriers to charter school start-up and facility costs. Parental choice is a crucial element of accountability, and both provisions promise to give more and more parents a real stake in their children's education. I am proud that both concepts are incorporated in the legislation that we are considering today. After several weeks of debate, the Senate passed S. l, ``BEST'' in June 2001. Since the House of Representatives had introduced H.R. 1, entitled ``No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,'' in March, a conference was necessary to resolve the still significant differences between the bills. In July 2001, I was very gratified to be appointed a conferee to the conference committee of the House and the Senate, with my Three R's cosponsor Senator Bayh. Since Senator Bayh and I are not members of the HELP Committee, our inclusion was unprecedented; and I thank Senator Kennedy for his keen understanding of the contribution that the New Democrats made to this process of forging a bipartisan compromise. We have been negotiating and working diligently on the conference report since July, and although this Conference process was long and difficult, I believe the hard work has been worthwhile, as we have produced a landmark bill with the potential to vastly improve our nation's public schools. Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, Representative Boehner, and Representative Miller all deserve praise for creatively resolving differences between the bills. Previously, accountability for federal education dollars had been focused on how a state, school district, or school spent funds rather than the results that those funds produced. The Three R's bill, and now the new conference report bill, shifts the focus from inputs to outcomes. This conference report embodies the performance-based accountability model put forth in the Three R's bill for holding states, school districts, and schools accountable for increases in student achievement based on state assessments and state standards. Of course, we have not solved all of the problems that confront education in the United States, in particular, I would like to take a moment to commend Senator Jeffords for his leadership on the issue of educating students with disabilities under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and his dedication to ensuring that Congress lives up to its commitment made in 1975 to provide 40 percent of the costs associated with educating these students. His courage to take such a strong stand on this important priority is admirable. I am hopeful that Congress can address this issue when it takes up the reauthorization of IDEA in 2002. Nevertheless, this conference report represents a major step forward in improving and reforming our education policies and programs. The following highlights provide an overview of concepts and policy themes that were proposed in the New Democrats' Three R's bill and had an impact on the new legislation. On accountability, the heart of the Three R's plan called on each state to adopt performance standards in all federal programs, most importantly requiring states to ensure that all students, including those in Title I schools, would reach proficiency in math and reading within 10 years. It required states, districts and schools to disaggregate test results to better focus attention and resources on the lowest performing subgroups in order to close the achievement gap that exists in our nation between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged students, and minority and non-minority students. It further required states to develop annual measurable performance goals for teacher quality and English proficiency, and held states and districts accountable for meeting those goals. The final agreement adopts much of this accountability structure--creating a more performance-based approach to public education. As to flexibility, the Three R's plan called for consolidating dozens of federal education programs into a limited number of funding streams that would greatly expand the ability of states and districts to allocate federal aid to meet their specific needs. Although the final agreement does not contain the level of consolidation envisioned in the Three R's bill, it does significantly increase the flexibility of states and local districts to transfer funding from many other programs; it also creates new ``State Flex'' and ``Local Flex'' experiments to provide even more freedom to consolidate funding. Concerning disadvantaged students, the Three R's plan would have reformed the Title I program to hold states and districts accountable for closing the achievement gap; strengthened the definition of what constitutes adequate yearly progress; and required districts to first intervene and turn around chronically failing schools, and ultimately restructure them, convert them to charter schools, or close them down. The final agreement builds on these reforms and adds to them, sharply redefining adequate yearly progress so that all students must be academically proficient within 12 years, offering students in failing schools the right to transfer to higher-performing public schools, and giving families with children in poorly performing schools the right to use federal funds for outside tutoring assistance. Related to targeting, the Three R's plan not only called for increasing federal funding for Title I and other major programs, but for targeting those resources to the districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. The final agreement includes a New Democrat amendment sponsored by Senators Landrieu and myself that channels most of the new Title I dollars to the poorest districts through a more targeted formula. It also changes other program formulas to better target teacher quality, English proficiency, reading, technology and after school funding to the districts and schools with the greatest need. On teacher quality, the Three R's plan called for consolidating several teacher quality grant programs into a single formula stream, better targeting those dollars to the districts with the most teachers teaching out of their area of specialty, and holding states and districts accountable for ensuring that all teachers are deemed highly qualified by a specified deadline. The final agreement meets all three goals, requiring all teachers in a state to be qualified--not only meeting state certification requirements but also meeting rigorous content standards--by 2006. As to bilingual reform, the Three R's plan called for a total overhaul of federal bilingual education programs that would streamline the bureaucracy, increase federal investment to meet growing enrollment, and refocus the program's mission on helping non-native speaking students achieve proficiency in English and other academic subjects. The final agreement adopts almost all of these reforms, including a requirement to annually assess students' language proficiency and hold districts accountable for improving English proficiency for the first time. Regarding public school choice, the Three R's plan called for increasing educational options for parents within the public school framework, strengthening funding for charter schools and creating a new initiative to promote intra- and inter-district choice programs at the local level. The final agreement includes a New Democrat amendment sponsored by Senator Carper that is based largely on these provisions, as well as Three R's-related measures requiring states and districts to expand the use of report cards to inform parents about school performance. I would like to turn now to a detailed discussion of some of the major titles and parts of the conference report which have been influenced by the provisions and intent of the Three R's bill. The heart of the Three R's plan, especially for Part A of Title I, was a comprehensive accountability system for closing the academic achievement gap that held each, district, and school responsible for improving academic performance. It called for a major investment of federal resources under Title I and better targeting of those funds to the highest poverty communities. Under that restructured system, states would be required to define adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for student academic achievement so that all students would be proficient in reading and math within 10 years and each district and school would be required to show measurable progress each year--not just on average, but specifically for minority and disadvantaged subgroups. If schools failed to meet these standards, districts would be required to intervene and make improvements. If schools continually failed, districts would eventually be required to take dramatic steps to overhaul them or close them down, while providing students in those schools with the right to transfer to another higher performing public school. Title I, Part A of the conference report incorporates much of the ideas and architecture of this system as envisioned under the Three R's bill and substantially builds on them. It authorizes $13.5 billion in funding for fiscal year 2002 while significantly reforming the funding formulas under Title I, Part A, subpart 2. It demands that states develop new annual assessments in grades 3-8 to better monitor student learning, and sharply redefines the definition of adequate yearly progress to ensure that schools and districts are making demonstrable gains in closing the achievement gap, and that all students are academically proficient within 12 years. And, it demands annual accountability for that progress by intervening in failing schools and districts to turn them around, and imposes tough actions on those that fail to improve over time. Regarding standards and assessments, the Three R's bill maintained the requirements for state content and student performance standards and annual assessments that existed under current law, as directed under the enactment of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Under section 1111(b)(4) of Title I, it required that states have in place their annual assessments in English language arts and mathematics by the 2002-2003 school year. It further recognized the growing importance of a high quality science education for all students, so that our nation may continue to compete in a global and increasingly high-tech, high-skilled economy. As a result, it expanded current law by requiring states to develop and implement science standards and assessments by the 2006-2007 school year. States that failed to have their 1994 required assessments, and the new science assessments, in place by the required deadlines would not receive any new administrative funds and would lose 20 percent of their administrative funds in subsequent years if the failure continued. States would be required to administer assessments annual to at least one grade in each the elementary, middle and high school levels. It further required in section 1111(b)(4) that states assess limited English proficient--LEP--students in the student's native language if such language would be more likely to yield accurate and reliable information on what that student knows and is able to do. However, it demanded that states require assessments in English for English language arts for LEP students. School districts could delay this requirement for one additional year on a case-by-case basis. As with the Three R's, the conference report upholds the requirements that exist under current law, as enacted under the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, for standards and assessments and penalizes states that fail to meet the requirement to have standards and assessments in place by the 2001-2002 school year. Under the requirement, the Secretary shall withhold 25 percent of a non-compliant State's administrative funds. It further expands on the testing requirements called for under current law and under the Three R's plan. It requires, in section 1111(b)(3), that States develop and implement new annual assessments for all grades, between and including, third-eighth for mathematics, and reading or language arts. Such assessments must be administered beginning in the 2005-2006 school year. The Secretary may withhold administrative funds if states fail to meet deadline for the new annual assessments. In addition the Act upholds the importance of a science education, as highlighted under the Three R's bill, by requiring states under Title I Part A section 1111(b)(1)) to establish science standards and for those standards to be in place by the 2006-2007 school year, and as required under section 1111(b)(3) for states to develop and begin implementation of science assessments in at least one grade in each elementary, middle and high school level by the 2007-2008 school year. Title I, Part A of the Act, section 1111(3), also requires the assessment of limited English proficient students in English in reading or language arts in English if such student have been in the United States for three years, but allows districts to seek a waiver from this requirement for up to two additional years, on a case-by-case basis. The intent of the new legislation is that these waivers be used only in very limited circumstances, and by no means broadly applied, to protect the integrity of the new program. In order to assist states with the costs associated with the development of assessments and standards, Title VI of the Three R's bill allowed states to use funds set aside under that title for the continue improvement and development of standards and assessments. This new Act too will ensure that states have substantial resources to use for the development and administration of new annual assessments. Under section 1111(b)(3), the Act authorizes $370 million in funding for fiscal year 2002 and raises that level by an additional $10 million in subsequent fiscal years, up to $400 million for each fiscal year 2005-2007. If appropriated federal funds fall below the specified amount in any fiscal year, states are allowed to cease the administration, but not the development, of new annual assessments. To prevent gaming of test results, section 1111(b)(2) of the Three R's stated that in order for a school to be found meeting adequate yearly progress, it must meet its annual measurable objectives set for each subgroup and it must annually assess at least 90 percent of the students in each subgroup. The conference report improves this goal by requiring schools to assess 95 percent of the students in each subgroup. This provision will help protect against any abuses by schools or districts in excluding certain students from annual assessments. I believe that it is the intention of the language in section 1111(3) regarding new annual assessments in mathematics and reading or language arts, and science, that such assessments shall be interpreted by the U.S. Department of Education to mean state developed tests that produce valid and reliable data on student achievement that is comparable from school to school and district to district. This conference report's expanded and improved focus in section 1111(3) of Title I on high- quality annual assessments will help ensure that schools and parents have a better understanding of students' levels of knowledge and the subject areas requiring improvement. Such regular monitoring of achievement also will help schools and district better achieve continuous academic progress. Regarding English proficiency assessments, Title III of the Three R's required states to develop annual assessments to measure English proficiency gains. This new Act recognizes the importance of measuring English proficiency attainment by limited English proficient students. Under section 1111, it requires that states hold districts accountable for annually assessing English proficiency (including in the four recognized domains of reading, writing, speaking and listening). States must demonstrate that, beginning no later than the 2002-2003 school year, school districts will annual assess English proficiency of all students with limited English proficiency. In addition, it is the intention of the Conference that the Secretary provide assistance, if requested, to states and districts for the development of assessments for English language proficiency as described under section 1111(3) so that those assessments may be of high quality and appropriately designed to measure language proficiency, including oral, writing, reading and comprehension proficiency. Regular and high quality comprehensive assessment of English language proficiency will help create a stronger mechanism for measuring proficiency gains and ensuring progress. In calling for reformed accountability systems in states, Section 1111(b)(2) of the Three R's required states to end the practice of having dual accountability systems for Title I and non-Title I schools, requiring states to establish a single, rigorous accountability plan for all public schools. It allowed states to determine what constitutes adequate yearly progress, or AYP, for all schools, local educational agencies, and the state in enabling all children in schools to meet the state's challenging student performance standards. It also established some basic parameters on AYP, requiring it to be defined so as to compare separately the progress of students by subgroup--ethnicity/race, gender, limited English proficiency, and disadvantage/non-disadvantaged; compare the proportions of students at each standard level as compared to students in the same grade in the previous school year; be based primarily on student assessment data but may include other academic measures such as promotion, drop-out rates, and completion of college preparatory courses, except that the inclusion of such shall not reduce the number of schools or districts that would otherwise be identified for improvement; include annual numerical objectives for improving the performance of all groups of students; and include a timeline for ensuring that each group of students meets or exceeds the state's proficient level of performance within 10 years. Section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report defines AYP in a manner that is consistent with the goals of the Three's. It defines AYP as a uniform state bar or measure of progress for all students, set separately for mathematics and reading or language arts, and is based primarily on assessment data. The amount of progress must be sufficient to ensure that 100 percent of all students reach the state's standard of academic proficiency within 12 years. States are required to set a minimum bar, or measure, based on either the level of proficiency of the lowest performing subgroup in the state or the lowest quintile performing schools, whichever is higher, plus some growth. States may keep the bar at the same level for up to three years before raising it to the next level. However, the first incremental increase shall be two years after the starting point, and the bar shall be raised in equal increments. Each of the four disaggregated subgroups--disadvantage/non-disadvantaged, limited English proficient, disabled, and race/ethnicity--must meet the state uniform bar, or measure of progress, for both mathematics and reading or language arts in order for a school or district to be determined meeting AYP. However, the Conferees understand that some subgroups may make extraordinary gains but still fall below a state's uniform bar for progress. Therefore, section 1111(b)(2) of this conference report contains a ``safe harbor'' provision for such cases. Schools with subgroups that do not meet AYP, but whose subgroups make at least 10 percent of their distance to 100 percent proficiency (or reduce by 10 percent the number of students in the relevant subgroup that are not yet proficient), and make progress on one other academic indicator, will not be identified under section 1116 as in need of improvement. The Conferees intend that this system of setting progress bar and raising it in equal increments over a 12-year period will allow states the flexibility of focusing on their lowest performing subgroups and schools, while gradually raising academic achievement in a meaningful manner. It will further ensure that state plans outline realistic timelines for getting all students to proficiency, and prohibits states from ``backloading'' their expected proficiency gains in the out years. I believe that the Secretary in approving state plans shall give close scrutiny to the timelines established by states so that they may be meaningful and meet the requirements of this language--to have 100 percent of student in all subgroups reach the state's proficient standard level within 12 years. In order to address concerns raised over the volatility of test scores, section 1111(b)(2) of the conference report allows states to establish a uniform procedure for averaging of assessment data. Under this system, states may average data from the school year for which the determination is made under section 1116 regarding the attainment of AYP with data from one or two school years immediately preceding that school year. In addition, States may average data across grades in a school, but not across subjects. As did Three R's, the new Act recognizes that in order to maintain high quality pubic education alternatives, charter schools must be held accountable for meeting the accountability requirements under Title I for academic achievement, assessments, AYP, and reporting of academic achievement data. However, the legislation also understands the unique relationships established under individual state charter school laws. As a result, this conference report clarifies that charters schools are subject to the same accountability requirements that apply to other public schools, including sections 1111 and 1116, as established by each state, but that the accountability provisions shall be overseen in accordance with state charter school law. It further expresses that authorized chartering agencies should be held accountable for carrying out their oversight responsibilities as determined by each state through its charter school law and other applicable state laws. To aid low-performing schools so that they may make the necessary improvements to turn themselves around, such as providing more professional development for teachers, designing a new curriculum and hiring more highly qualified teachers, the section 1003 of the Three R's bill required states to set aside 2.5 percent of their Title I, Part A funds in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and 3.5 percent of funds for fiscal years 2003-2005. States would be required to send 80 percent of these funds directly to school districts for the purpose of turning around failing schools and districts. This conference report contains similar requirements, demanding that states set aside two percent of their Title I funds received under subpart 2 for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and four percent of their funds in fiscal years 2004-2007 to assist schools and districts identified for improvement and corrective action under section 1116, and to provide technical assistance under section 1117. States shall send 95 percent of the funds reserved in each fiscal year directly to local school districts. It further authorizes $500 million for grants to local school districts to provide supplemental efforts by districts to address schools identified under section 1116. I believe it is the intention of these provisions that funds be directed first, at schools and districts in corrective action, and second, to schools and districts identified for improvement. Under the Three R's, section 1116, school districts shall identify as being in need of improvement any school that for two consecutive years failed to make adequate yearly progress, or was in, or eligible for, school improvement before enactment of the legislation. Schools identified would have the opportunity to review the school data, and if the principal believed that identification was made in error, the identification could be contested. In addition, districts would be required to notify parents of the school's identification and what it means, what the school is doing to address the problems, and how parents can become more involved in improvement efforts. Parents of students in schools identified prior to the enactment of the proposed legislation would be given the choice to transfer their child to a higher performing public schools that was not identified under section 1116. For parents of students in schools identified after enactment, the districts would be required to provide the parents with the option to transfer their child to a higher performing school within 12 months after the date of identification. Schools identified for school improvement under section 1116 of the Three R's would be required to develop and implement school improvement plans to address the school's failure, and to devote 10 percent of Title I, Part A funds for high quality professional development for teachers. Although districts would be allowed to take action earlier, the bill required districts to identify for corrective action, any school that, after two years of being identified for school improvement, failed to make AYP. As under improvement, schools would have the opportunity to contest the identification for corrective action. Districts would be required to impose corrective actions that included implementing new curricula, reconstituting school personnel, or making alternative governance arrangements for the school, such as shutting it down and reopening it as a charter school. In addition, parents with students in such schools would continue to receive the right to transfer to another school and have transportation costs or services provided by the district. The bill capped the amount of Title I funds that could be spent by a district in meeting this requirement at 10 percent. The bill also required states to identify local educational agencies that had failed to make AYP under a similar timeframe, requiring them to develop and implement improvement plans, giving parents the right to transfer their student to another school, and imposing corrective actions for repeated failure. The conference report embodies much of the concepts proposed in the Three R's bill for turning around low performing schools and imposing corrective actions on those who continually fail. It expands the options available to parents of students in schools identified for improvement or corrective action. And, it ensures that schools that continually fail will face tough consequences. Under section 1116 of Title I of the conference report, schools and districts that have been identified for improvement or corrective action prior to enactment would start in the same category after enactment. It is the intention of these provisions that schools that have been failing for years do not get to restart their clocks, and that actions be taken immediately to address the failure in those schools and districts. To address concerns raised that one year's worth of data is not enough to judge success or failure, the Act requires that schools must fail to make AYP for two consecutive years before being identified for improvement under section 1116. Schools identified shall develop and implement improvement plans and receive additional technical and financial assistance to make improvement, and must devote 10 percent of their Title I funds to professional development activities for teachers and principals. Parents of children in these schools will be given the option to transfer their child to a higher performing public school with transportation costs or services provided. The Act clarifies that, although districts are required to provide transportation, they may only use up to 15 percent of their Title I funds to pay for such costs or services. The option to transfer shall only be consistent with state law--local law or policy shall not apply--and schools receiving transferring students must treat them in the same manner as any other student enrolling in the school. It is the intent of these provisions that capacity constraints not be a barrier to public school choice and that choice be meaningful by ensuring that transportation costs or services will be provided. Schools that fail for three consecutive years to meet AYP shall continue the improvement plan and other requirements from the previous year, and shall give parents the option of receiving, and selecting, outside tutoring assistance for their child from a state-approved list of providers. Such providers may include private organizations, non- profit organizations, and community-based organizations. School districts shall only be required to reserve 20 percent of their Title I funds under Part A, and spend up to 5 percent of their Title I funds on providing parents with the option to transfer to another school and 5 percent to provide supplemental services, with the remaining 10 percent of funds split between the two requirements as determined by the district. District shall not be required to spend more than the reserved maximum of 15 percent on providing supplemental services and shall select students by lottery if not all eligible students may be served. It is the intention of these provisions that student in failing schools have meaningful options to choose from while enabling districts to devote the bulk of their Title I resources on making improvements in the underlying school. Just as the Three R's demanded that tough actions be taken with schools that fail to improve, the conference report requires that schools that fail to meet AYP for four years undergo at least one corrective action. Such actions include instituting a new curriculum, replacing the principal and some relevant staff, or reopening the school as a charter school. Schools that fail for five consecutive years shall continue the action from the previous year and must begin planning for restructure. These measures are intended to ensure that districts take actions that will result in a substantive and positive change in the school, and that directly address the factors that led to failure. This conference report embodies the intent of the Three R's and conferees that schools that continually fail to improve must, at some point, face dramatic consequences. Section 1116 requires that Schools that fail to meet AYP for six consecutive years shall be completely restructured, including instituting a new governance structure, such as a charter school or private management organization, and replace all relevant staff. These steps shall, in effect, result in the creation of an entirely new school. I believe that the timelines established under this conference report are rigorous but fair and will allow for true identification of low performing schools so that they may get the assistance and time they need to turn around performance, but ensure that they face comprehensive and tough penalties if they fail to make improvement. Clarifying that identification should be based on two years worth of data, the Act requires that schools must make AYP for two consecutive years in order to be removed from improvement status, corrective action, or restructure under section 1116. Districts may delay corrective action or restructure for one year for a school that makes AYP for one year. It is the intention of this provision that schools that may be on the right track to better performance should not be forced to curtail current improvement actions in order to implement a new one. Rather, such schools should be expected to continue current improvement activities and monitored for progress for one additional year. If schools fail to make a second year of AYP, then they would be forced to undergo corrective action, or restructure. As under the Three R's, the conference report requires states to establish a similar process for identifying and taking corrective action on school districts that fail to meet AYP, and for providing parents in failing districts with the option to transfer to a higher performing school or receive supplemental services from a tutoring provider. Just as districts shall be required to enforce improvement, corrective action and restructure requirements, it is my belief that this conference reports intends for states to aggressively monitor district performance and follow the requirements established under section 1116 regarding district improvement and corrective action. I further believe that the Secretary shall consider non-compliant any state that fails to take action on districts identified under section 1116, or fails to take actions on schools identified under section of 1116--in cases where districts within the state fail to uphold these requirements. Regarding teacher quality, the Three R's Title II required states to have all teachers fully qualified by 2005, meaning that they must be state certified and have demonstrated competency in the subject area in which they are teaching by passing a rigorous content knowledge test, or by having a bachelor's degree, or equivalent number of hours in a subject area. The provisions were intended to ensure that all students, particularly those in high poverty schools, were taught by educators with expertise in their subject area. It sought to address the inequity that exists in our public education system where disadvantaged students are more often taught by a teacher that is out of field than their more advantaged peers. It also defined, in section 1119 of Title I, professional development, so that teachers and principals would receive high quality professional development that provides educators and school leaders with the knowledge and skills to enable students to meet state academic performance standards; is of on-going duration; is scientifically research based; and, in the case of teachers, is focused on core content knowledge in the subject area taught. To place greater emphasis on the crucial need for highly trained teachers in our nation's poorest schools and recognizing that a significant portion of Title I funds are used to hire teachers, the Three R's required states under Title I section 1119, as well as under Title II to ensure that all teachers meet the requirement to be fully qualified by the end of 2005; to annually increase the percentage of core classes taught by fully qualified teachers; and to annually increase the percentage of teachers and principals receiving high quality professional development. Section 1119 of the Three R's also established requirements for paraprofessionals to ensure that such individuals would be appropriately equipped to assist teachers in the classroom and assist in tutoring students. Paraprofessionals that provided only translation services for non-native speaking students and families, or parent involvement activities, would be exempted from the new requirements. The bill also placed restrictions on the types of duties that paraprofessional may provide in schools. The intent of these provisions was to reduce the reliance in schools on paraprofessionals in providing core academic instruction to students, and place a priority on ensuring that students be taught by a highly trained teacher. This conference report embodies much of the Three R's goals and provisions on teacher quality, professional development and paraprofessional quality. Section 1119 of the report requires states to ensue that all teachers hired under Title I will be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Highly qualified is defined as being state certified and, in the case of a newly hired teacher, having demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or having a bachelor's degree in the subject area taught. And, in the case of an existing teacher, highly qualified teachers shall have demonstrated competency by passing a rigorous content knowledge test or meeting a high, objective and uniform standard of evaluation developed by the state. I believe it is the intention of this language to ensure that content knowledge assessments or state standards of evaluations as described in section 1119 will provide for a rigorous, uniform, objective system that is grade appropriate and subject appropriate, and that will produce objective, coherent information of a teacher's knowledge of the subject taught. Such a system is not intended to stigmatize teachers but to ensure that all teachers have the crucial knowledge necessary to ensure that students may meet the state's challenging academic achievement standards in all core subjects. In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, and under section 1119 of this conference report, states would be required establish annual measurable objectives for districts and schools to annually increase the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting those objectives. It also is why both pieces of legislation require under Part A of Title I that districts spend five percent of their Title I funds received under subpart 2 on professional development activities, and require under section 1116 that schools identified devote 10 percent of their Title I funds to professional development activities as defined under section 1119. On report cards, The Three R's, in Title IV, section 4401, required states, districts and schools to annually publish and widely disseminate to parents and communities report cards on school level performance. It required that report cards be in a manner and format that is understandable and concise. State report cards would be required to include information on each district and school within the state receiving Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A funds, including information disaggregated by subgroup regarding: student performance on annual assessments in each subject area; a comparison of students at the three state standard levels of basic, proficient and advanced in each subject area; three-year trend data; student retention rates; the number of students completing advanced placement courses; four-year graduation rates; the qualifications of teaches in the aggregate, including the percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, the percentage of classes not taught by a fully qualified teacher, and the percentage of teachers who are fully qualified; and information about the qualifications of paraprofessionals. District level report cards would be required to report on the same type of information as well as information on the number and percentage of schools identified for improvement, and information on how students in schools in the district perform on assessments as compared to students in the state as a whole. School level report cards would be required to include similar information as that required under the state and district report cards as well as information on whether the school has been identified under section 1116. Parents would also have the right to know, upon request to the school district, information regarding the professional qualifications of their student's classroom, and information on the level of performance of the individual student. Section 1111 of Title I of the conference report contains a similar structure for report cards and essentially the same required information. States would be required to annually report to the public on student performance information in the aggregate for each of the four subgroups, in addition to migrant students and gender, including: student performance on state assessments; a comparison of students performing at each of the states standard levels of basic, proficient and advanced; graduation rates; the number and names of schools identified under section 1116; the qualification of teachers; and the percentages of students not tested. Districts would be required to provide similar information in their report cards, in addition to information on the numbers and percentages of schools identified for school improvement under section 1116, and how long the schools have been identified. In the case of school level information, districts shall also include whether the individual school has been identified for improvement. Expanding on the intent behind the Three R's to make the public, including parents, schools, and communities more aware of how our nation's schools are performing, the conference report further requires that states submit annual reports to the Secretary with information, including the disaggregated assessment results by subgroup; the numbers and names of each school identified for improvement under section 1116 and the reasons for the identification as well as the measures taken to address the achievement problems; the number of students and schools that participated in the public school choice and supplemental service programs and activities in section 1116; and information on the quality of teachers and the percentages of classes not taught by a highly qualified teacher. The Secretary, in turn, shall transmit a report to Congress with data from these state reports. This conference report carries out the intent of the Three R's to provide the public, particularly parents, with a greater awareness of state, districts and school performance on raising academic achievement; the academic achievement levels of all students disaggregated by subgroup; and the qualifications of our nation's educators. Such information expands public understanding of the academic achievement gap that exists between minorities and non- minorities, and between disadvantage and non-disadvantaged students so that the federal government, states, districts, and schools may better target attention and resources in order to close those gaps. As to targeting funds, the Three R's plan made a commitment not only to boost the Federal investment in public education, but to improve the targeting of those resources to the schools with the greatest needs. It found in Title I, section 1001, that: The Federal Government must better target Federal resources on those children who are most at risk for falling behind academically. Funds made available under this title [Title I, Part A] have been targeted on high-poverty areas, but not to the degree the funds should be targeted on those areas, as demonstrated by the following: (A) although 95 percent of schools with poverty levels of 75 percent to 100 percent receive title I funds, 20 percent of schools with poverty levels of 50 to 74 percent do not receive any title I funds; [and] (B) only 64 percent of schools with poverty levels of 35 percent to 49 percent receive title I funds. Title I funding should be significantly increased and more effectively targeted to ensure that all economically disadvantaged students have an opportunity to excel academically. The Three R's plan upheld the commitment made in the 1994 law that all new funds under Title I, Part A would be distributed to states and districts under the Targeted Grant formula described in section 1125. This commitment was further codified this past June when the Senate passed an amendment, S. Amdt. 475, to S. 1, the Senate ESEA reauthorization bill, that would prohibit the Secretary from making awards under Title I, Part A, Subpart 2 unless the goals of the Targeted Grant formula were met. This campaign to better target federal funds met with much political resistance. But the Conference Committee decided to make this goal a priority, and as a result, the conference report upholds and in some cases goes beyond the call for targeting in the Three R's plan. In particular, it includes the amendment sponsored by myself and Senator Mary Landrieu regarding the Targeted Grant. The conference report maintains current law formulas under subpart 2 for Basic, Concentration and the Targeted Grant formula, but applies a hold harmless rate of 85-95 percent of the previous fiscal year allocation to each district for each of these three formulas. However, it also ensures that localities that fail to meet the minimum threshold for the Concentration grant for four years shall no longer be eligible for funds under this formula. Crucial to the priority of targeting our federal funds, are the provisions made under section 1125 to Targeted Grant and the Education Finance Incentive Grant. In particular, the language prohibits the allocation of funds under Part A, unless all new funds are distributed through the Targeted Grant formula. It is the intent of this provision to address the history of Federal appropriations, which have failed to provide funding to the Targeted Grant, by requiring appropriators to uphold the commitment that has existed in authorized law since 1994 to better target Federal resources to our nation's highest poverty districts via the Targeted Grant formula. In addition, these provisions significantly modify the Education Finance Incentive Grant Program. This program has never been funded and previously would have been the least targeted formula for Title I, Part A funds. The conference report changes the formula so that funding to states would be based on the total number of poor children within the State multiplied by the per pupil expenditure, the state's effort factor, and the state's equity factor. Most significantly, within state allocations would be highly targeted to the highest poverty districts within each state. Allocations to districts would be based on the Targeted Grant formula, with greater weighting given to higher poverty areas depending on the state's equity factor. I believe that these changes clarify the intent that new Title I funds should be distributed through the Targeted Grant formula while ensuring that Education Incentive Grant is modified to better target resources to high poverty states and districts. These provisions will make for some of the most important reforms in this conference report, and will help ensure that Federal resources are targeted to our districts and schools with the greatest need, rather than diluted across districts with relatively low levels of poverty. Regarding Title I, Part B--Student Reading Skills Improvement Grants, I believe that reading is an essential building block to learning. Title I, Part A, sections 1111 and 1116 of the New Democrats Three R's bill put special emphasis on ensuring that all children reach the state proficiency level in reading and mathematics within 10 years, and held states and school districts receiving federal funds accountable for ensuring that their students achieve at the proficient level in both core subjects. It further called for a significant increase in funding for Title I and under subpart 2, called for greater targeting of those resources on our highest poverty communities so that they have the funds necessary to ensure all students achieve higher levels of learning in core subjects, such as reading. The Three R's bill throughout its entirety, but especially in Titles I, called for targeting of resources to the poorest students and schools. With the same policy goal, the conference report in Title I, Part B, also targets resources to the poorest students. It does so by sending ``Reading First'' awards, authorized at $900 million level in FY02 in subpart 1 to states under a poverty-based formula that requires states to give priority in awarding competitive grants within the state to high poverty areas; and requires school districts to target funds to schools with high percentages of students from families below the poverty level, or that have a high percentage of children in grades K-3 reading below grade level and that are identified for school improvement under Sec. 1116. Additionally, subpart 2 of Part B of conference report provides a new competitive grant initiative authorized at $75 million in FY02 called ``Early Reading First'' which funds early reading intervention targeted at children in high-poverty areas and where there are high numbers of students who are not reading at grade level. The intention of the Reading First programs is to place a high federal priority on reading so that students may better succeed academically in other subjects as well. These programs seek to provide students with the basic skills to reach proficiency in reading or language arts in their grade level, and to better train teachers to teach children to read. They provide the fundamental building blocks to help ensure that states, districts and schools reach their academic achievement goals set forth in this Title. Teacher quality is also essential to student success, which is why our Three R's legislation dramatically increased the national investment in teacher professional development in its Title II, Part A, to help ensure that all teachers are competent in their subject area, and provided them with more opportunities for high quality professional development. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title II, Part B of the conference report follows this lead and calls for preparing teachers, including special education teachers, through professional development and other support, so the teachers can identify specific reading barriers facing their students and so the teachers have the tools to effectively help their students learn to read. It is the intent of the legislation to ensure that teachers are highly qualified and trained in the latest research and techniques to help all children learn to read and that the Department provides technical assistance and disseminates best practices and the latest research on reading. Because it is important to better understand each child's level of understanding and learning as he or she enters schools and to identify children at risk for reading difficulties, Title I, Part A, of the Three R's bill required states to assist and encourage districts to conduct first grade literacy diagnostics and assessments that are both developmentally appropriate and aligned with state content and student performance standards and to provide districts with technical assistance. With this same goal, the conference report in Title I, Part B calls for states to assist school districts in selecting and developing rigorous diagnostic reading and screening, diagnostic and classroom-based instructional reading assessments. The intent of the legislation is to ensure that every child receives a rigorous diagnosis and assessment of their reading capabilities and that schools and teachers are helped to administer and use these assessments so that they can better determine each student's level of reading and design strategies to ensure that child will read at grade level. Throughout its entirety, the Three R's bill emphasized greater accountability for results. This conference report encompasses this results-based approach. Additionally, Title IV, Part D, of the Three R's bill called for much more public reporting of progress so that parents can make more informed decisions regarding their child's education. The ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1, of this new bill requires states receiving grants to provide the Secretary with an annual report including information on the progress the state, and school districts, are making in reducing the number of students served under this subpart in the first and second grades who are reading below grade level, as demonstrated by such information as teacher reports and school evaluations of mastery of the essential components of reading instruction. The report shall also include evidence that they have significantly increased the number of students reading at grade level or above, significantly increased the percentages of students in ethnic, racial, and low-income populations who are reading at grade level or above, and successfully implemented the ``Reading First Program'' in Title I, Part B, Subpart 1 of the conference report. It is the intent of this legislation that the Secretary hold accountable states, school districts, and schools for making progress in increasing the numbers of students--in all major economic racial and ethnic groups--who are reading at or above grade level by calling upon the Secretary to review the data contained in these reports to make a determination on continued funding for states. I would encourage the Department, in its review, to rigorously enforce the intended accountability for lack of performance by taking stringent actions to ensure that recipients of federal funds demonstrate results in reading gains for all students. In regards to Title II--Preparing, Training and Recruiting High Quality Teachers and Principals, the conference report will make revolutionary changes in federal programs aimed at raising the quality of our nation's teachers and principals. Many of these reforms were promoted in the Three R's legislation introduced in the 106th and 107th Congresses. Most significantly, this conference report builds on the structural reform advocated by the New Democrats in Title II of the Three R's bill to streamline several programs into one formula program to states and localities to better focus Federal attention on the critical aspects of teacher and principal quality to ensure that all students, especially those most disadvantaged, are taught by a highly qualified teacher. It also further enhances the call for better targeting of our federal resources on the highest poverty states and school districts. Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill emphasized the importance of every child being taught by a highly qualified teacher because research consistently shows that teacher quality is a key component of student achievement. It transformed the current Eisenhower Professional Development Programs into one performance-based program that in return for greater investments, held states and districts accountable for having all teachers ``fully qualified'' within four years and for providing teachers and principals with high quality professional development. The Three R's required states to set annual measurable objectives so that all teachers would be ``fully-qualified'' by the school year 2005-2006, with ``fully-qualified'' defined for secondary as being state certified, having a bachelor's degree in the area that they teach, and passing rigorous, state-developed content tests. Title VII of the Three R's bill further required states to meet the annual measurable performance objectives established in each title and imposed fiscal consequences if they did not meet their goals. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund of the new bill has accountability measures similar to that of the Three R's bill in Titles II and VII and stipulates that all teachers must be ``highly-qualified'' by the school year 2005-2006. It further requires states to set annual measurable objectives to meet that goal and to ensure that teachers and principals get high quality professional development. States must hold districts accountable for meeting these annual objectives; districts that fail to make progress toward meeting the objectives for two consecutive years must develop an improvement plan that will enable the agency to meet such measurable objectives. States must provide technical assistance to such districts and schools within the districts. If a district fails to make progress toward meeting the objectives for three consecutive years, the district shall enter into an agreement with the state on the use of the district's funds. Under this agreement, the state shall institute professional development strategies and activities that the district must use to meet the measurable objectives and prohibit the district from using Title I funds received to fund paraprofessionals hired after the date of enactment, except that the district may use Title I funds if the district can demonstrate a significant increase in student enrollment, or an increased need for translators or assistance with parent involvement activities. During this stage of professional development strategies and activities by the state, the state shall provide funding to schools affected to enable teachers within such schools to select high-quality professional development activities. It is the intent of this legislation that states rigorously enforce these accountability measures in regards to districts that fail to meet the goals established by the state. I would encourage that the Secretary consider as non-compliant any state that fails to take action on districts failing these goals, and urge the Secretary to take action to ensure that such states uphold the requirements of this language to hold districts accountable. The conference report establishes a different definition of what constitutes a ``highly-qualified'' teacher, found in Title I, Sec. 1119, than was proposed in the Three R's definition of ``fully qualified'' teacher, found in Title II, Part A. However this definition still retains a strong and reasonable focus on ensuring all teachers meet a high state standard of demonstrated content knowledge. Specifically, the ``No Child Left Behind Act'' defines ``highly- qualified'' teachers as teachers that are state certified and: 1. In the case of a newly hired elementary school teacher, has a bachelor's degree and has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous state test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum. 2. In the case of a newly-hired secondary school teacher, has a bachelor's degree and demonstrates a high level of competency in each subject area taught by passing a rigorous state academic subject area test, or completion, in the subject area(s) taught, of an academic major, graduate degree, or equivalent course work for an undergraduate major, or advanced certification. 3. In the case of a veteran elementary or secondary school teacher, holds a bachelor's degree and has passed a rigorous state test, or demonstrates competency based on a high, objective and uniform standard of evaluation developed by the state. As stated earlier, I believe it is the intention of this language to ensure that content knowledge assessments or state standards of evaluations as described in section 1119 will provide for a rigorous, uniform, objective system that is grade appropriate and subject appropriate, and that will produce objective, coherent information of a teacher's knowledge of the subject taught. Such a system is not intended to stigmatize teachers but to ensure that all teachers have the crucial knowledge necessary to ensure that students may meet the state's challenging academic achievement standards in all core subjects. In addition, I believe that it is crucial that existing teachers be given the high quality professional development necessary to ensure that they meet the definition of highly qualified. That is why under Part A of Title II of the Three R's bill, section 1119 of this conference report, and this title, states would be required to establish annual measurable objectives for districts and schools to annually increase the percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development, and to hold districts accountable for meeting those objectives. It also is Three R's and this legislation required districts to spend a portion of their Title I funds on professional development, and required under section 1116 that schools identified devote 10 percent of their Title I funds to professional development activities as defined under section 1119. In addition, I am pleased that this title authorizes over $3 billion for the purpose of ensuring that all students be taught by a highly-qualified teacher by providing a major investment of federal resources to help states and districts with the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers. Following the intent of the Three R's bill, to target federal education funding to meet the needs of the poorest children, schools, and school districts, and to provide assistance to maintain and upgrade skills of teachers, the conference report distributes funding to states through a formula based 65 percent on poverty and 35 percent on student population, and to school districts through a formula based 80 percent on poverty and 20 percent on student population. This targeting formula is the same as that proposed in S. AMDT 474 by Senator Landrieu and adopted this summer into S.1, the Senate education bill. The conference report further requires local school districts to provide assurances that they will target funds to schools that have the lowest percentage of highly qualified teachers, have the largest class sizes, or are identified for school improvement under Title I. Research shows that poor and minority children are more likely to be taught by a teacher who is teaching out of field--without a major or minor in the field they are teaching. Obviously, this is a disadvantage to students as well as teachers. The emphasis on targeting under the Three R's and expanded upon in this bill, will significantly help our nation's poorest districts, who often face the greatest obstacles to recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers. As called for in Title II of the Three R's bill, Title II, Part A of the conference report also consolidates teacher quality and professional development programs into one program for the purposes of assisting state and local educational agencies with their efforts to increase student academic achievement through such strategies as improving teacher and principal quality, providing high quality professional development for teachers and principals, and recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers and high quality principals. Similar to Title II of the Three R's bill, the conference report requires districts to provide high quality professional development for teachers, principals and administrators so that they are better prepared to raise students' academic achievement and meet state performance standards. Title II, Part A, subpart 3 of the conference report also encourages innovative training and mentioning partnerships between local school districts and universities, non-profit groups, and corporations and business organizations, by requiring states to reserve 2.5 percent of the funds they receive under this subpart for competitive grants to local partnerships involving higher education institutions and school districts to provide high quality professional development activities for teachers and principals and high quality leadership programs for principals. This mirrors the educator partnerships suggested in Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill. The intent of such partnerships is to provide a better linkage between institutions that prepare teachers and the need for high-quality and on-going professional development to teachers and principals in order to reach the goal of having fully qualified teachers in all classrooms and all core subjects. As did Title II in the Three R's bill, the conference report gives states and school districts significant flexibility in how they can use federal education funds to meet the goal of having all teachers highly qualified within four years. Such flexibility allows states to reform teacher/principal certification; develop alternative routes to certification for mid-career professionals; provide support to new teachers and principals (such as mentioning); provide professional development; promote reciprocity of teacher and principal certification and licensing between states; encourage and support training for teachers to integrate technology into curricula; develop merit-based performance systems; and develop differential and bonus pay for teachers in high-need academic subjects and teachers in high-poverty schools/districts. This flexibility also extends to the local level, and helps realize the goal proposed in the Three R's bill to provide states and local with maximum flexibility to address the problem of recruiting and retaining highly-qualified teachers and meeting the goal of ensuring all children are taught by a qualified teacher. Title II Part B--Mathematics and Science Partnerships responds to the recognition of a national deficit in the number of teachers with demonstrated content knowledge in math and science. The Three R's bill sought to address this problem by requiring states to set aside 10 percent of the funds they received under Title II, Part A to establish partnership grants--between states, institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, and schools--that supported professional development activities for mathematics and science teachers in order to ensure that such teachers have the subject matter knowledge to effectively teach mathematics and science. Following this same intent, Title II Part B of the conference report provides for a separate Mathematics and Science Partnerships program to states for the creation of partnerships focused on improving the academic achievement of students in math and science by: improving math and science teacher training at institutions of higher education; providing sustained professional development for math and science teachers; increasing the subject matter knowledge of mathematics and science teachers by bringing them together with scientists, mathematicians and engineers; encouraging institutions of higher education to share equipment and laboratories with local schools; and developing more rigorous math and science curricula, and training teachers in the effective integration of technology into the curricula. Matching the focus on accountability for results in the Three R's bill, Part B of Title II of the new bill emphasizes accountability and calls for recipients to develop measurable objectives, and to report to the Secretary on the progress of meeting the objectives of increasing the number of math and science teachers receiving professional development; on improved student academic achievement based on state math and science assessments or the International Math and Science Studies; and on other measures such as student participation in advanced courses. The new bill calls on the Secretary to consult and coordinate with the Director of the National Science Foundation with respect to these programs. The intent of this Part of the conference report is to improve the pre-service training, recruitment, and retention of mathematics and science teachers and to encourage partnerships with institutes of higher education, scientists and engineers who are employed in other sectors to ensure that teachers receive high quality professional development in science and mathematics and with the goal to improve academic achievement by all students in these important subjects. It also creates a stronger focus on core subject knowledge by teachers in mathematics and science where the problems of out-of-field teaching are greatest. In relation to Title II, part D--Enhancing Education Through Technology, the Three R's bill recognized that it is necessary but not sufficient to increase schools' access to computer hardware; to be an effective educational tool, technology must be integrated into the core curricula and teachers must have adequate training on how to do so. The Three R's bill--Title VI, section 6006, New Economy Technology Schools--provided funding for states and school districts for high- quality professional development for teachers in the use of technology and its integration with state content and student performance standards; effective educational technology infrastructure; training in the use of equipment for teachers, school library and media personnel and administrators; and technology-enhanced curricula and instructional materials that are aligned with state content and student performance standards. It also required states and districts to provide high- quality training to teachers, school library and media personnel and administrators in the use of technology and its integration with state content and student academic standards. These core principles were adopted in Title II part D of the conference report, which consolidated several technology programs into a state-based technology grant program entitled ``Enhancing Education Through Technology.'' The purposes of part D of Title II of the new law are to provide assistance to states and localities for the implementation and support of a comprehensive system that effectively uses technology in elementary and secondary schools to improve student academic achievement; to encourage private-public partnerships to increase access to technology; to assist states and localities in the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of technology infrastructure to increase access for all students, especially disadvantaged students; to support initiatives to integrate technology into curriculum aligned with state student academic standards; to provide professional development of teachers, principals and administrators in teaching and learning via electronic means; to support electronic networks and distance learning; to use technology to promote parent and family involvement, and most importantly to support rigorous evaluation of programs and their impact on academic performance. These points are comparable to Title VI Sections 6001 and 6006 of the Three R's bill. The primary goal of the conference report's Title II, part D, as stated in its purpose section, is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools, to ensure that every child is technologically literate by the time they finish the eighth grade regardless of their background and to encourage the effective integration of technology and teacher training and curriculum. The conference report requires states to develop state technology plans which must include an outline of the long-term strategies for improving student academic achievement and local applications for grants must include a description of how they will use Federal funds to improve academic achievement aligned to challenging state academic standards. These parallel the goals under the Three R's Title VI which emphasized that technology should be an integrated means to higher achievement, not an end unto itself. It is our intent that achieving this emphasis remains a key goal for state technology plans, and that states rigorously review local applications and performance in making any future awards. The Findings Policy and Purpose section of Title VI of the Three R's bill, section 6001, found that technology can produce far greater opportunities to enable all students to meet high learning standards, promote efficiency and effectiveness in education, and help to immediately and dramatically reform our nation's educational system. It also found that because most federal and state educational technology programs have focused on acquiring educational technology hardware, rather than emphasizing the utilization of the technologies in the classroom and the training and infrastructure required to support the technologies, the full potential of educational technology has rarely been realized. It also noted that the effective use of technology in education has been inhibited by the inability of many State educational agencies and local educational agencies to invest in and support needed technologies, and to obtain sufficient resources to seek expert technical assistance in developing high-quality professional development activities for teachers and keeping pace with rapid technological advances. Three R's also emphasized that to remain competitive in the global economy, our nation needs a workforce that is comfortable with technology and able to integrate rapid technological changes into production processes. These purposes remain fully applicable to the implementation and goals of the new Act. The emphasis in the new law on using technology to improve student academic achievement in core subjects is directly related to the goals of the Three R's bill which called for improved academic achievement for all children. Title II part D of the conference report is closely aligned with Title VI--High Performance and Quality Education Initiatives of the Three R's bill. The intent of this legislation is to make sure that technology programs are not just providing access to hardware, but are effectively integrating technology into activities that are part of the core curricula and to assist students in improving academic achievement aligned with state content and performance standards and this intent is carried over into the new law. The Department in overseeing these provisions should be expected to place strong emphasis in ensuring that these goals are achieved. The Three R's emphasized targeting of resources to the poorest children and schools. This goal was expanded upon in the new law's Title II, Part D, as funds are allocated to the states based 100 percent on what the state received under Title I, Part A. Additionally, of the total state funds distributed to locals, 50 percent shall be distributed through a state formula based on Title I, Part A, and the remaining 50 percent shall be distributed via competitive grants. Additionally, competitive grants shall give priory to high need areas. The intent is that states shall determine which school districts, because of their size, receive an insufficient amount of formula funds, to implement efficient and effective activities, and provide them with supplemental competitive grants. Title II, part D of the new law requires states to submit applications for technology funds and that such applications shall include long-range strategic technology plans. The intent of this is to ensure that states design long-term strategies for improving student academic achievement, including technology literacy, that incorporate the effective integration of technology in the classroom, curricula, and professional training of teachers. Such plans shall also contain a description of: the state goals for using advanced technology to improve student achievement aligned to challenging state academic standards; the steps they will take to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need school districts have increased access to technology; the process and accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the effectiveness of the integration of technology; how incentives will be provided to teachers who are technologically literate to encourage such teachers to remain in rural and urban areas; and how public and private entities would participate in the implementation and support of the plan. We intend that in administering this effort, that the Department of Education require that states effectively integrate technology in their classrooms and curricula, and provide adequate professional development for their teachers, with the goal of improving student academic achievement in core subjects. The specific intent in the new Title II, part D is that each local application for technology grants shall include a description of: how the school district will use federal funds to improve the academic achievement, including technology literacy, of all students and to improve the capacity of all teachers to provide instruction through the use of technology; what steps they will take to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need School districts have increased access to technology; how they will promote teaching strategies and curriculum which effectively integrate technology into instruction leading to improvements in student academic achievement as measured by challenging state standards; how it will provide ongoing professional development for teachers principals administrators and school library personnel to further the effective use of technology in classrooms and library media centers; and the accountability measures and how they will evaluate the extent to which the technology has been integrated into the curriculum, increasing the ability of teachers to teach and increasing the academic achievement of students. All of these elements are consistent with the Three R's goals that technology shall not be introduced for technology's sake, but deeply integrated into the curricula and teaching strategies to foster an enhanced learning environment. We intend that the Department of Education shall aggressively enforce the requirements that states ensure that school districts have a comprehensive technology plan in place; that the use of technology in the classroom foster a learning environment which will improve academic achievement in the core subjects, and not only increase access to technology hardware. The Three R's emphasis on improving accountability by setting measurable annual goals and standards for student achievement, and evaluating and measuring progress achieved can be seen in the new Title II part D's requirements for state and local applications. These require states to develop: state goals for using advanced technology to improve student achievement aligned to challenging state academic standards; steps to ensure that all students and teachers in high-need school districts have increased access to technology; and accountability measures the state will use to evaluate the effectiveness of the integration of technology. We intend that, just as in other areas of this Act, the Secretary of Education provide oversight and assist states in the development of rigorous and measurable goals and standards regarding the use of technology to raise student academic achievement, and to develop evaluations of the impact of technology on student academic achievement. Additionally, one of the allowable uses under state activities in the new Title II, Part D is the development of enhanced performance measurement systems to determine the effectiveness of education technology programs funded under this subpart, especially their impact on increasing the ability of teachers to teach and enable students to meet state academic content standards. We intend that states and school districts develop measurable annual goals and standards to integrate and use advanced technology to improve student achievement, and expect that this option be exercised wherever possible by applicants and strongly encouraged by the Department of Education. Title II, Part D--Enhancing Education Through Technology requires that state plans and local applications allocate 25 percent of the funds to be reserved for high quality professional training for teachers, principals, librarians and administrators to assist them in integrating the technology and core curriculum. This mirrors the intent of the Three R's Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Quality and Professional Development, which calls for teachers to receive high quality professional development and to be trained in the areas that they teach, and specifically the Three R's Title VI, section 6006 which calls for high quality professional development for teachers in the use of technology and its integration with student performance standards. Regarding Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund, the Three R's proposal called for a radical restructuring of Federal programs serving limited English proficient, or LEP, students. This restructuring streamlined the existing competitive Bilingual Education Act programs and significantly increased and concentrated federal investment for LEP students into one formula program for districts while, in return, demanding results from states, school districts and schools for annual gains in English proficiency and academic achievement among non-native speaking children. Title III of this new Act embodies much of the restructuring and policy goals proposed in the Three R's, and creates a new, major federal initiative aimed at ensuring LEP and immigrant children have the English language skills and academic knowledge to successfully participate in American society. This conference report will, for the first time, hold recipients of federal funds accountable for annually increasing the percentage of LEP children achieving English proficiency as well as high levels of learning in all core subjects, and nearly doubles the amount of federal funding provided to states and localities for the education of LEP and immigrant students. The Three R's bill, in Title III, section 3001, recognized that educating limited English proficient students is an urgent and increasing need for many local educational agencies. It found that over the past two decades, the number of LEP children in schools in the United States has doubled to more than 3,000,000, and will continue to increase. One of the key goals of the Three R's bill in Title III, section 3003, was to ensure that students with limited English proficiency learn English and achieve high levels of learning on core academic subjects, including reading and math. Title III of this conference report also has the goal of assisting all LEP students to attain English proficiency, so that those students can meet the same challenging state content standards and challenging state student performance standards as all students are expected to meet. Title III, section 3001, of the Three R's noted that each year 640,000 limited English proficient students are not served by any sort of program targeted to their unique needs. The title increased the amount of Federal assistance to school districts serving such students and streamlined the existing competitive Bilingual Education Act programs into a single performance-based formula grant for state and local educational agencies to help LEP students become proficient in English. Title III of this new Act also consolidates the Bilingual Education Act, as well as the Emergency Immigrant Education Program, and authorizes $750 million for one formula program to states and school districts once federal appropriations levels reach $650 million. The intention behind this language to recognize that a substantial level of federal resources are essential in order to provide funding to districts that is meaningful. It further ensures that resources are not diluted. The Three R's focused resources to those most in need and allocated funds to states based on the number of LEP students, and required states to send 95 percent of the funds received to school districts so that they may better assist such students. Similarly, the conference report provides funding in Title III (Part A, subpart 1) to states via a formula based 80 percent on the number of LEP children in the state and 20 percent on the number of immigrant children. Additionally the conference report calls for 95 percent of the funds to be used for grants to eligible entities at the local level. Districts shall receive funds based on their number of LEP students. However, to ensure that funds are not diluted, the Act requires that states shall not make an award to districts if the amount of grant would be less than $10,000. Under the Three R's Title III, section 3109, states were required to establish standards and annual measurable benchmarks for English language development that are aligned with state content and student academic achievement standards; develop high quality annual assessments to measure English language proficiency, including proficiency in the four recognized domains: speaking, reading, writing and comprehension; develop annual performance objectives based on the English language development standards set to increase the English proficiency of LEP students; describe how the state will hold districts or schools accountable for meeting English proficiency performance objectives, and for meeting adequate yearly progress with respect to LEP students as required in Title I, section 1111; describe how districts will be given the flexibility to teach English in the scientifically research based manner that each district determines to be the most effective; and describe how the state will provide assistance to districts and schools. Section 3108 further required states to certify that all teachers in any language instruction program for LEP student were fluent in English to help ensure that students in language instruction programs are taught by the most qualified educators. We intend that these requirements will ensure that states emphasize language proficiency that ensures a comprehensive understanding of the English language so that students have the oral, writing, listening and comprehension skills necessary to successfully achieve high-levels of learning in our schools and later in the American workforce. In turn, under sections 3106 and 3107, school districts were required to describe how they would use funds to meet the annual English proficiency performance objectives and how the district would hold schools accountable for meeting the performance objectives. Under Title VII, section 7101, states that failed to meet their performance objectives after three consecutive years would have 50 percent of their state administrative funding withheld. And, states that failed to meet such performance objectives after four consecutive years would have 30 percent of their Title VI programmatic funds withheld. Title III, section 3105 of the Three R's further required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to provide assistance to states and districts in the development of English language standards and English language proficiency assessments. The intent is that the Department provide support to ensure high quality plans, performance objectives, and English language assessments. The conference report, contains nearly the same accountability provisions and requirements. Title III, section 3113, requires states to establish standards and objectives for raising the level of English proficiency that are derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing, and that are aligned with achievement of the challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards in section 1111; to hold districts accountable for annually assessing English proficiency as required under Title I, section 1111; and hold districts accountable for meeting annual measurable objectives, in section 3122, for annual increases in the percentage of LEP students attaining proficiency in English, and for making adequate yearly progress as required under Title I, section 1111 while they are learning English. Section 3122(b) requires states to identify school districts that have failed to meet their annual measurable objectives for two consecutive years and ensure that such districts develop an improvement plan to ensure that the district shall meet the objectives and addresses the factors that prevented the district from achieving such objectives. For districts that fail to meet the annual objectives for four years, states shall ensure that districts modify their language instruction program; determine whether to terminate program funds to the district; and replace educational personnel relevant to the district's failure to make progress on the annual measurable objectives. States shall be held accountable for meeting the annual performance objective for Title III under Title VI, section 6161 of this Act. The Secretary is required to, starting two years after implementation, annually review whether states have met annual measurable objectives established under Title III. If states have failed to meet such objectives for two years, the Secretary may provide technical assistance to states that is rigorous and provides constructive feedback to each failing state. In addition, the Secretary shall submit an annual report to the Congress listing the states that have failed to meet the objectives under Title III. Title III of the Three R's bill gave districts the flexibility to determine what method of instruction to implement. This conference report also gives districts the flexibility to design English language instruction programs that best meet the needs of their limited English proficient students. It further, as did the Three R's bill, eliminates the requirement that 75 percent of funding be used to support programs using a child's native language for instruction to give districts the flexibility they need to meet new proficiency goals. One of the fundamental goals of the Three R's bill was to provide better information to parents about quality and progress of their child's education. Title III (section 3110) of the Three R's bill required parental notification of each student's level of English proficiency, how it was assessed, the status of the student's academic achievement, and the programs that are available to meet the student's educational needs. Title III further required that states give parents the option to remove their student from any language instruction program. States were required to provide parents with timely information, in manner and form understandable to the parents, about programs under Title III and notice of opportunities to participate in regular meetings regarding programs developed. Similarly, the conference report, under Title I (section 1112), requires districts to provide parents notification of their child's placement in a language instruction program, and give parents the right to choose among various programs if more than one type is offered, and have the right to immediately remove their child from a language instruction program. The Title further allows districts to develop parent and community outreach initiatives and training so that parents may be more active in their child's education. As with the Three R's bill, the intent of the provision is to provide the maximum information about performance and programs to parents, and the Department must take steps to ensure this. Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools of the Conference Report was influenced by concepts in the Three R's bill. The Three R's bill sought to more directly focus resources and activities on the improvement of academic achievement. This conference report progresses that goal in the Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, stressing activities that will foster a learning environment that supports academic achievement. The conference report requires states to describe how they will fulfill this goal in their comprehensive plan and their application to the Secretary. Local applications must also assure that the activities will foster a safe and drug free learning environment that supports academic achievement. Additionally, following another major intent of the Three R's bill (in both Titles VI and VII), increased accountability and evaluation is called for in Title IV Part A in the conference report. The activities shall be based on an assessment of objective data and assessment of need. Established performance measures will be used and the programs will be periodically evaluated to assess their progress based on the attainment of these performance measures. National reports are required every two years by the Secretary and reports by states and school districts are required on an annual basis. The Three R's bill in Title II, Part A and Title VI, Sec. 6006, highlighted increased professional training for teachers, principals, and other staff related to academic content as well as dealing with disruptive students and those exhibiting distress. Similarly, the conference report contains greater awareness and support for training activities. On academic achievement, the purposes of Title IV Part A--Safe and Drug Free Schools in the conference report are to support programs that: prevent violence in and around schools; prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs; involve parents and communities; and that are coordinated with related federal, state, school and community efforts and resources. Under the conference report, a school district can use funds to develop, implement and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities which are coordinated with other school and community- based services and programs that foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports academic achievement. The overall goal of the programs in the conference report's Title IV Part A is to foster a safe and drug-free learning environment which supports academic achievement. This embodies similar principles in the Three R's bill in Title VI, sections 6001 and 6006 and the general intent of the Three R's bill in focusing all activities on the improvement of academic achievement for all children. Related to accountability and evaluations, Title VI of the Three R's bill emphasizes that programs should be evaluated to determine if they are effective in achieving the goals of improving safe learning environments. The conference report allows up to $2 million for the Secretary to conduct a national impact evaluation for the ``Safe and Drug Free'' programs under Title V Part A. National reports are required every two years by the Secretary and state and school district reports are required on an annual basis. The conference report also requires states to implement a Uniform Management Information and Reporting System that would include information and statistics on truancy rates; the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsion in elementary and secondary schools in states; the types of curricula, programs and services provided, the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of health risk and perception of social disapproval of drug use and violence by youth in schools and communities. Title V part A of the conference report also requires that state and school district applications must contain a needs assessment for drug and violence prevention programs which is based on objective data and the results of on-going state and local evaluation activities. They shall also provide a statement of the performance measures for drug and violence prevention programs that will be used in evaluations. Under the conference report, programs in this Title will be periodically evaluated to assess their progress based on performance measures. The results shall be used to refine, improve and strengthen the program and to refine the performance measures. Such evaluations shall be made available to the public on request. These provisions follow the intent of the Three R's bill to increase accountability and evaluation in all major activities with the understanding that education reforms cannot be achieved without continual, thorough evaluations of their effectiveness and making such evaluations available to parents and the public. The Department shall act to ensure that quality evaluations are implemented. The Principles of Effectiveness Activities part of the new act requires that activities shall be based upon an assessment of objective data regarding the incidence of violence and illegal drug use in the elementary and secondary schools, and communities to be served, including an objective analysis of the current conditions and consequences regarding violence and illegal drug use, delinquency and serious discipline problems. In addition, activities shall be based on established performance measures aimed at ensuring that the elementary and secondary schools and communities to be served by the program have a drug-free, safe and orderly learning environment; be based upon scientifically based research that provides evidence that the program to be used will reduce violence and illegal drug use; be based on an analysis of data reasonably available at the time of the prevalence of risk factors and include meaningful and ongoing consultation with parents. It is our intent that the Department act to ensure a high quality assessment effort fully consistent with the requirements. Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill consolidated a number of national competitive grant programs--such as in Title VI-- into state and school district formula programs to drive more resources to school districts and to concentrate resources in the poorest areas. The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program in Title V Part A of the conference report, utilizes a formula that is nearly the same as that established under the Three R's bill, with positive improvements. Title V, Part A distributes funds to states through a formula that is based 50 percent on school age population and 50 percent on Title I Concentration Grants, which requires districts to have at least a 15 percent poverty level, or 6,500 low income students. Eighty percent of the funds received by the state shall be distributed to school districts via a formula distribution that is the same as that contained in the Three R's bill, with 60 percent based on poverty in Title I, Part A, subpart 2, and 40 percent on school enrollment. The Act further allows states to reserve, not more than 20 percent of the total amount received for competitive grants to school districts and community-based organizations, and other entities for activities that complement and support district safety activities. Such activities shall especially provide assistance to areas that serve large numbers of low-income children, or rural communities. This provision further targets funds to areas of need and the Department is expected to adopt guidelines for the flexible program effort that assure quality and creativity. On professional training, Title II, Part A of the Three R's bill also called for increased professional training for teachers, principals and other personnel, with the goal of providing them with more expertise to create safer environments and to deal with disruptive students, as well as obtain greater ability to help students reach academic achievement goals. Specifically, Title VI, section 6006 of the Three R's allowed localities to use funds to provide professional development programs that provide instruction on how best to discipline children in the classroom, how to teach character education; and provide training for teachers, principals, mental health professionals, and guidance counselors in order to better assist and identify students exhibiting distress, such as exhibiting distress through substance abuse, disruptive behavior, and suicidal behavior. With the similar goal of having trained personnel work with children, Title VI, Part A of the conference report allows for drug and violence prevention professional development and community training. It further, under National Programs under Title V Part A, provides for the development and demonstration of innovative strategies for the training of school personnel, parents and members of the community for drug and violence prevention activities. Title IV, Part B--21st Century Community Learning Centers of the conference report contains a similar focus to that of the Three R's bill. A major intent of the Three R's bill was to ensure that all ESEA programs, more directly focus on the academic performance of students and that accountability for these programs be strongly linked to increased performance toward that goal. Specifically, Title VI Sec. 6006. of the Three R's bill required localities to spend 25 percent of the funds they received, under a new major federal program that was focused on spurring academic achievement through innovation, on providing high quality, academically-focused after school opportunities to students. This conference report furthers that principle by making improved academic achievement a primary element of the modified 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Title IV, Part B also enhances the aim of greater accountability as set forth in the Three R's--Title VI Sec. 6005 and Title VII, Part A. The legislation provides significantly increased funding for entities providing students with opportunities for continued academic enrichment before and after school, and during the summer. Such opportunities are intended to help students, particularly students who attend low- performing schools, meet state student performance standards in core academic subjects. And, building on the focus of the Three R's bill to demand greater results in return for greater investment, the conference report calls for the 21st Century activities to be evaluated and monitored for their effectiveness, and requires states to consider those results and apply a series of fiscal sanctions if performance does not meet performance goals. Additionally, the Act carries forth the intent of the Three R's bill to target the funds to those most in need. Title IV, Part B of the conference report distributes funds to the states based on their share of Title I, Part A and requires states to give priority for competitive grants to recipients serving low- income communities and schools. The purpose of 21st Century programs in Title IV, Part B of the conference report is to provide opportunities to communities to establish or expand activities before and after school that: provide academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students, particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to meet state and local student performance standards in core academic subjects; offer students a wide array of additional services and activities such as art, music, and recreation, technology education, character education, and counseling programs that reinforce and complement the regular academic program; offer families of students opportunities for literacy and related educational development. These programs should be designed and approved consistent with the intent of the Three R's bill in Title VI Section 6006 that provided funds to School districts and schools for innovative programs and activities that transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities'' for students by creating a challenging learning environment and facilitating academic enrichment through innovative academic programs or provide for extra learning time opportunities for students. The intent of the Three R's bill to focus before and after school programs on learning opportunities, especially for those most in need, is mirrored in the intent and purpose of the conference report's 21st Century program. Regarding streamlining and targeting, the Three R's bill, in several titles including Title I, had the intent of targeting the education funds to the poorest communities and schools who are most in need. Following this direction, 21st Century funds under the conference report in Title IV Part B are allocated to the states based 100 percent on Title I, part A subpart 2, thereby targeting these funds on a poverty basis. Additionally, the conference report in Title IV Part B requires states to focus competitively awarded grants on applicants that seek to serve students who primarily attend schools eligible for schoolwide programs in Title I, those schools with at least 40 percent low income students, and other schools with a high percentage of low income students; Regarding accountability and evaluation, the Three R's bill in Title VI Section 6007 and 6008 called for evaluating the impact of 21st Century Opportunity programs on academic achievement. Title IV Part B of the conference report follows this intent, by requiring states to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of their 21st Century program and activities and requires that state applications describe how the state will evaluate the effectiveness of their 21st Century programs and activities. Title V, Part B of the conference report contains major influences from the Three R's bill. A primary policy goal of the Three R's bill was to provide additional innovation and effective voluntary public school choice options for children and parents with the belief that market forces and choice integrated into the public framework will result in a stronger system for students with greater incentives for schools to raise academic performance. Title V, Part B of the conference report follows this same intent and develops many of the same programs. Building directly on many of the proposals contained in the Three R's bill, the conference report would strengthen the Federal commitment to expanding the range of educational options available to all students within the public school framework. Although the conference report makes only minor changes to the current charter schools start up program, designated as subpart 1, does contain a new initiative to help charter schools deal with the cost of operations and facility financing, section 5205(b), as well as a new initiative to encourage broader choice programs at the local level, subpart 3. These provisions are based on language from the Three R's bill--Title IV, Part C--as well as an amendment--S. AMDT. 518--to the Senate bill, S.1, which Senators Carper, Gregg and I cosponsored that would encourage and expand intra-district wide or inter-district wide public school choice programs as well as help to provide additional options for financing charter schools. In addition, the conference report includes a program that has been funded under appropriations, but never authorized that provides critical funding for charter school construction under subpart 2. Titles I and VI of the Three R's bill called for increased funding to help finance charter schools, provide them with technical assistance, evaluate the programs, and disseminate information on innovative approaches, all with the purpose of helping expand the educational choices available in the public system to parents and students. I have been a long time advocate for charter schools and was the chief Democratic sponsor of the Public School Redefinition Act of 1991, S. 1606, and in 1993, S. 429, which provided states with funding to establish charter school. I am pleased that this conference report will continue this strong federal support for the expansion of the charter school movement, while ensuring that those schools meet the same high accountability standards expected of all schools under Title I, Part A. It was the intent of conferees that charter schools shall meet the accountability requirements in this Act, including those provisions in section 1111 and 1116, but that the mechanism for holding them accountable should be consistent with state law. In most cases, this means that the recognized chartering authority would be responsible for holding charter schools accountable. It is my belief that chartering authorities that fail to carry out their responsibilities in holding charter schools accountable should themselves be held accountable based on State law. The conference report also ensures that charter schools receive their full allotment of Title I funds by stipulating that a local educational agency, in passing through subgrant awards to charter schools, may not deduct funds for administrative fees unless the applicant enters voluntarily into a mutually agreed upon arrangement for administrative services with the relevant school district. I advocated for this agreement in conference because of the importance of giving charter schools fuller decision-making authority over the funds to which they are entitled. In addition, the conference report will help further the range of public education options available by creating a new ``Voluntary Public School Choice'' demonstration program under Title IV, Part B, subpart 3. This program authorizes the Secretary to award grants on a competitive basis for the development of universal public school choice programs. The program evolved out of the Three R's bill and an amendment sponsored by Senator Carper to S. 1. It is the intent of this program that the Secretary give priority to applicant providing the widest choice and that have the potential of allowing students from low-performing schools to attend high performing schools. I believe that demonstrations that provide inter-district, or state wide choice should be of highest priority. In addition, I am pleased that the program calls for an evaluation of the success of these demonstrations in promoting educational equity and excellence, and the effect of the programs on academic achievement of students participating and on the overall quality of participating schools and districts. I believe that the language under section 1116 of Title I, granting parents the option to transfer their student out of a school identified for improvement or corrective action to a higher performing public school, will be meaningless unless the federal government actively supports and encourages programs such as the Charter School Programs and the Voluntary Public School Choice programs under Title V to expand the creation of new alternative public education opportunities. That is why I also am pleased that the agreement contains the Per Pupil Facility Financing and Credit Enhancement Initiatives, which will help charter schools facing financial burdens due to their lack of bonding or tax raising capabilities. As a result of their inability to raise resources, charter schools must spend more of their resources on operating costs, and fewer dollars on educational needs, such as hiring qualified teachers. To ensure that charter schools better spend their own resources on academic activities, and to address the special financial problems faced by charters, Title V, Part B, section 5205(b) directs the Secretary to make competitive awards to states as seed money for the development of innovative programs providing annual financing to charters schools on a per pupil basis for operating expenses, facility acquisition, leasing payments, and renovation. The language authorizes $300 million for Part B, but designates $200 million for subpart 1, Charter School Programs, other than 5205(b), and the next $100 million in funding for the purpose of meeting the Per Pupil Facility Financing provisions in section 5205(b). Once funding levels for Part B, subpart 1 reaches $300 million, any new funding above that level will be equally split between 5205(b) and subpart 1, the charter start up program. To provide clearer understanding of this funding arrangement, I proposed, along with Senator Gregg, the following report language: Charter schools are public schools, yet lack the bonding and taxing authority traditionally available to school districts to finance their facilities. As a result, charter schools are forced to use operating revenues that are intended to be spent in the classroom to pay rent or to make debt payments for facilities. States have the primary obligation to address this inequity. But, to stimulate state incentives, this conference report authorizes a limited-term federal role in encouraging states to establish or expand per pupil facilities aid programs. Conferees support significant funding increases for the charter school program in order to free up resources, as quickly as possible, for the per-pupil financing program, a program that assists charter school in meeting their operating needs, so that charter school resources may be better spent on academic activities. Title V, Part B, Subpart 2 of this conference report includes language from an amendment, S. Amdt. 518, to the Senate bill, S. 1, which Senators Carper, Gregg, and I cosponsored to provide funding for a competitive program awarded by the Secretary to entities that develop innovative credit enhancement initiatives that assist charter schools with the costs of acquiring, constructing and renovating facilities. This language was included in the Appropriations agreement for FY 01, but was never authorized under the ESEA. The program is authorized at $150 million, and will provide critical funding for charter schools for renovations and repairs of facilities. It is my belief that these provisions, combined with the strong public reporting requirements under section 1111 of Title I, will ensure that parents have tools and the options available to make real educational choices. Title VI.--Flexibility and Accountability of the conference report contained a number of similar concepts as the Three R's bill. The Three R's plan established a clear accountability contract for Federal assistance: the federal government would provide far more resources and more flexibility than ever before to states and localities, and in exchange, states would be held accountable for measurable results. The bill significantly streamlined a wide range of Federal programs into a limited number of priority areas, especially under Titles II, III and VI, reduced the strings attached to those funds, and gave states and local districts broad latitude to focus those funds on their most pressing needs. The conference report embraces the goal of greater flexibility and puts it into practice, so that local educators can best utilize federal resources to meet their specific challenges and do what is necessary to improve academic achievement. The conference report is not as streamlined as the Three R's plan. But it does consolidate a number of large and small programs, especially under Titles II and III, and provides States and local districts with additional flexibility to transfer funds from different accounts to target local priorities. It also creates two pilot programs to give States and local districts broad discretion to merge and consolidate federal funding. Regarding Three R's consolidation and transferability, Title VI--High Performance and Quality Education Initiatives of the Three R's consolidated several Federal programs (21st Century Community Learning Centers, Technology programs, Innovative Programs block grant, and the Safe and Drug Free Schools program) into one formula program to States and local districts for the purpose of: (1) providing supplementary assistance for ``School Improvement'' to schools and districts that have been, or are at risk of being, identified as being in need of improvement under section 1116 of Title I; (2) providing assistance to local districts and schools for innovative programs and activities that transform schools into ``21st Century Opportunities for students'' by creating challenging learning environments and providing extra learning time; (3) providing assistance to districts, schools and communities to strengthen existing activities or develop and implement new programs that create ``Safe Learning Environments''; and (4) creating ``New Economy Technology Schools'' by providing assistance for high quality professional development, educational technology infrastructure, technology training for teachers, and technology-enhanced curricula and instructional materials aligned with State content and student performance standards. Districts were required to spend 30, 25, 15 and 30 percent of funds, respectively, on the four areas. Section 6005 required districts to ensure that programs and activities conducted were aligned with State content and student performance standards under section 1111; to establish annual measurable performance goals and objectives for each program; and to establish measures to assess progress by schools in meeting established objectives as well as holding schools accountable for meeting the objectives. Districts were required to annually publish and widely disseminate to the public a report describing the use of funds in the four purpose areas; the outcomes of local programs as well as an assessment of their effectiveness; the districts progress toward attaining its goals and objectives; and the extent to which such funding uses increased student achievement. Based on the premise that districts that are achieving academic goals should have greater flexibility in deciding how to spend Federal resources, the Three R's allowed districts that were meeting adequate yearly progress--AYP--established by the State under section 1111, to transfer up to 30 percent of their program funds among the four purpose categories. Districts that were exceeding AYP would be allowed to transfer up to 50 percent of their funds across the four purpose categories. If districts, however, failed to make AYP for two consecutive years, they would only be allowed to transfer 25 percent of program funds from three categories, and only into the School Improvement category. In addition, the State would have the authority to direct how remaining Title VI funds would be spent in the district. Districts that were under corrective action (as described in section 1116 of Title I) would lose all decision-making capacity over the use of Title VI funds and States would determine how funds would be spent. The bill called for a similar accountability structure between local districts and schools. Regarding the conference report transferability and flexibility, although the conference report does not call for the same level of streamlining as called for under the Three R's, the Act does provide States and districts with flexibility similar to that established under the Three R's. Title VI, Section 6123, allows States to transfer up to 50 percent of their State administrative and activity funds among the following Federal programs: Part A of Title II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II-- Technology, Part A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, Part B of Title IV--21st Century Community Learning Centers and Part A of Title V--Innovative Programs, Block Grants. In addition, just as the Three R's linked the degree of flexibility allowed to the attainment of adequate yearly progress under section 1111 of Title I, school districts that are making AYP may transfer up to 50 percent of the following Federal program funds: Part A of Title II--Teacher and Principal Quality, Part D of Title II--Technology, Part A of Title IV--Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Part A of Title V-- Innovative Programs, Block Grants. School districts that have been identified under section 1116 as being in need of improvement may only transfer 30 percent of the program funds, but shall only transfer funds into their set aside under section 1003 for turning around low- performing schools and into section 1116 activities. States and districts may transfer funds into Title I, but no funds may be transferred out of Title I. School districts in corrective action may not transfer any funds. In addition, the conference report creates two pilot programs for states and districts to further expand opportunities for greater flexibility. Subpart 3 of Title VI gives the Secretary authority to award ``State Flexibility Demonstrations'' to up to seven states, and allows them to consolidate their state activity and administration funds under the following Federal programs: Part A of Title II, Part D of Title II, Part A of Title IV, Part A of Title V, and section 1004 of Title I. To be eligible, states must also have four to 10 local districts within the state that agree to participate and that will also consolidate similar funds and align them to the State Flexibility Demonstration. At least half of these local districts must be high poverty. Selected states would receive maximum flexibility in spending consolidated funds on any educational purpose authorized under the Act. States that failed to make AYP for two years would have their demonstration terminated. States participating a demonstration must still meet all the accountability requirements from any of the programs from which funds are consolidated, including meeting the requirement in section 1119 in Title I and Title II that all teachers be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. The Act creates a similar demonstration program for localities. 150 districts (70 of which much come from the seven State Flexibility Demonstration States) may apply for a local flexibility demonstration from the Secretary; however, there shall only be three districts participating in any State (except for the State Flexibility Demonstration States). These local districts would be allowed to consolidate funds from Part A of Title II, Part D of Title II, Part A of Title IV, and Part A of Title V. Participating districts would be given maximum flexibility over the use of funds for any educational purpose under this Act. School districts that failed to make AYP for two years would have their demonstration terminated. Regarding state accountability, in return for substantial federal investment and flexibility over the use of funds, the Three R's demanded that States be held accountable for greater academic achievement for all students. Title VII of the bill required that States that failed to make adequate yearly progress under section 1111, or its established annual measurable performance objectives under titles II and III be sanctioned. Specifically, it required that, in the case of a state that failed to meet such goals for three years, the Secretary withhold 50 percent of that state's administrative funds from the relevant title. In the case of a state that failed to meet such goals for four years, the Secretary was required to withhold 30 percent of the state's funds under Title VI. Three R's was based on the premise that states, in addition to school districts and schools, should be held accountable for the attainment AYP, and other state-wide goals and objectives established in Titles II and III. It recognized that in the history of the ESEA, no Secretary has imposed fiscal sanctions on States for failure, and so required that the Federal government impose tough sanctions on states that repeatedly fail to meet their own goals. This Act does not contain the same degree of state-level accountability as envisioned under the Three R's bill, but does call for meaningful initial steps to hold States accountable for progress, and lays a solid foundation for stronger measures in the future. Specifically, under section 6161 of Title VI, it requires the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education to, starting two years after implementation, annually review whether states have met their adequate yearly progress--AYP--established under section 1111 and the annual measurable objectives established under Title III. The Secretary must provide technical assistance to states that fail to meet AYP for two years, and may provide technical assistance to states, where any district receiving funds under Title III fails to meet the annual objectives established in such title. In addition, technical assistance must be valid, reliable, rigorous, and provide constructive feedback to each failing state. In order to ensure full public knowledge of a state's failure to meet its goals, the Secretary shall submit an annual report to the Congress containing a list of states that have failed to meet AYP; the teacher quality reporting requirements under section 1119; and a list of states that have failed to meet the annual English proficiency and academic achievement objectives for limited English proficient students under Title III. In order to clarify the intent behind this language, Conferees agreed to conference report language that makes it clear that Congress expects states identified by the Secretary to develop and implement improvement strategies that address the factors that led to failure and that will ensure the state meets AYP under Title I and its English proficiency objectives under Title III. I believe that this process will enable the Secretary to better follow the progress of states and take steps to help ensure that State meet their own established goals. In addition, the conference report states: Conferees stress that a fundamental purpose of Title I as established under this Act is to hold States, local educational agencies, and schools accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and for identifying and turning around low-performing schools. As a result, Conferees expect States to meet their definition of adequate yearly progress to the same degree as local school districts and schools. The Conferees further urge Congress and the Secretary to thoroughly examine the data collected from the State assessment systems and factor such information into future discussions on accountability measures for States, which should include consideration of the use of fiscal sanctions to hold those States that continually fail to meet their definition of adequate yearly progress and fail to improve the academic achievement of all students accountable. Although I believe that more improvements could be made to better hold State accountable for academic progress, I do believe that the conference report contains strong requirements under sections 1111 and 1116 of Title I, Part A of Title II, and subpart 2 of Part A of Title III, to hold districts and schools accountable for meeting the goals of this Act. Such provisions take a new approach to accountability by requiring districts and/or schools to meet annual goals, make improvements after initial failure, and eventually imposing tough penalties on those that continually fail to improve. Furthermore, the reporting requirements for state and district report cards in section 1111, and annual reports by States to the Secretary, in section 1111, annual reports by the Secretary to Congress, in section 1111 and section 6161, and the information provided under the National Assessment of Educational Progress as outlined in section 6302, will provide an uncomparable wealth of information on academic achievement for parents, communities and the public. This unprecedented stream of annual information, combined with the substantial increase in public school choice provided to parents in Title I, section 1116, and Title V--Part B, under the Charter Schools Programs and the Voluntary Public School Choice Programs, will provide an infusion of the market forces of transparency, accessibility, and competition into our nation's public school system. This dynamic will create for some of the greatest accountability that can exist-- accountability by parents. Regarding the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the conference report builds on the basic concept in the Three R's bill to provide parents and communities with greater awareness of the performance of schools as compared to other schools in a local school district, and as compared to other schools in the State. This conference report expands that aim by requiring in section 6302 of Part C of Title VI that States participate biennially in the National Assessment of Educational Progress--NAEP--of fourth and eighth grade reading and mathematics. States shall not be penalized based on their performance on the NAEP, but it is the intent that public knowledge of state performance will help drive states to develop more rigorous content and student academic achievement standards and assessments. Mr. President, I want to end by briefly thanking my fellow Conference members and their staff for their hard work on this historic conference report, particularly Elizabeth Fay with Senator Bayh, Danica Petroshius with Senator Kennedy, Denzel McGuire with Senator Gregg, Sally Lovejoy with Representative Boehner, Charles Barone with Representative Miller, as well as all the Conference Committee staff. And, I would like to give a special thanks to Sandy Kress of the White House for all of his efforts in this process, and to Will Marshall and Andy Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute as well as Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust for their policy expertise. Finally, I want to thank my own staff for their hard work, particularly Michele Stockwell, Dan Gerstein, and Jennifer Bond.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I am very pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act, which the Senate has passed, includes a provision to allow Federal civilian employees and military personnel, as well as their family members, to make individual use of frequent- flyer miles and other promotional benefits offered as a result of official Government travel. This measure, found in section 1116 of the legislation, will correct a glaring inequity that exists between government and private sector employees for work-related travel. The time has come for us to recognize that the current prohibition on frequent flyer benefits is unfair to our Federal workforce as well as unnecessary for good government. In fact, by making these benefits available to government workers, we will help make Federal service more competitive with the private sector. I am especially proud that this measure applies to military personnel, many of whom are deployed in hostile environments, far from home and family. This time of war brings home the fact that every soldier, sailor, pilot and marine who serves our country around the clock deserves the best treatment we can offer. This provision originated in an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill offered in the Armed Services Committee in September by Senator Warner and myself, and was further developed as S. 1498, a bill which I introduced in October with Senators Thompson, Akaka, Warner, and Voinovich, and which provided the basis for the final language of section 1116. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of this provision be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I inform the Senate that due to the funeral in New Haven, Connecticut of a long-time Connecticut aide and close friend, I was unable to be present for the votes scheduled on December 5, 2001. James ``Jimmy'' O'Connell passed away on Saturday at the age 53. Jimmy, a former New Haven police officer, was like a brother to me. We worked together for over 30 years. I enjoyed his extraordinary intelligence, his warm wit and his wonderful loyalty. I will miss him dearly and believe it was only fitting for me to attend his funeral in New Haven. Had I been present, I would have voted as set forth below. On none of the votes would my vote have affected the outcome. On the motion to waive the Budget Act with regard to Daschle amendment No. 2170, I would have voted in favor. On the final passage of H.R. 10, I would have voted in favor of the bill. On cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1731, I would have voted in favor of cloture.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I say to Senator Murray, I would like to confirm my understanding that between the funding you have included in the conference report for the Transportation Security Administration and the funding included in the bill for the Federal Aviation Administration's research, engineering and development, there are sufficient funds for the expanded use of existing technology and research and development of new technology to improve aviation security. Is that correct?